Are there actually creationists who are scientists?

[articulett]

Certainly that's true. If you divide the world into US and THEM, he's one of THEM, and it doesn't bother him.

It's just a case of understanding that there is some variation among the goddidit crowd. Behe believes in common descent, but I think that it's a case where what he thinks is really, really, important is that God gets the credit, and the details about common descent versus creation ex nihilo are really minor details. At least, that's how I read his work.

I find it hard to believe that anyone actually reads his work and finds it comprehensible. I read his work as using lots of words to obfuscate understanding of natural selection so as to infer that life is too improbable to occur thus implying that an "intelligent designer" must have been involved. Behe aims to make things less comprehensible. Whereas, actual scientists make things more comprehensible. The goal of science is to understand the natural world to understand the natural world further and utilize that knowledge to our advantage-- That is not the goal of the DI or Behe.

 

[articulett]

Gravity is only a theory, kids...
http://www.re-discovery.org/gravity_1.html

 

[mijopaalmc]

Mijo is a total creationist who denies being a creationist. He is as clear as Behe.

That's why I have him on ignore.

And articulett tells another whopper.

The reason that she thinks I'm a creationist is because I pointed out that one of the major assumptions about the modeling of evolution is that evolution is a stochastic implies that evolution itself is a stochastic. She has repeatedly demonstrated that she doesn't understand the slightest bit about probability theory when she states that the definition of "random" as "[o]f or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution" makes algebra "random".

She is honestly the best example of how some people who claim to be skeptics really aren't at all.

 

[pgwenthold]

Certainly that's true. If you divide the world into US and THEM, he's one of THEM, and it doesn't bother him.

It's just a case of understanding that there is some variation among the goddidit crowd. Behe believes in common descent, but I think that it's a case where what he thinks is really, really, important is that God gets the credit, and the details about common descent versus creation ex nihilo are really minor details. At least, that's how I read his work.

Of course, that might be gleaned from what he says. OTOH, if he really wasn't a creationist, why doesn't he distance himself from the creationists? The man is a FELLOW of the DI - you know, the organization that took a creationist book and tried to masquerade it in a shiney new ID wrapper, with the goal of using ID as a means of getting religion (and creationism) into the curriculum.

You could claim that before the Dover trial he was unaware of the DI's activities and aims. But it was shown very clear what they are doing at the Dover trial, and I don't see that he has resigned his position as a Fellow since then.

Someone might claim that they just like to wear white and hang-out around bonfires, but when I see them marching with the KKK, I'm still going to consider them racist.

 

[Elind]

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.

Why is it abuse, when the whole principle is to color peoples perceptions, if possible, that Behe is a liar, cheat, hypocrite and charlatan, to name but a few adjectives applicable?

For what it's worth, that is my opinion based all what I know of Behe, based on his own utterances and those who apologize for him.

 

[Elind]

And articulett tells another whopper.

The reason that she thinks I'm a creationist is because I pointed out that one of the major assumptions about the modeling of evolution is that evolution is a stochastic implies that evolution itself is a stochastic. She has repeatedly demonstrated that she doesn't understand the slightest bit about probability theory when she states that the definition of "random" as "[o]f or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution" makes algebra "random".

She is honestly the best example of how some people who claim to be skeptics really aren't at all.

Has anyone ever pointed out to you, or directed you to scientific literature, that evolution is NOT random in the sense you seem to imply. If I drive to the grocery store the exact second I arrive, within a clearly defined probability range, is random, but the fact that I end up at the store and not the next county is most certainly not randomly defined.

 

[Meadmaker]

OTOH, if he really wasn't a creationist, why doesn't he distance himself from the creationists?

As I said, I think that, to him, the most important element is that God is necessary. As such, he finds more in common with a creationist, even the young Earth sort, than with an evolutionist.

He sees Darwinism as a threat to something important (belief in God), while creationism (i.e. the ex nihilo sort) as incorrect, but harmless.

 

[Meadmaker]

Has anyone ever pointed out to you, or directed you to scientific literature, that evolution is NOT random in the sense you seem to imply. If I drive to the grocery store the exact second I arrive, within a clearly defined probability range, is random, but the fact that I end up at the store and not the next county is most certainly not randomly defined.

Lots of people have point this out to him.

They've all been wrong.


Everyone's trying to read something into his posts despite the fact that it isn't there. As far as your analogy goes, he is saying exactly what you are saying. Your trip to the grocery store can be modelled as a stochastic process. That's everything, stop, no more, nothing else, that he's saying.

(Especially when you consider that if you are in an auto accident, you may very well end up in the next county)

But everyone's sure that he must be saying something different, and so they don't understand him, and being different and refusing to go along with the crowd, they label him as one of THEM.

It has been happening since the dawn of history. It isn't likely to stop soon.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Has anyone ever pointed out to you, or directed you to scientific literature, that evolution is NOT random in the sense you seem to imply. If I drive to the grocery store the exact second I arrive, within a clearly defined probability range, is random, but the fact that I end up at the store and not the next county is most certainly not randomly defined.

That is because you, like articulett many time before you, are equivocating with you usage of "random". It is very clear that, in the first instance, that you are using is the one I gave above. However, in the second instance, you seem to be using "random" in a sense that most closely resembles the definition "[h]aving no specific pattern, purpose, or objective".

 

[Elind]

That is because you, like articulett many time before you, are equivocating with you usage of "random". It is very clear that, in the first instance, that you are using is the one I gave above. However, in the second instance, you seem to be using "random" in a sense that most closely resembles the definition "[h]aving no specific pattern, purpose, or objective".

If I understand you right, you are saying that I imply that therefore there IS a specific pattern and purpose in the evolution of my journey to the grocery store, and by analogy for evolution?

 

[Elind]

Everyone's trying to read something into his posts despite the fact that it isn't there. As far as your analogy goes, he is saying exactly what you are saying. Your trip to the grocery store can be modelled as a stochastic process. That's everything, stop, no more, nothing else, that he's saying.

I haven't followed all these posts, so forgive my late entry, but it seems I am saying only that a very tiny subset of my trip can be called stochastic (which is its definition, I believe). I had the impression that what was being suggested was that the entire trip was.

 

[mijopaalmc]

If I understand you right, you are saying that I imply that therefore there IS a specific pattern and purpose in the evolution of my journey to the grocery store, and by analogy for evolution?

Ah, the joys of the fallacy of equivocation.

Evolution is "random" because it can be described by random variables and probability distributions, not because it is in any way accurately described by the other definitions of "random".*

*Although you do have to be careful here, because random variables are by definition measurable functions and as such obey the mathematical rules that measurable functions obey. Thus, in a manner of speaking, random variables and probability distributions do have a specific pattern that they follow.

 

[Elind]

Ah, the joys of the fallacy of equivocation.

I wasn't aware that I had mentioned "theory"

Evolution is "random" because it can be described by random variables and probability distributions, not because it is in any way accurately described by the other definitions of "random".*

*Although you do have to be careful here, because random variables are by definition measurable functions and as such obey the mathematical rules that measurable functions obey. Thus, in a manner of speaking, random variables and probability distributions do have a specific pattern that they follow.

I may be wrong, in not having been paying attention to all this before, but my assumption was that you were arguing, in creationist fashion, that evolution was a random process and the pieces could never come together randomly.

Any randomness in evolution, and of course it is there, is affected by the randomness of related "random" functions. Nothing evolves in an event vacuum. Collectively the net result could be described as stochastic I suppose, at any given moment. However when you "describe" evolution as random, and simultaneously provide a pretty big CYA, I am wondering why you want to be complex one moment and excessively simplistic in the next.

 

[articulett]

Has anyone ever pointed out to you, or directed you to scientific literature, that evolution is NOT random in the sense you seem to imply. If I drive to the grocery store the exact second I arrive, within a clearly defined probability range, is random, but the fact that I end up at the store and not the next county is most certainly not randomly defined.

Thanks...I have him on ignore, so I seldom have to read his quotes-- but that one made me giggle. Do you ever notice that when people use "honestly" in a sentence, they seldom are.
When I hear "to be honest...", I suspect dishonesty. It's kind of like how like if it has science in the title, it usually isn't (creation science, religious science, Scientology, etc.).

Doesn't he talk like Behe in hard to parse sentences with funny ways of using words to say nothing at all while inferring something smarmy?

 

[articulett]

I haven't followed all these posts, so forgive my late entry, but it seems I am saying only that a very tiny subset of my trip can be called stochastic (which is its definition, I believe). I had the impression that what was being suggested was that the entire trip was.

He and Meadmaker do these insane gymnastics while asserting that Dawkins is wrong and they are clear in a silly thread that Mijo started with the lame creationist hard to parse question "what evidence is there for evolution being non-random". And the only answers that Mijo will accept is that there is NO evidence for evolution being non-random and therefore Dawkins and every one else including peer reviewed scientists are wrong when they say "natural selection is not random" and they are right because they are using the "true" (to them) meaning of the word where "random" means "anything related to probability"--and any thing or process that contains an randomness IS random.

It's like talking to Behe... really... like the transcripts... goal post moving.... poorly parsed sentences... using words to assure themselves they are right about something without saying anything at all. BTW the way, I pass board exams on probability theory and Bayesian analysic... I'm a Certified Genetics Counseler with a Masters in Genetic Counseling who is teaching Biology because I felt very strongly about this creationist nuttiness and the Dover inanities. The more you try to understand what the hell they are saying, the less you understand anything except that you've falling into the creationist obfuscation abyss.

In their heads it boils down to, Behe is right; Dawkins is wrong... or something like that.

 

[articulett]

Can we put these on the textbooks too, Behe supporters?

 

[articulett]

Bible disclaimers:

 

[Meadmaker]

I may be wrong, in not having been paying attention to all this before, but my assumption was that you were arguing, in creationist fashion, that evolution was a random process and the pieces could never come together randomly.

I don't want to get bogged down in another "is it random" discussion, but I want to point out something about this post.

This is very, very, common. Mijo has never argued for that or anything like it. On the other hand, he has used words somewhat differently than their common usage.

This has led to a lot of people having an adverse reaction. They aren't really sure what he is saying, but they know they read something by someone they liked, and mijo isn't saying the same thing, and they don't understand what he is saying, and so they conclude that he must be one of THEM.

From mijo's posts, no reasonable person could infer what you inferred. Of course, a lot of people have inferred that, and you probably read their posts instead of mijo's, but there is no way that anyone could read mijo's posts and think that he was arguing that it couldn't happen randomly. He is in fact arguing that it could, and did, happen randomly.

(Ironically, usually the objections come when someone uses a term in a sloppy fashion instead of with its precise meaning. In this case, mijo has insisted on a precise mathematical meaning, and the objection arises because most people use the term more sloppily.)

So what does this have to do with this thread?

Directly, nothing.

However, an awful lot of the discussion in this thread has been about labels. Can a creationist be a scientist? Is ID the same as creationism?

It's very easy to pick out a few key words and make broad generalizations about what someone believes. It's easy to divide the human race into camps, and decide that someone is in the other one. It's much more difficult to listen to what someone says and make accurate judgements about them.

Understanding Michael Behe, for example, is not something that a lot of people would find a valuable use of their time, and no one could be faulted for labelling him as "one of those creationist guys". However, if the topic of evolution, creationism, and the political, scientific, and religious controversies that swirl around those topics are of interest to you, it would be better to actually understand what their real position is.

Finally, there is something else that, in my opinion, is even worse than just dividing people into US and THEM. Those categories are based on what we think we know about the categories. In this case, "Creationists believe X. Scientists believe ~X. If you believe X, you are a creationist." When confronted with someone who believes X, and yet is clearly not a creationist, there are a couple of alternatives. The rational thing to do would be to revise your opinions about what creationists believe, or the range of possible beliefs about X. Unfortunately, all too often, people choose a different route. Rather than assume that their understanding is deficient, they assume that someone must be lying.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

No one need listen to me, but could I make two requests, one general, one personal?

Could we abandon this word "random" as related to evolution because it is so politically charged? Yes, evolution is random technically, but as has been hashed and over-hashed, this carries with it other connotations.

Now for the personal one -- Articulett, could you please drop the "Mijo is a creationist" line and give the guy a break?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Elind, people like you who are against the general idea of ID, even divorced from god(s) hypotheses, keep wanting to revert to the 'who' question.

The question isn't who, it is 'if'.

However, even if you allow for aliens to be a designer, you've allowed in at least one designer, thus accepting the general idea of ID.

I'd think it is much more difficult to explain how matter literally can come from nothing, because you have to do that in a naturalistic framework. Where is your work on that?