Are there actually creationists who are scientists?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

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

It's a weasel. Maybe a Leasel.

Never heard of the program. Still consider it a lie.

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.

Do you seriously think that if there was nothing preventing this being taught in schools it would be allowed to be taught in "a forum where the claims could be critically examined"? If so then I can only suggest you read the school board testimony (and in particular the judge's comments on it) in the Dover case.

If creationism is allowed in schools then in a great many cases the very last thing a student will be allowed to do is examine it critically. The Discovery Institute knows this - take a look at the Wedge strategy for evidence.

 

[pgwenthold]

Oh, are we going to start actually addressing the topic of this thread? If so, I would mention the best example I know of, Fritz Schafer, a (highly regarded) theoretical chemist from Georgia. I suspect he is a creationist. However, I don't think he's an AiG-type "scientific creationist" but is more of a "I have faith God created it all to look this way" type. Most importantly, his creationist views are not reflected in his (extensive) scientific work. In fact, at one time his name was among those being mentioned for a Nobel Prize, and deservedly so. I have been less impressed with his recent work, but in the late 70s through the 80s, he was really near the top of the field. His group had their hands in the biggest problems of the day, and they had the best results. Others have caught up with them, now, however.

In the end, whereas creationists are probably able to claim him as one of their own, when it comes to creationism, he doesn't say anything scientifically to help them.

 

[Meadmaker]

Do you seriously think that if there was nothing preventing this being taught in schools it would be allowed to be taught in "a forum where the claims could be critically examined"?

Yes.

If so then I can only suggest you read the school board testimony (and in particular the judge's comments on it) in the Dover case.

How about the testimony of the biology teachers? It was somewhat different. (I don't remember if they actually testified, or if I read about it in articles related to the trial.)

If creationism is allowed in schools then in a great many cases the very last thing a student will be allowed to do is examine it critically.

Yeah, they're pretty dim witted. Best not to take chances.

 

[Meadmaker]

I suspect he is a creationist. However, I don't think he's an AiG-type "scientific creationist" but is more of a "I have faith God created it all to look this way" type.

Some people (articulett and others) define "creationist" so broadly that anyone who believes in any god beyond a deistic sort becomes a creationist. That makes Ken Miller a creationist, which, to my way of thinking, makes the term sort of meaningless.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Some people (articulett and others) define "creationist" so broadly that anyone who believes in any god beyond a deistic sort becomes a creationist. That makes Ken Miller a creationist, which, to my way of thinking, makes the term sort of meaningless.

I think it's more accurate to say that, in mouths and on the fingers of articulett and others on this forum, "creationist" has become a politically motivated smear term that translates to "anyone with whose assessment of evolution and/or religious leanings I don't agree". What evidence is there for evolution being non-random? is perfect evidence of that. The proponents of evolution being non-random have made blatantly false statements about probability theory and statistics and their relation to biology and leveled the accusation of "creationist" against anyone who points out their errors.

 

[cyborg]

Yes.

Damn you're a naive and trusting fool.

To quote House: "Everybody lies."

 

[pgwenthold]

Some people (articulett and others) define "creationist" so broadly that anyone who believes in any god beyond a deistic sort becomes a creationist.

I still argue that if the friggin IDiots didn't consider themselves creationists, then they need to distinguish themselves from them. For example, did the DI object when Of Pandas and People was converted from a Creationist text to an ID text by simply changing all the "created"s to "intelligently designed"? Hell, they were the ones who did it!

If they say all the same things as the creationists, except to change "created" to "intelligently designed," then they are no different from creationists.

If Of Pandas and People wasn't creationist before 1987, then the definition of creationist is too narrow. And if OPaP is creationist, then so are all those who think it is an ID text.

 

[Elind]

Do you seriously think that if there was nothing preventing this being taught in schools it would be allowed to be taught in "a forum where the claims could be critically examined"? If so then I can only suggest you read the school board testimony (and in particular the judge's comments on it) in the Dover case.

If creationism is allowed in schools then in a great many cases the very last thing a student will be allowed to do is examine it critically. The Discovery Institute knows this - take a look at the Wedge strategy for evidence.

This school issue keeps popping up all the time. "Let the kids make up their minds" rubbish. That is for college grad students, maybe undergrads in some cases. School is for teaching what is known and provable, and to some degree to think critically, but one certainly doesn't teach critical thinking by presenting one truth and one woo and then saying "take your pick".

 

[Elind]

As to the thread OP, I don't know any, but I'd be very surprised if there were any who started out that way and then produced original work. Changing one's mind later, or in late age can be just an example of human fallibility. Scientists cannot be Creationists in anything but a very narrow field simply because they are two different forms of thinking, and incompatible at that.

I do however know of one creationist, hard core, that I debated (if you can call it that) a couple of years ago who went back to school to get a degree in biology, just so he could call himself a biologist (scientist) while spreading the gospel.

 

[articulett]

Debating a religionist is like playing tennis with someone who lowers the net for their shots and raises it for yours.

—Daniel Dennett

And, yes Meadmaker, I do consider the Penn State theory regarding abiogenesis a theory-- the best framework for explaining what we observe...no I don't think it would be better described as a hypothesis. Moreover, I think creationist wish that ID could be developed to "hypothesis" status in the scientific community. But why do apologists always back pedal-- from creationist to what is creationist to abiogenesis and then the next thing you know it's "the big bang"--

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

And, yes Meadmaker, I do consider...

Yeah, but you consider The Atheist and myself "apologists" so why should we give any validity to your opinion.

 

[Meadmaker]

I still argue that if the friggin IDiots didn't consider themselves creationists, then they need to distinguish themselves from them. For example, did the DI object when Of Pandas and People was converted from a Creationist text to an ID text by simply changing all the "created"s to "intelligently designed"? Hell, they were the ones who did it!

But Behe did object.

I don't get major heartburn about calling Behe a creationist, but I do think that it's important to understand how his position is different from a YEC, or from any other variation that believes that organisms popped into existence at God's command. If you still end up calling him a creationist, then fine, but it's worth the effort to understand that whatever you call him, he believes that your ancestors had one cell.

Meanwhile, if you call Ken Miller a creationist, the term loses all meaning, in my humble opinion.

 

[articulett]

But Behe did object.

I don't get major heartburn about calling Behe a creationist, but I do think that it's important to understand how his position is different from a YEC, or from any other variation that believes that organisms popped into existence at God's command. If you still end up calling him a creationist, then fine, but it's worth the effort to understand that whatever you call him, he believes that your ancestors had one cell.

Meanwhile, if you call Ken Miller a creationist, the term loses all meaning, in my humble opinion.

Ken Miller doesn't propose any entities altering the laws of physics... he appears to be a deist... though he calls himself Catholic... Whatever god he has, he's not making claims for it fiddling with DNA... If you make testable claims about your god acting on the physical world--or wish to infer that it's "sciency" to think such things to kiddies-- you're a creationist in my book.

 

[Meadmaker]

Ken Miller was fantastic... you can youtube his presentation. But Ken Miller is a Catholic. So, he is a creationist in some sense of the word.

Whatever you meant by that, you said it. You can explain if you care to.

 

[Meadmaker]

Ken Miller doesn't propose any entities altering the laws of physics... he appears to be a deist... though he calls himself Catholic...

Caught someone else in a lie?

I sure wish I had all of your insight into human nature so I could tell when these people were lying. I always think that when people call themselves Catholic, the most likely explanation is that they are Catholic. Most of them don't believe 100% of all that stuff the Pope says, but darned near all of them believe that bit about Jesus rising from the dead, and a darned good portion of them believe the Virgin birth part.

 

[articulett]

Caught someone else in a lie?

I sure wish I had all of your insight into human nature so I could tell when these people were lying. I always think that when people call themselves Catholic, the most likely explanation is that they are Catholic. Most of them don't believe 100% of all that stuff the Pope says, but darned near all of them believe that bit about Jesus rising from the dead, and a darned good portion of them believe the Virgin birth part.

No... I don't accuse people of lying based on opinions. It's the apologists who keep confusing facts with everything else (faith, opinions, beliefs, mottos, etc.). And you are the one who called scientist liars while bending over backwards and doing semantic gymnastics to declare Behe an honest man.

When I call someone a liar, I use that word... and I mean they are stating something as factual when the evidence is contrary. I don't consider Ken Miller a liar, a woo, or a creationist. Behe, is all 3. But these are opinion words... not fact words. You apologists confuse the two a lot. I suspect religious meme infection for your inability to see your failure to distinguish.

 

[mijopaalmc]

No... I don't accuse people of lying based on opinions. It's the apologists who keep confusing facts with everything else (faith, opinions, beliefs, mottos, etc.). And you are the one who called scientist liars while bending over backwards and doing semantic gymnastics to declare Behe an honest man.

When I call someone a liar, I use that word... and I mean they are stating something as factual when the evidence is contrary. I don't consider Ken Miller a liar, a woo, or a creationist. Behe, is all 3. But these are opinion words... not fact words. You apologists confuse the two a lot. I suspect religious meme infection for your inability to see your failure to distinguish.

That is exactly your problem: none of the three labels your listed are "opinion words" as you call them. They have fairly well-demarcated definitions, and you are clearly abusing them because you know the "power" they carry around here to color other people's perceptions of the person you accuse of being these things.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Yes.

Your trust is touching, but I fear totally misplaced.

How about the testimony of the biology teachers? It was somewhat different. (I don't remember if they actually testified, or if I read about it in articles related to the trial.)

And precisely how long do you think they would remain employed by the school board if they refused to go along with the school board's desire for what is to be taught in science class? Please tell me you are not naive enough to believe the school board is going to tolerate teachers who don't toe the line?

Yeah, they're pretty dim witted. Best not to take chances.

I wonder why, when replying to my previous post you chose to edit out the part about the Discovery Institute and the Wedge strategy? Might it be because if you left it in it would show the complete absence of any logic whatsoever in your reply? You are, or should be, well aware that the reason the ID creationists want this in school is NOT so there can be a fair presentation of the arguments, but so they can indoctrinate children into religious belief. They state that quite openly in the Wedge document. To suggest that I am suggesting the problem is that the students are dim witted I can only see as a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the issue.

 

[Meadmaker]

I don't consider Ken Miller a liar, a woo, or a creationist.

But Ken Miller is a Catholic. So, he is a creationist in some sense of the word.

Whatever.

 

[Meadmaker]

And precisely how long do you think they would remain employed by the school board if they refused to go along with the school board's desire for what is to be taught in science class? Please tell me you are not naive enough to believe the school board is going to tolerate teachers who don't toe the line?

If protected by the courts, I think they would be safe.

I wonder why, when replying to my previous post you chose to edit out the part about the Discovery Institute and the Wedge strategy?

Because it wasn't relevant. The point of my response was that there is a diversity of belief among those labelled "creationists", and even among people who are affiliated with the DI.

As for education, I understand the DI wants to get creationism into the classroom. They think it will further their cause. They've been wrong before.

I, personally, think their strategy might work if and only if not only is it injected in the classroom, but it is given special protection, so that a teacher cannot say, "Then there's the creationists. Here's what they say, and here's why it's nonsense." I think that is what most, but not all, biology teachers would end up saying, if allowed to do so.

If this be naivete, then let's make the most of it.

To suggest that I am suggesting the problem is that the students are dim witted I can only see as a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the issue.

I don't think that's what you intended, but I think that's the logical consequence of what you are saying.