Annoying creationists

[The Atheist]

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

I see kjkent1 has the same trouble as me - can't see any god writing John's poems for him.

I accept what you say about dishonesty, but I've found John to be pretty open and honest about everything so far. He has a radical, new approach to evolution, and as far as can tell, it makes sense. Whether his points are similar to creationists is irrelevant. I often quote Jesus and I'm an atheist.

In the meantime, until someone is actually able to debunk John's work, and I don't see that being easy to achieve, I'm giving him more than the benefit of the doubt. He's been an intelligent, thoughful and sincere bloke from day 1. He was immediately attacked - in about his 2nd post - as an ID campaigner, all because someone had seen him dismissive of currently "accepted" evolutionary theories. Automatically, he becomes an ID guy. I don't believe your critique of his work anounts to much more than "I don't like it". You say he's difficult to understand, I thought what he's said is a model of clarity, and I'm no evolution expert. I can understand the data input basis. And since you mention abiogenesis, until that one's worked out, all bets are off.

Given that our knowledge of evolution is so limited, the smart plan would be to have a critical look at all evidence and work on the subject. Why do ID guys find it so easy to attack evolutionary theories? Because of their incompleteness and the subjectivity of the developers. John may have something of value, or he may be one of the greatest BS artists the world ever seen.

Time will tell.

 

[Cuddles]

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.

And here is a perfect example of why many of us think he is. When asked a very direct yes/no question he chooses to answer with three long paragraphs which skate around the subject without ever quite answering it. I have never met a non-creationist who would not simply say that they are not creationists, but there are many creationists who refuse to admit they are such, either dressing it up as ID or simply refusing to give a straight answer. Given that John falls squarely into the last camp it is the obviuos assuption to make that he is in fact creationist, IDist, or whatever he chooses to call it. The fact that there are many people here who have independently come to the same conclusion tends to support this.

 

[Cuddles]

He was immediately attacked - in about his 2nd post - as an ID campaigner, all because someone had seen him dismissive of currently "accepted" evolutionary theories. Automatically, he becomes an ID guy.

This thread was the first he posted in, and this thread was, I think, the second. He was not immediately attacked, either for being a creationist or for any other reason. His ideas were patiently discussed, along with their apparent flaws and lack of either evidence or support from anyone else in his field. On the other hand, he constantly attacked scientists, especially biologists, and even more especially evolutionary biologists, as frauds and idiots who either failed to understand his theory or actively tried to supress it. His views in expressed in the thread about his theory and the homeopathy thread did not serve to make any friends and gave rise to many people's suspicions about his true beliefs. It is not all that surprising that when he now posts in a thread about creationists, with views apparently sympathetic to at least some creationist ideas, that many people give voice to their suspicions.

 

[Yahzi]

Please note that my web site, "A Habit of Lies: How Scientists Cheat,"

Is "obfuscation" one of those ways of cheating?

You were asked a direct question. A simple one. And your answer has been paragraphs of obfuscation.

You keep saying evolution is inadequate to explain life. Perhaps you would like to answer a more direct question: Is materialism adequate to explain life? Can life on Earth be solely the product of material elements, forces, and physical laws?

If you aren't a metaphysical naturalist, you're a creationiod. That's how it goes. Either material nature created life, or something else did.

 

[Yahzi]

The fact that there are many people here who have independently come to the same conclusion tends to support this.

I figured out he was a creationiod when I realized I couldn't tell the difference between his posts and Klienman's.

 

[Yahzi]

John may have something of value, or he may be one of the greatest BS artists the world ever seen.

A false dichotomy.

Another option is that he's just another run-of-the-mill garden variety creationist who has enough scientific training to know he can't admit it.

Dr. Francis Collins is a much better bs-artist, because he managed to fool one a demonstrably smart, well-educated, productive scientist. Namely... Dr. Francis Collins.

 

[joobz]

I figured out he was a creationiod when I realized I couldn't tell the difference between his posts and Klienman's.

Truthfully, I never saw John as a creationist. But then I don't consider Hammegk a creationist either. They both are dismissive and negative toward evolution, true. But I don't think that means they are creationist either.

I also don't know if i'd consider John's argument for the notion of multiple orders of evolution as novel either. It seems that i've seen that idea expressed in multiple versions before. Especially when talking about prions, civilization, cellular ordering and Paul's ev model.

I've enjoyed most of their arguments and haven't seen them be intentially deceitful in anything they've posted. I can't say the same for Kleinman. He intentially ignores facts and conclusions that has been clearly presented to him. His obvious background knowledge in engineering (heat transfer was his work) leads me to believe he's intentionally being duplicitous.


I would never insult John Hewitt or Hammegk by drawing comparisons between them and Kleinman.

 

[The Atheist]

It is not all that surprising that when he now posts in a thread about creationists, with views apparently sympathetic to at least some creationist ideas, that many people give voice to their suspicions.

You have more patience than me!

I know he was participating in a thread very early on and someone was hammering him about being ID, which he denied then as he denies now. I can never bother looking that stuff up, but I recall it completely as that's what drove me to check out John's websites.

I don't read the homeopathic threads, so I'd missed him in there, but with the link (thanks), I see what you mean. Yes, he made comments which didn't endear himself to people, but he also stated that homeopathy was worthless. Again, I find myself agreeing with his comments, and I find myself completely unsurprised at the vitriol attacking his stance. I'm pissed off that I wasn't reading that thread, I'd have been in on his side like a shot. He could have had the moral high ground while I kicked everyone in the nuts.

Maybe it's because I'll usually side with the underdog, maybe it's because I like his style - answer question obliquely then ignore it - and maybe I quite like people who aren't scared to put the boot in to the majority. Maybe I just like people who have "sex" in their theory name. Hell, apart from being 10^8 x smarter than me, he's a lot like me. Of course I like him!

On the other hand, if he is lying about being ID, I'll join in at the front of the queue braying for his blood. I've seen plenty of cons in my time and this one just doesn't give off that aroma.

 

[John Hewitt]

Originally posted by 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.

And here

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.

is a perfect example of why many of us think he is. When asked a very direct yes/no question he chooses to answer with three long paragraphs which skate around the subject without ever quite answering it. I have never met a non-creationist who would not simply say that they are not creationists, but there are many creationists who refuse to admit they are such, either dressing it up as ID or simply refusing to give a straight answer. Given that John falls squarely into the last camp it is the obviuos assuption to make that he is in fact creationist, IDist, or whatever he chooses to call it. The fact that there are many people here who have independently come to the same conclusion tends to support this.

I have no idea how you conclude from the above quote that I am skating around the subject, that I am being evasive or that I am a creationist. What I said seems to me perfectly clear.
We are, or at least I am, talking about science - I am not talking about faith. I prefer to talk about thought not faith, about my ideas and about evidence, considered opinion and rational thought. I do not choose to talk in terms of what I believe.

That being so, I will leave the empty declarations of faith to you. I offer you no faith beyond saying that what I have written in my web site is the best interpretation of evolutionary theory I have yet been able to develop. It nonetheless remains a provisonal document subject to revisions that are consequent upon evidence or sensible arguments - if I ever hear one.

However, any such revisions will reflect my views not someone else's. I am under no duty to accept an opinion merely because the person who expresses it claims to be an evolutionist. Neither do I see any reason to reject every one of Behe's arguments, or those of any other IDer, merely because you dissent from the conclusions they have arrived at. I do, in fact, accept some of Behe's arguments, specifically his opinion that much of the machinery of the cell is a "black box" whose origin we do not currently understand and which cannot be understood in terms of conventional genetics.

In the meantime, my work is clearly evolutionary and contains no input of divine intervention. I therefore ask, yet again, why do you, Articulett, and others, keep associating me with supernatural ideas?

 

[John Hewitt]

Truthfully, I never saw John as a creationist. But then I don't consider Hammegk a creationist either. They both are dismissive and negative toward evolution, true. But I don't think that means they are creationist either.

I also don't know if i'd consider John's argument for the notion of multiple orders of evolution as novel either. It seems that i've seen that idea expressed in multiple versions before. Especially when talking about prions, civilization, cellular ordering and Paul's ev model.

Yes, I always find Hammegk's comments wry but more or less accurate. The multilevel selection is not original to me. It can be construed as having roots in Popper but the main current advocate of multilevel selection is Sloan Wilson. So far as I know, my interpretation of levels in terms of differing data inputs and loci of selection is original to me - but it will probably turn out that some other chap did it in 1970.

 

[articulett]

I figured out he was a creationiod when I realized I couldn't tell the difference between his posts and Klienman's.

I know--you just start getting a feel for these things. The smarter ones can fool you for a bit--

But, that aside, can anyone sum up Johns alternative theory to me, because I can't get it to make sense. Is there a way to test it or disprove it or prove it? Can you, Atheist?

Is Kleinman going to come back and say, "gee, you've disproved my mathematical linchpin that shows the problem with evolution, I was mistaken." Do creationists ever conclude they might be wrong. I just think that as long as everything isn't explained in pat and easy to understand answers, they will use the gaps to insert doubt--even though I think there are much huger gaps in far more accepted scientific theories such as atomic theory or radiometric dating. We don't know everything--but it increasingly looks like we are on the right path in all the above. And, as I suspected, it looks like we are on the right path in concluding that John Hewitt is a creationist. The nice thing about good theories is that the evidence just keeps accumulating; whereas in bad theories--the evidence leads nowhere and doesn't further understanding of anything.

 

[The Atheist]

A false dichotomy.

What have you been drinking?

Another option is that he's just another run-of-the-mill garden variety creationist who has enough scientific training to know he can't admit it.

Have you read his work? Not an option.

Dr. Francis Collins is a much better bs-artist, because he managed to fool one a demonstrably smart, well-educated, productive scientist. Namely... Dr. Francis Collins.

There's your false dichotomy.

 

[John Hewitt]

I don't read the homeopathic threads, so I'd missed him in there, but with the link (thanks), I see what you mean. Yes, he made comments which didn't endear himself to people, but he also stated that homeopathy was worthless. Again, I find myself agreeing with his comments, and I find myself completely unsurprised at the vitriol attacking his stance. I'm pissed off that I wasn't reading that thread, I'd have been in on his side like a shot. He could have had the moral high ground while I kicked everyone in the nuts.

Works for me

Maybe it's because I'll usually side with the underdog, maybe it's because I like his style - answer question obliquely then ignore it - and maybe I quite like people who aren't scared to put the boot in to the majority. Maybe I just like people who have "sex" in their theory name. Hell, apart from being 10^8 x smarter than me, he's a lot like me. Of course I like him!

On the other hand, if he is lying about being ID, I'll join in at the front of the queue braying for his blood. I've seen plenty of cons in my time and this one just doesn't give off that aroma.

The "sex and philosophy" domain name comes about because sexuality was the only application of bioepistemic evolution I had come up with when I chose it. Since epistemology is a branch of philosophy, the name comes about fairly naturally.

The deciding factor was my aged mother - I told her I was thinking of calling my web site "sex and philosophy" and she collapsed laughing. Then I thought, "OK, at least it will be remembered."

 

[articulett]

A false dichotomy.

Another option is that he's just another run-of-the-mill garden variety creationist who has enough scientific training to know he can't admit it.

Dr. Francis Collins is a much better bs-artist, because he managed to fool one a demonstrably smart, well-educated, productive scientist. Namely... Dr. Francis Collins.

Francis Collins has no problems with Darwinian evolution--he knows his genetics and it's just too obvious the more you study genomes. His beliefs about God are in a separate sphere. He believes that god is outside knowing and in this way he keeps it away from his science--which is a good thing--because his reasons for believing in god (especially the Christian version) are on much shakier ground than his acceptance of evolution and evidence therein.

Most scientists wish he'd keep his religious bs between himself and other believers, but those Christians feel the ever present need to spread the "good news". Others think he's a gem, because he shows that even Christians can accept evolution. Evolution doesn't lead to atheism. I think it calls the whole original sin thing into question which is why god supposedly killed his kid (who was him), but that doesn't seem to bother him, and as long as kids can at least have the opportunity to learn a bit about evolution, I don't care at all about his beliefs. I wonder if Collins would understand Hewitt's theory...?

 

[articulett]

What have you been drinking?
Have you read his work? Not an option.
There's your false dichotomy.

Actually, you posted the false dichotomy--(he's either X or Y). You've said that he says he's not a creationist--where does he say that? Why do you think he didn't answer the question directly? How would you have answered the question? If someone was a creationist, why do you think it might be advantageous to skirt the issue? And the statement about Francis Collins is not a dichotomy at all (he's either X or Y). And what's your take on John's theory? Where is it better than Ev by natural selection? What is his main problem with Ev by natural selection? Or is it more of a fine tuning of Ev. And what do you think of his claim that genes aren't replicators--it's the cells that are the replicators?

I don't think Hewitt is really saying anything and using the science he does know to sound like he's saying something. His whole theory would require a definition as to what life is and whether a cell can be alive without a nucleus, I think.

--He's using a lot of words to say nothing at all, and that is a common woo technique--obfuscate. It's what the best defense attorneys are good at. I could be wrong. Can anyone answer the above questions to me in a way that doesn't sound like a further obfuscation or semantic dodge?

 

[John Hewitt]

Francis Collins has no problems with Darwinian evolution--he knows his genetics and it's just too obvious the more you study genomes. His beliefs about God are in a separate sphere. He believes that god is outside knowing and in this way he keeps it away from his science--which is a good thing--because his reasons for believing in god (especially the Christian version) are on much shakier ground than his acceptance of evolution and evidence therein.

But you see, genetics is not Darwinian evolution - he knew nothing about genes. It was Fisher who connected genetics with natural selection in the 1930s. However, as soon as you have multilevel selection, that connection breaks apart and genetics becomes just one example of evolution. Moreover, from the point of view of data, genetics cannot be conceived as a prototype of evolution in general - genes have a very specialized data format.
Thus, multilevel selection recreates Fisher's problem, the need to give a general mechanistic explanation of evolution as a process.

I wonder if Collins would understand Hewitt's theory...?

You could think it through for yourself.

 

[articulett]

I would never insult John Hewitt or Hammegk by drawing comparisons between them and Kleinman.

I hate to burst your bubble, but Hammegk has affirmed his belief in "intelligent design". That being said, I agree there are different rankings in reguard to intelligence and deception amongst those I've pegged as creationists. And I do think John is the most polite by far, and very intelligent as well.

 

[The Atheist]

I know--you just start getting a feel for these things. The smarter ones can fool you for a bit--

So your sig says.

I am, however, beginning to wonder whether that concept has taken on proportions of "anyone who disagrees with me is incompetent.

But, that aside, can anyone sum up Johns alternative theory to me, because I can't get it to make sense. Is there a way to test it or disprove it or prove it? Can you, Atheist?

Well, John seems to sum it up pretty thoroughly - and briefly - here. Far better to read's his summation than mine as I'd only be copying.

Can it be proved/disproved? That's a very good point as I think John's come up with something quite scary for scientists - a theory which can probably never be prven, but is certainly open to disproof. Maybe that's another attraction, someone willing to stake a reputation and career on something which is 100% capable of being shot down in flames, yet cannot be adequately proven. That's backing oneself.

Is Kleinman ...

I have no interest in Kleinman.

I just think that as long as everything isn't explained in pat and easy to understand answers, they will use the gaps to insert doubt ...

Does that mean that all you have are the easy, off-pat answers? Are you applying those "critical thinking" skills to yourself and your position?

And, as I suspected, it looks like we are on the right path in concluding that John Hewitt is a creationist. The nice thing about good theories is that the evidence just keeps accumulating; whereas in bad theories--the evidence leads nowhere and doesn't further understanding of anything.

Nice assertion on which path you're sure John's on.

To date, all of the "evidence" you've found to back up that assertion amounts to "I don't like John's science" and "he uses arguments I've seen from IDists".

I see you're a Dawkins flag-waver. No doubt you caught him at TAM. I like the bit in the video of it where he talks to Randi about "paranormality" and "perinormality" [sp?]. There are still things we don't know enough about. God isn't one of them, evolution is.

Until you can flaw John's work - in serious terms - or until he places a foot in the "goddidit" camp, then I suggest you're walking a line where a step the wrong side of it may result in you being covered in "woo".

Hell, if you can refute John's theories, be my guest. I'm sure John himself would actually thank you as well. Everything I've seen from him to date smacks of honesty; give it a go.

 

[joobz]

I hate to burst your bubble, but Hammegk has affirmed his belief in "intelligent design". That being said, I agree there are different rankings in reguard to intelligence and deception amongst those I've pegged as creationists. And I do think John is the most polite by far, and very intelligent as well.

No problem. I have no bubble to burst here. I'm always open to hearing new evidence and adjusting my views/beliefs accordingly.

perhaps that makes me a Namby Pamby scientist.

 

[The Atheist]

Actually, you posted the false dichotomy--(he's either X or Y). You've said that he says he's not a creationist--where does he say that?

Have a look at his posts, woman!

Why do you think he didn't answer the question directly?

Yeah, I admire that. People ask me a stupid question and I tell 'em to #### off. People ask John a stupid question and he gives you an oblique answer because he's already stated his position, several times.

How would you have answered the question?

See the bit above about #### off.

If someone was a creationist, why do you think it might be advantageous to skirt the issue?

Well, if I'd seen John doing that, I'd probably try to answer. I think you're doing exactly what the anti-homeopathy brigade did. Someone didn't agree with their agenda, even though he was technically "on their side", so gets rubbished for putting up a sound, valid and quite irrefutable argument.Irrefutable, becaue it was based upon reality, rather than some neo-fascist "Skeptic World" where Truth^TM is the only answer, EVER!

Fortunately, we still live in the former.

And what's your take on John's theory?

Sharp. Very sharp. Controversial, clever, well-thought out, finely scripted into layman English. Highly convincing.

Where is it better than Ev by natural selection?

Abiogenesis.

What is his main problem with Ev by natural selection?

You should direct that to John.

Or is it more of a fine tuning of Ev. And what do you think of his claim that genes aren't replicators--it's the cells that are the replicators?

Replication isn't the point. The point is which replication works and which doesn't. Without a means of harnessing the replication, nothing happens. John has posited a potential answer to this question. It might be wrong, but it also might be right.

I'm not flag-waving for John; A - he doesn't need it & B - I have no particular loyalty to him, but I like to see ideas explored when they seem to offer merit. More so when it challenges established thought - which then responds in typical, derisory fashion. What does that sort of behaviour suggest to you?

I don't think Hewitt is really saying anything and using the science he does know to sound like he's saying something. His whole theory would require a definition as to what life is and whether a cell can be alive without a nucleus, I think.

--He's using a lot of words to say nothing at all, and that is a common woo technique--obfuscate. It's what the best defense attorneys are good at. I could be wrong. Can anyone answer the above questions to me in a way that doesn't sound like a further obfuscation or semantic dodge?

Long on empty rhetoric and short on answers.