Annoying creationists

[articulett]

Bish, bosh, job done. Now for stage two : the frantic row-back. I don't see this guy as a quitter. He has far too high an opinion of himself.

Well, he can run the mathematical figures to show that the earth cannot be spherical and that the universe cannot be expanding....

With cooperation like that from Paul, he can be generating disproofs of everything that goes against whatever it is he chooses to believe. He can make a book: "Kleinman's mathamatical proofs of how everything scientists know is wrong."

with the follow up--

"And therefore my God is True" by John Hewitt.

 

[cyborg]

We've already covered this.

He's already explained that ev is both adequate enough to disprove macroevolution and far too inadequate to be the mathematical basis of evolution.

It's simple really when you don't think about it.

 

[John Hewitt]

With cooperation like that from Paul, he can be generating disproofs of everything that goes against whatever it is he chooses to believe. He can make a book: "Kleinman's mathamatical proofs of how everything scientists know is wrong."

with the follow up--

"And therefore my God is True" by John Hewitt.

Could you please explain how you introduce the role of "my God" into this comment.

 

[articulett]

Could you please explain how you introduce the role of "my God" into this comment.

Well, this thread is entitled "annoying creationists"--annoying creationists tend to have something in common. They're not really like the YEC's who are readily laughed off...They, in fact, seem rather intelligent and grasp some of the basics of science, logic, and math--except when it somehow conflicts with their god belief. If it conflicts with their god belief, their logic stops at the door and they start playing crazy semantic games similar rather the way people squeeze supposed insightful platitudes and "higher truths" from primitive and barbaric texts clearly written by human without a dash of anything divine or even prescient. These people often believe themselve to be compassionate and open minded without having a clue as to how close minded and didactic they sound when it comes to their pet theories. They are weirdly brainwashed because they believe that some invisible guy killed his kid (who was really him) for some sin long ago that no-one is really quite certain about--and they've been told that this happened for them-because someone loved them so much. They've been told that it's arrogant to even question the story. And they are so easy to spot after a while. They just have very rigid standards of "proof" for a very narrow area (and no proof will ever be enough) and absolutely no need for proof when it comes to believing in the divinity of some primitive texts authors and meanings and interpretations.

What can I say--when you've had it inculcated in you from childhood that you get to live happily ever after for believing insane things, you sometimes grow into an annoying creationist. To me, you guys always argue the same pet point over and over--the one that somehow convinced you--or the theory that keeps your personal version of what god is alive.

All your arguments boil down to "my god is real" to me. And, I think you'd understand it if someone was a Scientologist or Muslim extremists and all their posts seemed to be a means of supporting whatever it is they had come to believe--you'd see how futile conversation was--you'd feel sort of bad that a bright person was so brainwashed by their beliefs that they were missing some really cool facts. You'd marvel at how they couldn't seem to see in themselves that which is so transparent to others. You'd roll your eyes at the way they hold themselves up to be objective arbitors of truth that was so clearly confirmation bias for the "truth" they wanted. It's sort of like if you wanted to show an Amish kid all the cool technology and stuff they could do with the computer--but you couldn't...and it all boils down to "because I'm Amish"...Nobody wants to be an evil temptress (temptor) scaring someone into thinking the devil is trying to get them to bite from the tree of knowledge--but that's exactly what biologists have become to certain Christians. If actual non-religious scientists had problems with evolution, it would lend an aura of credibility to your case. But if the only ones having a problem are the ones who believe in a certain kind of god--then it's very clear why you guys are so persistent and unyielding and seemingly unaware of how you come across on the topic no matter how carefully the information is laid out for you. Rather than feeling frustration for more wasted time with those who have a strong motive for not comprehending, sometimes it's just easier to make fun. You guys have impervious egos anyhow...I don't think it's particularly harmful.

To me, you guys all sound sort of like Behe at the trial when no amount of evidence disproving his irreducibile complexity theory would ever be enough to make him let go of it. Faith is just a very tenacious little bugger to get rid of.
And most of us have to show some amount of deference to "it" in our regularly daily lives because rationality and tolerance isn't really a strong point of those who adhere to any particular dogma--moreso, when they believe their eternity is affected by such beliefs.

So, I think we can all stop pretending that the problems you guys have with evolution is about "facts"--it's not. It's about your beliefs. It's about the fact that whatever it is you think god is or does--he surely would have picked something more miraculous then evolution to bring the likes of you about.

Is there a single creationist who isn't a strong theist? Are there any dogmatic and seemingly educated non-theists playing semantic games about Turing Machines or "closet dualism" or "memes don't exist" or "math makes evolution an impossibility" theory? Are there any non-theists who use terms like scientism, evolutionarian, and proudly point out thesis' that only make sense to fellow theists? Are there any non-theists who have such an angry visceral reaction to outspoken atheists like Dawkins that seem unconnected to facts?

See, science and facts and truth are the same for everybody. Tests and facts and info. I learn is the same as being taught to students of all languages all over the world. It's easy to "see". But your theories only make sense to people who have been immersed in a certain belief system. It doesn't matter what the humans mapping genomes believe--the info. is all the same and readily interpreted by others mapping genomes. Physics in China is the same as in India. Biology in America is the same as in Denmark. But none of that is true for anything you say nor Kleinman says. You tell yourselves that we skeptics can't follow because your thinking is beyond ours--so advanced. But why is it that you need to believe in a certain version of creator in order for your info. to be comprehensible? Why are you so blind to very specific facts and types of knowledge? Why don't you see that which is obvious, I'm guessing, to everyone who doesn't share your version of God?

Why is hammy so ready with ad homs rather than facts or answers to questions? Because you guys have a strong need to believe in something that doesn't jive with the facts. What else should we conclude. The only evidence of your brilliant logic and scholarship seems to exist in your own head. But to non-believers that is about as relevant as Tom Cruises claims about Scientology. Every believer believes that fhis ellow believers are smarter, righter and more moral than those who believe differently, don't they?

 

[John Hewitt]

Well, this thread is entitled "annoying creationists"--annoying creationists tend to have something in common.
<snip>
Why is hammy so ready with ad homs rather than facts or answers to questions? Because you guys have a strong need to believe in something that doesn't jive with the facts. What else should we conclude. The only evidence of your brilliant logic and scholarship seems to exist in your own head. But to non-believers that is about as relevant as Tom Cruises claims about Scientology. Every believer believes that fhis ellow believers are smarter, righter and more moral than those who believe differently, don't they?

So, do you feel that my work is creationism?
Are you aligning my position with that of Tom Cruise?
If so, why?

 

[The Atheist]

Posted to John Hewitt:

To me, you guys all sound sort of like Behe at the trial when no amount of evidence disproving his irreducibile complexity theory would ever be enough to make him let go of it. Faith is just a very tenacious little bugger to get rid of.

Since John already made this comment to you:

I think it is true that there are many gaps in our understanding of evolution but I do not recall trying to fill one of them with God. Could you please explain why you keep introducing supernatural entities into discussion concerning me?

That seems to suggest he isn't doing anything of the kind.

Are you saying John's a liar?

Or is anyone who doesn't concur with your thinking automatically a creationist?

I've seen John state on several occasions that he isn't driven by god or creationism. Why do you doubt it? I've found no reference to gods in his websites.

 

[CapelDodger]

Could you please explain how you introduce the role of "my God" into this comment.

Do you mind? We were talking about you, not to you .

See, you've set articulett off, now we'll never get him to settle .

 

[articulett]

Do you mind? We were talking about you, not to you .

See, you've set articulett off, now we'll never get him to settle .

I'm not set off. But who is going to settle what? Kleinman?

 

[articulett]

So, do you feel that my work is creationism?
Are you aligning my position with that of Tom Cruise?
If so, why?

Yes. Tom Cruise's religion teaches that there is no such thing as "chemical imbalances"--so he has his atennae tuned into anything that supports that bias and can't seem to even comprehend the data that negates it. He seemingly has no study on the subject and yet has concluded that he is an expert. Clearly, it would be difficult to teach him about imbalances involved in manic depressiveness or even diabetes--since that, too, is a chemical imbalance. He's closed himself off from learning the very thing he thinks that he's an expert in.

And yes, I think you are a creationist. The meme thread only makes it more obvious to me.

There are creationists like Francis Collins--and he understands evolution, accepts it as a fact (the more you know, the harder it is to deny it), but his way of keeping his belief in god alive is to believe that god is behind it all--evolution was part of god's plan and god is outside of human understanding. This is pretty cool, because then he can learn and appreciate new info. as it comes in. But to me, creationists have very specific areas where they just don't seem to "hear" or see or be curious about the information that is being discovered. They dismiss it or igore. This information is always about a specific belief that have which is a necessary ingredient for them to keep believing in their god. On the flip side they can be very knowledgeable in other areas and show no problem with comprehension of simple facts--sometimes they will even show curiosity towards new info. But their main focus is always to disprove the part of evolution that they have the biggest problem with--the part that threatens their god belief. It's not like they are really trying to find out the answer--it's more like they are obsessed with showing that the answers others have come up with is wrong.

Annoying creationists tend to attack Dawkins often without reading him or even understanding the basics no matter how carefully explained. You've done that a bit--if not here, then on the meme thread...and I think it's because he doesn't believe in your god. Because the arguments you use just don't make sense--I mean they seem to to you--and maybe they do to other believers--but they just sound similar to kleinman's statments to me--like if you dismiss him and refuse to compute the information then evolution never has to make sense to you and that somehow protects the belief you want to have.

You get dodgy when it comes to religion, but all creationists do. It's why the term "intelligent design" was invented--to pretend it's all about a sincere discovery for truth...when it's really about a sincere attempt at disproving evolution so that you can insert god (or whatever it is you believe in regards to creation...that it must have been pre-planned or whatever.) Wowbagger gave a pretty good analysis of your website--but you just skimmed over the really important points.

Maybe I'm wrong. But let me ask you about Behe. As I'm sure you know, at the Dover trial he kept using his irreducible complexity model--clearly to him, this is the key to disproving evolution--just like Kleinman's math model is. And no matter how many papers he was presented with that showed exactly how the flagellum or blood clotting cascade or whatever could have and probably did evolve--it wasn't enough--nothing will ever be enough... but even before we knew that flagellum could evolve the information in those papers was true. Even if we could not prove that the flagellum was not irreducibly complex--that never ever means that it was, indeed, irreducibly complex. It only means that we didn't understand it's complexity yet. Right?
Perhaps, it is a smidgen of evidence in favor of a designer--but it's not anything that negates evolution. But to Behe it is--it has to be--because he thinks his salvation depends on believing in his god and he needs a reason to believe and his reason is irreducible complexity.

You have lots of problems with evolution--the very same kinds of problems that Behe has. You have no real alternative explanation or data yet you are highly critical of those who have data in favor of evolution--particularly if those people don't believe in your god. I don't know of anyone who has this trait who doesn't believe in some sort of god that "requires a certain belief to have salvation". Maybe I'm completely mistaken. Maybe lots of non-religious people have problems with evolution or for whom the data is not convincing. But I know a plethora of non-religious people. It's only those with certain beliefs who have this rabid obsession with pointing out the gaps in evolutionary theory. Often times it seems to be the only threads they participate in. And I just presume it's for the same reasons that Tom Cruise confidently states "there is no such thing as a chemical imbalance".

Biologists are generally excited about new discoveries and finding out more clues--but the creationists never even seem interested in them. They're so focused on proving that evolution cannot be true, that they make it impossible to learn of the great discoveries which only strengthen the notion that it is.

Anyhow--if you want me to cut and paste I'd be glad to show you all the statements that convince me you are a creationist and that your beliefs about god are what motivates your posts, understanding, and lack thereof. And I'd be glad to learn that I am wrong. Would a creationist ever say the same? Would you want to know if you were wrong or do you just think you cannot be?

 

[articulett]

Could you please explain how you introduce the role of "my God" into this comment.

Maybe I'm wrong... So let me ask you some questions. You, Hammy, Kleinman, and Von Neumann all believe that the current evolutionary model is incorrect--that is, that there is a big flaw in the theory and that scientists are unaware of this flaw or hiding it or something--right? Is this true for you? Do you believe that evolution is a flawed explanation regarding life on earth and the subsequent speciation of animals and plants? You say as much in many of your writings.

All of the above mentioned people and Behe have differing problems with Evoution via natural selection, right?--the main points of contention are a bit different. For you it's about genes versus oscillations and what the replicating unit is. For Kleinman it's the mathematics involved, etc. Do you understand the arguments of the others mentioned--that is, do you think you could successfully sum up the flaws they perceive in evolutionary theory? Have other people, creationist or not, been able to successfully describe the main problems with evolutionary theory as you see it?

Are there any non-religous people who can sum up your argument in a simple way that most biologists could understand?

How does your particular differ from evolutionary theory?

Would you say that you are a proponent of "intelligent design" or that Darwins theories should be taught in high school with disclaimers...and if so, what would you have those disclaimers say?

What do you think of Behe?

I think those questions will give everyone a good idea of where you are coming from.

Forgive me, if I've inadverdantly labeled you a creationist when you are not. Creationists are often particularly bothered by that term because they think it lessens their scientific credibility. Moreover, they are very adept at semantic games as anyone who reads the dover transcripts can readily see. They avoid definitions and play semantic games and my guess is that it's an effort to sound confusing so that no one can pin you down on anything you say and you can weasel out and claim you said otherwise.

But lets be very clear here. You are adamantly opposed to genes being considered replicators. You view the cell itself as the key to replication in life forms and not DNA. This is stated again and again and again on the meme thread. Many people have gone into detailed information as to why that's sort of a semantic dodge, but you don't seem to hear it--you just keep saying that scientists are incorrectlyl referring to genes as replicators.

To me--that says "semantic dodge to discredit evolution". But I could, of course, be wrong.

Also, in your articles you keep making claims about how scientists nevr explain something or other--but to me, no matter how much some things are explained to creationists, they just can't "hear" it...just like Behe and his irreducible complexity argument...

 

[articulett]

Posted to John Hewitt:


Since John already made this comment to you:
That seems to suggest he isn't doing anything of the kind.

Are you saying John's a liar?

I don't know...is Behe a liar? Tom Cruise? Kleinman? Kurious Kathy? I don't think of them as liars. I just think their confidence in a belief has robbed them of the ability to understand where they might be mistaken. They have such huge defenses and levels of proof required to unseat their beliefs while being utterly blind to the flimsiest proof for that belief. When people don't answer their questions or that can't comprehend something, they use that as proof that they know more than everyone else or that their thinking is beyond that of "evolutionarians" and that awful Dawkins guy. The more you debate these guys, the more you just start to sense it. If you get frustrated with them, they use it as proof that they've stymied skeptics or scientists.

[/QUOTE]Or is anyone who doesn't concur with your thinking automatically a creationist?[/QUOTE]

Not at all. I just start suspecting it when people flat out ignore religious questions...and have problems with evolution that I've never heard from a non-religious person. Do you understand and support Hewitts claims that genes aren't replicators and his oscillation theory of abiogenesis etc.? I presume you aren't religious. So manybe you could sum it up. When talking with creationists it just starts to feel lke a twilight zone--the more you think you grasp where they are coming from, the more they slip away and pretend they're saying something else. Are you familar with Behe and his arguments? How do you think Hewitt is different. What about Von Neumann.


[/QUOTE]I've seen John state on several occasions that he isn't driven by god or creationism. Why do you doubt it? I've found no reference to gods in his websites.[/QUOTE]

Well, blame the Discovery Institute for that. It's part of their wedge strategy. They want to poke holes in Darwinism using scientific terminology so no on can accuse them of having religious biases. But maybe Hewitt has real honest to goodness problems with evolution that someone can explain to me better--and maybe someone else can explain to him what wowbagger and many others have tried to point out, clarify, etc.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70215&page=3

So why do you think he posted on the annoying creationist thread? And why do you think he's so adamant about genes not being considered replicators? And why do you think I think all people who don't agree with me are creationists. I thought I was pretty careful and detailed in laying out my case, and I'm more than willing to consider I'm wrong. But, it's true--I plead guilty--I have stopped trying to make sense of his posts because I just presumed he is a creationist, and I already know that's a futile battle. So please tell me why you think I've made a hasty and incorrect conclusion. We might all learn something. Are you familiar with Von Neumann?--he's really smart and he pretends he's not a creationist...he will deny it--but, well, from my perspective and others--he definitely is. You can't pin him down on the word creationist--but the clues are manifest all over the place--I'd be glad to cut and paste and be more specific if anyone was actually interested and glad to learn that I am incorrect as well.

 

[Cuddles]

Not at all. I just start suspecting it when people flat out ignore religious questions...and have problems with evolution that I've never heard from a non-religious person. Do you understand and support Hewitts claims that genes aren't replicators and his oscillation theory of abiogenesis etc.? I presume you aren't religious. So manybe you could sum it up. When talking with creationists it just starts to feel lke a twilight zone--the more you think you grasp where they are coming from, the more they slip away and pretend they're saying something else. Are you familar with Behe and his arguments? How do you think Hewitt is different. What about Von Neumann.

I would just like to add that it might be interesting for you to read John's original thread about "The wave model for particle motion and capping in cells", or something similar. He believes that scientists ignore new ideas and are actively involved in fraud to prevent any theories that challenge their own, especially his, being recognised. I think it is possible that he is not actually a creationist but is forced to come up with very similar arguments against established science due to paranoid beliefs rather than religious ones. Although for the record I also believe he is actually just a creationist.

 

[cyborg]

He believes that scientists ignore new ideas and are actively involved in fraud to prevent any theories that challenge their own, especially his, being recognised.

The war cry of woos everywhere.

Bitch about everybody else rather than making your own case so earth-shatteringly watertight that it's impact is much like that of a depleted Uranium tank busting shell.

(Oh, kleinman that means that at some point you might actually want to use some mathematics. Hell I've even tried to help you define the event you want to show is impossible so that I can work on the analysis of the evj algorithm. Running simulations is not mathematics).

 

[John Hewitt]

Maybe I'm wrong... So let me ask you some questions. You, Hammy, Kleinman, and Von Neumann all believe that the current evolutionary model is incorrect--that is, that there is a big flaw in the theory and that scientists are unaware of this flaw or hiding it or something--right? Is this true for you? Do you believe that evolution is a flawed explanation regarding life on earth and the subsequent speciation of animals and plants? You say as much in many of your writings.

Right, I think that there are flaws in evolutionary theory as it is normally presented and that, for the most part, the scientific community are unaware of those flaws.

All of the above mentioned people and Behe have differing problems with Evoution via natural selection, right?--the main points of contention are a bit different. For you it's about genes versus oscillations and what the replicating unit is. For Kleinman it's the mathematics involved, etc. Do you understand the arguments of the others mentioned--that is, do you think you could successfully sum up the flaws they perceive in evolutionary theory? Have other people, creationist or not, been able to successfully describe the main problems with evolutionary theory as you see it?

It is not for me to represent other people's position, only my own.

Are there any non-religous people who can sum up your argument in a simple way that most biologists could understand?

I don't know. I am quite happy for people to present their own understanding of anybody's work.

How does your particular differ from evolutionary theory?

To the best of my understanding, my work is entirely evolutionary. I have repeatedly asked you to explain why you think it is not

.... or what Tom Cruise or unicorns or whatever have to do with me.

 

[articulett]

Right, I think that there are flaws in evolutionary theory as it is normally presented and that, for the most part, the scientific community are unaware of those flaws.

It is not for me to represent other people's position, only my own.

I don't know. I am quite happy for people to present their own understanding of anybody's work.

To the best of my understanding, my work is entirely evolutionary. I have repeatedly asked you to explain why you think it is not

.... or what Tom Cruise or unicorns or whatever have to do with me.

I think your statement about there be no such things as memes is similar to Tom Cruise's statement that there is no such thing as chemical imbalances. I promise to explain more later, but judging from cuddles and cyborgs responses--as well as Schneibsters and Wowbaggers, I think others have a similar conclusion. I have to collate at Tam, but I will be back later if you really want to hear more. I will even cut and paste, but it's kind of a time waster unless we are on the same page as to what I will be illustrating (quotes of yours that are very similar to creationists). Let me ask you this, what would be sufficienct if anything for you to find the theory of evolution valid--what sort of evidence. How can we tell that you are not a Behe where every example showing how something isn't irreducibly complex only makes him run to find yet another example that he thinks is...or to refuse to comprehend the conclusion...or to say it's not enough.? And, while we're at it, just for the record--do you believe that life was designed by a more complex designer? Yes or no? What is your biggest problem with Darwinism and memes and Dawkins. It's the way you dance around these questions and the Behe like way you dodge conclusions that put your pet theory into question while never really proffering up decent evidence for an alternate theory that makes me think so. Evolution is pretty basic. Your failure to grasp some simple parts about it is as maddening as kleinmans desire to make a math problem that shows that "x" number of genomic mutations couldn't have happened give "x" number of eons. It's a wierd approach--like saying that we need the math formula to prove that we could have whatever of number of grains of sand we have on this universe. Your approach seems similarly wierd--Von Neumanns too. And you all seem to be pretty smart and literate--moreso than Hammy and his episomological monistic whatever closet dualist whatchamatheory. But you all seem to have a stick up your butt about Darwin and Dawkins. But no matter how carefully people follow along your reasoning and try to pin down your basic problem and address it--you do a quick limbo, a couple of pedantic turns of the phrase, a re-defining of a term, and a semantic redefinition or complete avoidance of key questions--all while talkin about how evolutarians and scientists are being dogmatic yet never really illustrating anything that makes non religious people see the dogmatism (from what I can tell).

Maybe Atheist is an atheist who can translate and show us how it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with scientific bias and the underlying strenght and evidence behind your claim--

Plus, creationist are known to be dishonest and claim not to be a creationist. So saying your not a creationist doesn't really do anything to make me think you aren't. Anyone involved with creationists for any length of time probably feel similarly. It's kind of amusing how people learn to dodge and weave to keep their god alive (dishonesty for christ)--I suspect it has to do with teaching oneself to find "higher truths" in barbaric bronze age texts. But I would be glad to be mistaken. The smallest of evidence will do. But not just your word. Maybe you are the person who truly does have an amazing theory that will revolutionize our thinking about the evolution of life and make Darwin a dead end. Maybe scientists really are the ones' fooling themselves and you are the only one who isn't. Maybe others understand what you are saying who don't believe in any god. But in my experience...such claims are common--but the evidence never is. And those making the claims tend to use outdated info. to support their theories and show an amazing lack of curiosity about new data.

I rest my case until later. I hope, I'm absolutely wrong and trust the evidence will be forthcoming if that's the case and that your answers will clarify things for me--atheists answers might also.

 

[kjkent1]

Personally, and after reading Dr. Hewitt's online works, I don't see anything which suggests that he is mixing science with theology. But, maybe I'm missing something.

More to the point, why are we dancing around the issue? If someone thinks that John is a design advocate or creationist, they should ask John directly. Here, I'll do it:

John, are you an intelligent design advocate and/or a creationist?

Thanks in advance.

 

[John Hewitt]

Personally, and after reading Dr. Hewitt's online works, I don't see anything which suggests that he is mixing science with theology. But, maybe I'm missing something.

More to the point, why are we dancing around the issue? If someone thinks that John is a design advocate or creationist, they should ask John directly. Here, I'll do it:

John, are you an intelligent design advocate and/or a creationist?

Thanks in advance.

I don't think you are mssing anything at all but I prefer to avoid personalised phrasing. What I, personally, advocate is what I describe in my own work and my own web site. In that work I do not intentionally include any element of a creator or of preexisting design - neither do I include unicorns or Tom Cruise.

It is true that I have read many of the writings of ID proponents and I find them to be much better criticisms of evolutionary theory than some, whom I shall forbear from naming, are willing to acknowledge.

I am reminded rather of the differences of opinion between Wallace and Darwin on the origin of the human mind. Both those gentlemen, you will recall, agreed that the human mind could not have arisen by natural selection. Wallace's solution was to suggest divine intervention to guide the descent of human's into a facsimile of God; Darwin's, on the other hand, was to suggest sexual selection as an improvement to natural selection. Behe seems to be in the mould of Wallace but I feel that Darwin's approach was the correct one. Namely that, when theory fails, the solution is to improve the theory, not to rant at the critics, as do some in this forum, or to deny the facts.

 

[articulett]

Personally, and after reading Dr. Hewitt's online works, I don't see anything which suggests that he is mixing science with theology. But, maybe I'm missing something.

More to the point, why are we dancing around the issue? If someone thinks that John is a design advocate or creationist, they should ask John directly. Here, I'll do it:

John, are you an intelligent design advocate and/or a creationist?

Thanks in advance.

It takes a while to spot--but look at the specific questions he's not answering. He really won't say whether he's a believer or not. This is only something I see creationists trying to sound like they are purely being scientific do. Do you know any atheists who will argue science and make implications about their beliefs without saying them. Why do you think he won't say whether he believes in an intelligent designer. Why do you think he thinks Evolution, Darwin, and Dawkins are flawed thinkers and he uses and misuses language and old studies and quotes out of context to imply conclusions--but he never says anything really that he can be pinned down on. He's said he thinks some creationists have better arguments than some evolutionist (or all evolutionists...apparenty...his website is about scientific lies. You've read his work and his web page--Do you understand his problem with evolution? Do you understand why he'd repeatedly say that genes are replicators--rather it's the cell? Do you understand his oscillation theory that scientists are trying to suppress? Can you tell me what he finds to be a better argument in Behe's case. Do you believe that there could ever be an amount of evidence presented to him where he'd say--"gee...now that I look at it--evolution is a pretty strong theory...have you heard the latest...?"

No creationist used the term "god" because people will rightly conclude that the reason they really have a problem with evolution is "god". But they avoid all terminology that sounds religious, but you get a feel for them by the people they dislike and disparage, the failure to grasp or even hear certain basic concepts or questions (note all the questions he's ignored.) Maybe he really believes that evolution is a bad explanation and that his theory is better--so can you make sense of his theory? Can you explain why he avoids all questions relating to religion (he also avoids questions in regard to carbon dating, speciation, and the like...and he seems very certain about old information...but completely uninterested in more information.

I think it's because he found an area that he thinks disproves evolution and he wants to make everyone aware of it...whether it's for his god or his own pet theory or a bit of both--I can't tell, and he won't tell...and he may be lying to himself about it anyhow. I would just like someone to show me how he's different than Behe or Kleinman. We can probably presume that both are creationists and that their beliefs influence what they do and don't understand in regards to science and their belief that scientists are out to suppress "the truth" for some unfathomable reason. Hewitt and Von Neumann have very similar "blind spots" and they have obsessions with a key argument which no one but themselves seem to understand as far as I can tell--and so I conclude they are creationists trying to pretend their objections are purely scientific and rational and so they couch their language in tsk tsk semantics.

Since John won't tell us of his beliefs and creationists are dishonest as Judge Jones noted in the Behe case and they never reveal what would convince them that evolution is a sound understanding--what else should I conclude. I used to presume honest intent upon everone at a skeptics forum--but I've had a slew of conversations with similar people and eventually, like Pavlov's dogs--I see certain ways of using language and avoiding being pinned down--and I just start to feel like I've been trying to engage in a dialogue with someone who will only accept or hear words that support a belief he's already reached on his own.

So, yes, I think he's a creationist. The way he answered and avoids questions only confirms it to me. I think Kleinman is a creationist as is Hammy as is Von Neummann. I think they are creationists of the same kind Behe is. I think no amount of evidence would ever be enough for them to conclude that Evolution is a fact. I think they avoid all new information because they are afraid it might threaten the belief they prefer to think of as fact. I'm sure if I'm wrong, the truth will out--and maybe even some scientist will take note of one of these guys' theories and tell all the other lying scientists that they've been wrong all along--that evolution can't be true...and then they will explain why in a way everyone can understand and then they willl proffer the better explanation that fits the ever amassing data that these guys show no interest in.

I think John Hewitt is Behe and Kleinmann and Von Neumann with a different approach--they all believe themselves to be the one who will overturn evolutionary paradigm and bring upon the new age of scientific understanding.
I would like to think he's a very sincere guy with a really keen interest in understanding how life evolved--but I believe he's a guy who think he already knows how life came to be, and it wasn't through Darwinian evolution.

And I'd love it if someone could boil down his theory to me because I'm either too stupid to understand it--too defrauded by those lying scientists he refers to without naming and/or because nobody understands it but him. I understand Kleinman--He believes he has a mathematial proof that disproves evolution, but Von Neumann and Hewitt have theories that no one seems to be able to sum up very well. And they both have problems with evolution that are really hard to nail down. And all 3 of them think that scientists are refusing to give their theories adequate consideration though I think they are purposely avoiding understanding some pretty simple concepts. And all the creationists are vague about their beliefs and play semantic games.

So am I missing something? Have I nailed it? Is John Hewitt an enigma? Is his theory any good? Can anyone pin down his big bugaboo with evolution?
Can anyone clue me into something that makes me see he's not a creationist now that I've jumped to this conclusion. Can anyone who is not religious decode his intent in saying there are no such thing as memes? It's weird phraseology...and I've heard very similar phraseology from creationists. Please clue me in to something other than the fact that he doesn't mention god--because no creationist does. That is why the term "intelligent design" was invented. God gets you kicked out of court. But an alternative explanation other than evolution coupled with a disclaimer on evolution is the newest way to insert god into fact based teaching and throw "god threatening discoveries" into doubt.

 

[articulett]

Does anybody know a non-creationist who wouldn't readily admit it so if asked "are you a creationist?". If someone were to ask me if I was a creationist, I'd say "no." I'm assuming other non-creationists would say the same--so if you are a non-creationist can you think of a reason for not answering that question. Because if I could hear a confirmed non-creationist give me a good reason, then I might think I was wrong about John Hewitt being a creationist (or intelligent design "scientist" or someone who is letting his god get in the way of his scientific understanding and communication thereof). Anyone?

 

[John Hewitt]

It takes a while to spot--but look at the specific questions he (John Hewitt) is not answering. He really won't say whether he's a believer or not.

I have told you my beliefs about evolutionary theory - they are given at some length on my web site, "Sex and Philosophy."

Why do you think he thinks Evolution, Darwin, and Dawkins are flawed thinkers and he uses and misuses language and old studies and quotes out of context to imply conclusions--but he never says anything really that he can be pinned down on.

I do not think Darwin was a flawed thinker but I do have serious reservations about Dawkins.

He's said he thinks some creationists have better arguments than some evolutionist <snip> Do you understand his problem with evolution? Do you understand why he'd repeatedly say that genes are (not) replicators -- rather it's the cell? <snip> Can you tell me what he finds to be a better argument in Behe's case. Do you believe that there could ever be an amount of evidence presented to him where he'd say--"gee...now that I look at it--evolution is a pretty strong theory...have you heard the latest...?"

Behe correctly pointed out that many aspects of life are not explained by evolutionary theory. Genes, for example, are not replicators and the mechanism of their origin is, as Behe puts it, one of Darwin's "black boxes."

Note all the questions he's ignored. <snip> Hewitt and Von Neumann have very similar "blind spots" and they have obsessions with a key argument which no one but themselves seem to understand

I have not ignored your questions, you have ignored mine. For example, why do you keep introducing supernatural entities and attaching them to my name? I do not know Von Neumann's argument, I hope he will refer to it.

Since John won't tell us of his beliefs <snip> yes, I think he's a creationist. The way he answered and avoids questions only confirms it to me. I think Kleinman is a creationist as is Hammy as is Von Neummann. I think they are creationists of the same kind Behe is. I think no amount of evidence would ever be enough for them to conclude that Evolution is a fact.

As I have repeatedly said, my beliefs are as described in my work which work is evolutionary.

So am I missing something? Have I nailed it? Is John Hewitt an enigma? Is his theory any good? Can anyone pin down his big bugaboo with evolution?
Can anyone clue me into something that makes me see he's not a creationist now that I've jumped to this conclusion. Can anyone who is not religious decode his intent in saying there are no such thing as memes? It's weird phraseology...and I've heard very similar phraseology from creationists. Please clue me in to something other than the fact that he doesn't mention god--because no creationist does. That is why the term "intelligent design" was invented. God gets you kicked out of court. But an alternative explanation other than evolution coupled with a disclaimer on evolution is the newest way to insert god into fact based teaching and throw "god threatening discoveries" into doubt.

I have no idea what facts or arguments might cause you to think rationally.
Please note that my web site, "A Habit of Lies: How Scientists Cheat," does describe scientific lying and does name the cell biologists involved. By contrast, "Sex and Philosophy" does not direct any such charge.