Are there actually creationists who are scientists?

[godless dave]

By natural selection?


Yes, I am being an apologist. Somebody has to do it. Thi is so incredibly ridiculous. What would be the harm in saying, "We haven't worked that out yet, but we're confident we will."

Biologists do say that - but not about the flagellum or the human eye, because they have a pretty good idea how those evolved.

Why (drum roll please) lie about the knowledge?

Reputable scientists don't do that. Scientists who lie about knowledge that isn't there end up being ridiculed.

And that, not Behe, not obfuscation, not lies, is what keeps ID alive. It will remain alive as an idea until you prove that you can get from molecules to pond scum to you. You haven't done it yet.

But that's ridiculous. ID has no evidence to support it. Some aspects of evolution lack evidence, so a hypothesis with absolutely no evidence is a reasonable alternative?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

And that, not Behe, not obfuscation, not lies, is what keeps ID alive. It will remain alive as an idea until you prove that you can get from molecules to pond scum to you. You haven't done it yet.

Thanks for admitting that ID is in fact, creationism and nothing more. After all you demand proof of both abiogenesis and the entirety of evolution before the belief in ID creationism can be shown to be wrong.

I wonder why you don't talk about the need to demonstrate that any of the claims made by ID are false? After all is it not supposed to be an alternative theory? Or that the experimental evidence was wrongly interpreted or false?

Maybe, just maybe, they have backed off making any testable claims because the ones they did make, about supposedly irreducible complex systems, were shown to be hopelessly wrong. Rather than change their belief (I won't dignify it with the word theory), they ignore the fact it has been shown to be fatally flawed and retreat back to a god of the gaps argument, hoping that nobody notices they have nothing positive to say in support of their belief in ID.

And of course they don't have any evidence whatsoever, because they avoid making testable claims. ID creationism is no more a scientific theory than the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Anyone claiming the latter was a theory would be dismissed as a liar, which is exactly the right word for anyone claiming the former is.

 

[articulett]

Meadmaker,
See... it you did what you claimed you don't do. You bend over backwards to "prove" that Behe isn't really lying and then you accuse scientists of lying when they do no such thing. You have very differing standards as to what is and isn't a lie.

On planet non-apologist, Behe is more dishonest than the hypothetical lying scientists you make inferences about.

Your standards of proof for "intelligent design" claims is very low and your "standard of proof" for actual science is rather high-- and ignored...just like Behe ignored the evidence that what he claimed was "irreducibly complex" wasn't-- in fact the term is rather meaningless... and "designed" to infer something that isn't factual. It's a dishonest weasely term.

And thus you illustrate why creationists make poor scientists much of the time. They are blind to their glaring biases and apologetics.

The discovery institute has discovered nothing... it's name is a lie... it discovers ways to obfuscate understanding. Scientific knowledge and scientific murkiness is about furthering understanding with facts and filling in plausible spacers until we understand more. There are more gaps in our understanding of atomic theory than there is in evolution--but you don't see the apologists calling scientists liars should they proffer the best knowledge with the best hypothesis or theories for closing the gaps.

Behe and the discovery institute close no gaps or further no one's understanding. Their whole aim is to confuse the plausibility of scientific explanation so that it sounds unlikely or like scientists don't know something and therefore they do (or their god does).

 

[articulett]

Unbelievable... Meadmaker basically said that Intelligent Design stays alive because of science lying about knowledge. That is, itself, a lie-- and one proffered by the Discovery Institute, I'm sure. Intelligent Design stays alive because it is well funded and they do everything in their power to turn out obfuscaters like Behe and Meadmaker and assorted apologists to pretend that there are these huge gaps when the fact is that no information will ever be enough to convince a creationist that evolution without divine guidance IS A FACT. They need the obfuscation so they can insert their "designer" and pretend that it's honest to do so.

Dishonesty in the name of religion accusing the honest of being dishonest.

What else is new. Welcome to the word of religious apologetic doublespeak where faith is the same as facts and lies are "higher truths". Bah.

Creationists and apologists... the more words they use, the less they say.

Science and skepticism are a breath of fresh air... they clear out the synaptic jumble caused by the circular semantics and tired pedantry of the omnipresent woo and the irrational.

 

[Meadmaker]

Don't you think that an unreasonable burden of proof?

Do you think that ID will ever go away if we have to "prove" evolution that way?

Unreasonable?

Sure. I don't think that ID is a very reasonable position. It's extremely faith oriented.

I think that as the gaps get smaller and smaller, more and more people will abandon it, and all variations on it.

My point is that there's no use pretending that the knowledge is there today. It isn't. So, if someone says it isn't there, they aren't lying, and while we might chuckle at them and laugh at their contention that maybe God did it, there's no reason to go beyond that by villifying them.

 

[Meadmaker]

I don't know why I waste my time... it's off topic and yet another insincere request for information being asked for yet again by a Behe groupee...

Actually, no. That's pretty good stuff.

From the paper:

"This longstanding debate between the heterotrophic and chemotrophic theories," House continues, "revolved around carbon fixation." The new thermodynamic theory inverts the focus, Ferry says. "All these pathways evolved first to make energy. Afterwards, they evolved to fix carbon. These ideas suggest a totally new perspective. It's truly a quantum leap--a milestone."

The key is the last sentence. This truly is a quantum leap. In this article, published May 12, 2006, there is, finally, something that suggests how all this stuff might have happened. The carbon fixation theories really were quite implausible. Perhaps this will offer a more logical path.

Nevertheless, without reading the paper, I'm still guessing that there are a few details to be worked out. The gaps get smaller and crowd God into a smaler and smaller spot. Also, my guess is that there is at least some debate about this and it hasn't been accepted by the whole biological community just yet.

Reading this, I think it points the way toward a plausible theory of abiogenesis. On the other hand, before there is experimental confirmation, is it fair to call it a "theory". Wouldn't "hypothesis" be a better term?

 

[articulett]

Unreasonable?

Sure. I don't think that ID is a very reasonable position. It's extremely faith oriented.

I think that as the gaps get smaller and smaller, more and more people will abandon it, and all variations on it.

My point is that there's no use pretending that the knowledge is there today. It isn't. So, if someone says it isn't there, they aren't lying, and while we might chuckle at them and laugh at their contention that maybe God did it, there's no reason to go beyond that by villifying them.

Yeah... instead vilify scientists and pretend that they are lying without presenting any evidence of such.

At the same time play semantic games to keep Behe's dishonesty from being called the lie that it is.

Unreal.

 

[Meadmaker]

Biologists do say that - but not about the flagellum or the human eye, because they have a pretty good idea how those evolved.

Show me.

I think what they have is actually a number of milestones along the way, at least in the case of the eye. The flagellum they've almost got, at least if you start at a TTSS.

 

[Meadmaker]

Rather than change their belief (I won't dignify it with the word theory), they ignore the fact it has been shown to be fatally flawed and retreat back to a god of the gaps argument,

It was always a God of the gaps argument, and while they would never admit to the term, if you read their stuff, it clearly was. Their whole argument was, and always has been, "This stuff is too complicated. Someone must have made it." I don't think they would deny it, either.

All I'm saying is that there are gaps. There's no use claiming there aren't, and above all, there's no use impugning the integrity of the people who say it.

 

[articulett]

Reading this, I think it points the way toward a plausible theory of abiogenesis. On the other hand, before there is experimental confirmation, is it fair to call it a "theory". Wouldn't "hypothesis" be a better term?

I'm sure Behe would like to think so. Of course he'd like Intelligent Design to even be a hypothesis. But if you don't think it's a theory you are going to have to argue with Penn State's Science Department. Of course they are just "lying scientists"-- not the ever honest Behe who cannot tell a lie per your semantics.

Myself, I find the words of scientists and science departments such as those used by Penn State to be far more credible and explanatory and honest than anything proffered by the Discovery Institute or any apologist etc. I think Penn state shares my sense of "fairness"-- but I'm sure Behe has his own "higher truths".

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Show me.

I think what they have is actually a number of milestones along the way, at least in the case of the eye. The flagellum they've almost got, at least if you start at a TTSS.

What do you expect to happen? Scientists to take a blind creature and evolve it into one with an eye to satisfy the unreasonable demands of creationists? There is no other way to meet the standard you demand.

Of course we all know that even if this WAS done, the ID crowd would not accept their religious belief in creationism was wrong. Instead they would look to redefine terms, claim this as evidence of "directed" evolution and display the same level of dishonesty and bad faith they have on previous occasions when holes have been shot in their belief system.

 

[articulett]

Show me.

I think what they have is actually a number of milestones along the way, at least in the case of the eye. The flagellum they've almost got, at least if you start at a TTSS.

What do you want as proof--notarized videotape of the process? Behe ignored reams of the stuff. And why don't you need any proof to claim that Behe isn't a liar... nor any proof to claim that scientists are lying by saying the gaps aren't quite what Behe pretends they are. No scientific knowledge is complete... and no evidence is enough to convince a creationist that scientists actually do know or what creationists pretend they don't have a clue about. It's creationists who are clueless. And apologists that enable them.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

It was always a God of the gaps argument, and while they would never admit to the term, if you read their stuff, it clearly was.

So when they denied it, they would be lying then?

Nobody is impugning the integrity of people who say there are gaps. However when people claim to have an alternative theory (which they don't), that has a scientific basis (when it doesn't) and that they are not trying to get religion into schools by pretending it is science (when they are), then they have no integrity to impugn. If they don't want to be called liars, perhaps they should stop lying, not simply demand that people don't point it out?

 

[articulett]

Meadmaker-- (at least pretend to have curiosity in the info. you asked for.)

Flagellum video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w
and more videos on the topic
(in fact there are many cool videos refuting creationist claims in vivid detail if you are truly interested in the current state of knowledge. Creationists never are, unfortunately.)

More on the flagellum. http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/09/flagellum_evolu.html

The eye:
http://ebiomedia.com/gall/eyes/eye1.html
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/ns.eye.evo.html
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/ma...naturalhistorymag.com/1105/1105_feature4.html

JREFs own Lee Graham's irreducible complexity evolve (ICE) applet--demonstrated at TAM 5...
http://www.stellaralchemy.com/ice/

I suggest you don't let creationists inform you on the state of current scientific knowledge. We have real biologists like Dawkins and Sean Carroll and Matt Ridley and even JREF members that are much better informed and comprehensible. Creationist see gaps where scientists sees many plausible hypothesis with an increasing narrowing and honing of understanding. And they make so much more sense!

Obfuscating with words to make sure people don't understand something is dishonest even if it's not a lie-- especially when done by those trying to be academically rigorous or to "teach the controversy" (that doesn't exist in science.)

 

[Meadmaker]

So when they denied it, they would be lying then?

Did you ever hear Al Franken's radio show when they played, "Truth, Lie, or Weasel"?

It's a weasel. Maybe a Leasel.

Nobody is impugning the integrity of people who say there are gaps. However when people claim...that they are not trying to get religion into schools by pretending it is science (when they are),

On this point, I do agree. The idea that it's not religion because, for example, aliens might have done it is, at least, a Leasel.

In their defense, and yes this is religious apologist mode, they shouldn't have to be dancing around legal language. They have an idea. It should stand or fall on its own merits (in which case it will fall), not because it doesn't meet some sort of court test. Oh, well. That's another area where I have an unorthodox approach. I think that the reason ID and creationism are surviving is specifically because we've banned them from the classroom. A typical student, who after all will never read a science book unless a teacher assigns it, has no opportunity to learn what they are really saying in a forum where the claims could be critically examined. Drop the gag order and there will be fewer creationists, in my humble opinion.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm sure Behe would like to think so. Of course he'd like Intelligent Design to even be a hypothesis. But if you don't think it's a theory you are going to have to argue with Penn State's Science Department. Of course they are just "lying scientists"-- not the ever honest Behe who cannot tell a lie per your semantics.

Come on, Articulett. Try answering a question. Forget the argument from authority, just provide an answer. I'll restate the question.

Given that there is no experimental evidence for the Penn State paper, would it be better described as an hypothesis than a theory?

And if they've done experiments, then more power to them. I'd love to read about them, but the article didn't reference any.

Of course, in common parlance, "theory" means the same thing as "hypothesis", and scientists usually use the term in the same way when they aren't trying to make a point. I'm pretty sure that's what is happening here.

 

[Meadmaker]

Don't you think that an unreasonable burden of proof?

Do you think that ID will ever go away if we have to "prove" evolution that way?

I was thinking about this some more.

Obviously, a detailed, step by step model, including every protein substitution ever made in the progress from pond scum to lawyers would be unreasonable. I think considerably less than that would fit the bill.

What do I think it would take to relegate ID to a fringe belief? i.e something that not only scientists, but also most of the general public, rejects.)

I think it would take two things.

First, a plausible theory of abiogenesis, with some form of experimental confirmation. Such confirmation would ideally include a laboratory demonstration in which simple molecules, minerals, etc are poured in, and some sort of replicating, self sustaining, proto-organism that includes at least some complex molecules comes out. If those Penn State guys are really onto something, I actually think they might be able to do that in a few years. The model is simple enough. You could get the reactions going. The only question is whether you could get it to form anything remotely like a cell. Could you get a free floating bag of reacting chemicals that can absorb, excrete, and divide? If you get there, you’re done.

However, if that is too much to ask for, a computer simulation or model, showing step by step actions, of the same would probably be adequate. It would have to, at the very least, show every specific chemical reaction required.

Second, a step by step model, showing the change in DNA along the way, and the protein modifications that result, for one species evolving into another. The species wouldn’t have to be complicated, but they would have to be multicellular and the changes would have to result in some sort of visible morphological change. The flagellum is a good start, but even if the research is completed, it won’t be good enough to put the issue to bed. To convince the skeptics, you’ll have to be able to say, “Here’s how the DNA got moved around, and here is how these critters are different because of it.”

Is it unreasonable to demand that? It certainly is unrealistic to expect it in the near future, but since when is it unreasonable to ask for experimental confirmation of a theory?

 

[Elind]

Unreasonable?

Sure. I don't think that ID is a very reasonable position. It's extremely faith oriented.

I think that as the gaps get smaller and smaller, more and more people will abandon it, and all variations on it.

Of course they won't (abandon). If that were true we would have no mainstream religions anymore as their particular tenets have always been argued on the basis of the ever shrinking gods of the gaps, but there will always be gaps.

My point is that there's no use pretending that the knowledge is there today. It isn't. So, if someone says it isn't there, they aren't lying, and while we might chuckle at them and laugh at their contention that maybe God did it, there's no reason to go beyond that by villifying them.

They need to be vilified, the spokespeople, the inventors, the purveyors at least. The reason is that they are liars and hypocrites. I have the suspicion that people like Behe don't believe this stuff. They are pretty smart, but this has now become a profession for them with prestige, respect and I suspect good money.

The entire concept was invented based on a handful of "proofs" that have since been proven invalid and abandoned by all but the most gullible followers (the eye for example). On that basis alone the original concept became invalid. So what do they do next. Invent even more obscure examples until they reach a point where science has not yet found explanations and so on ad infinitum.

I came from the dentist yesterday. I can tell you with absolute certainty that the designer did such a crap job with our bodies that he/it/whatever doesn't deserve the respect I would give a piss ant.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

To the general question of the thread, sure, there are some scientists who become high profile Creationists. The problem is they stop being scientists and become... well, high profile Creationists as evidenced by this exchange on CF over the weekend.

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. in physical chemistry and extensive training in Math, geology, and physics:

STOP right there.

Sarfati, a distasteful little man if you have ever met him, is a professional Creationist who has done no research since he was forced to as a chemistry grad student. He has a couple of co-authored papers on Selenium chemistry and a couple more where he is 4th author. He has NO training beyond the rudiments in physics or mathmatics. He also has no training in geology.

He was trained as a chemist and for the last 12 years has been a non-scientist in a research manner. He's a paid shill for AIG.

A OEC pipes up asking for evidence of this and after a long exchange of posts, I finally post this.

Why don't you just take another 3 minutes and Google Sarfati's CV page at CMI where you'll note that he's in the employ of a Creationist organization which, alone, would make him a professional Creationist. His published works listed at the bottom show he has mainly published on Creationism and hasn't, just as {the TE} said, published any science papers since 1995 which is 12 years.

In the end the YEC never came back to the thread and the OEC was still bitching about ad homs instead of owning up to the fact that while Sarfati did get a degree, he stopped doing science 12-15 years ago and isn't a scientist.

 

[Elind]

Gee. I thought that was a rhetorical question in the first place. But your efforts are appreciate nevertheless.