Annoying creationists

[John Hewitt]

You didn't answer my question.

Do you find materialism (metaphysical naturalism) adequate to explain the totality of human existance and experience?

It's a yes or no answer. If you say yes, you're a scientist. If you say no, you're a woo. And since you're wooing on about evolution, that makes you a creationist woo.

Just come out and say it - "It's all materialism, all the way down!"

Dunno! Do you think it has been so far?

 

[Apathia]

You didn't answer my question.

Do you find materialism (metaphysical naturalism) adequate to explain the totality of human existance and experience?

It's a yes or no answer. If you say yes, you're a scientist. If you say no, you're a woo. And since you're wooing on about evolution, that makes you a creationist woo.

Just come out and say it - "It's all materialism, all the way down!"

Help me!
Some questions:

1. Is Science the metaphysical position of Materialism & Reductionism?
2. Is a "woo" someone who doesn't hold that philosophical position?
3. Is any woo a creationist?
4. Is a creationist someone who believes in evolution but has a somewhat altermate theory on the process?

I'm a naturalist myself. I don't subscribe to any supernatural agencies. But since I'm open to the possibility that Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection may need some tweaking and perhaps some additional natural process could be involved, does this make me a woo and a creationist?
Philosophically speaking, Materialism has a number of different flavors. If mine doesn't accord with yours, would that make me a creationist?

 

[cyborg]

I think the invocation of any 'spooky' forces such as 'will design intent' (sorry Hammy) pretty much seals the deal. There's no good reason to assume these concepts can operate at the level of DNA.

 

[Apathia]

I think the invocation of any 'spooky' forces such as 'will design intent' (sorry Hammy) pretty much seals the deal. There's no good reason to assume these concepts can operate at the level of DNA.

Well, I have no spooky forces. So I hope I'm clear of the witch hunt.
But I will examine my list of ingredients for anything that not "All Natural."

 

[John Hewitt]

Help me!
Some questions:

1. Is Science the metaphysical position of Materialism & Reductionism?
2. Is a "woo" someone who doesn't hold that philosophical position?
3. Is any woo a creationist?
4. Is a creationist someone who believes in evolution but has a somewhat altermate theory on the process?

I'm a naturalist myself. I don't subscribe to any supernatural agencies. But since I'm open to the possibility that Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection may need some tweaking and perhaps some additional natural process could be involved, does this make me a woo and a creationist?
Philosophically speaking, Materialism has a number of different flavors. If mine doesn't accord with yours, would that make me a creationist?

I agree with the content and tone of your comments but I feel you are taking Yahzi's question more seriously than it deserves.

His program could have been rephrased thus :-

Begin
Question "Do you agree with me?"
Get answer
If Answer = yes, print "you are a fine scientist"
If Answer = no, print "you are a creationist - harbinger of beelzebub, henchman of the dark one who rides the twilight hours and impales maidens in their beds."
End

 

[Apathia]

Yes, my apologies to Yahzi for my reacting to the frame of his argument. Sometimes I forget my promise to myself that I would participate on this forum as long as I could refrain myself from escalating stuff.

 

[kjkent1]

I agree with the content and tone of your comments but I feel you are taking Yahzi's question more seriously than it deserves.

His program could have been rephrased thus :-

Begin
Question "Do you agree with me?"
Get answer
If Answer = yes, print "you are a fine scientist"
If Answer = no, print "you are a creationist - harbinger of beelzebub, henchman of the dark one who rides the twilight hours and impales maidens in their beds."
End

Um...this "impales maidens in their beds" thing is worthy of some consideration. I'm thinkin' that I'd like to be a henchman of the dark one -- where do I sign up?

 

[articulett]

I'll take your points on board, but to me, when a bloke answers a straight question with a straight answer, I'll believe him until he's been shown to be lying.

Can you please cut and paste his straight answer to the straight question.

 

[articulett]

This is one of the funniest things I've read in a long time. Which part of sexual selection isn't natural? In what way is selecting for various traits in a partner not selecting for the genes that produce these traits?

Yep--he uses lots of words to say nothing at all.

And those who think he's not a creationist--just ask yourself this.

Why are his answers oblique. Has he answered any question simply--or are the one's designed to ferret out his biases worded oddly and not the way "normal people" would say it. He's trying to sound scientific, but it is woo. If you're impressed--congratulations--you are a recipient of the wedge strategy. But can you tell what his theory is or what his actual problems with evolution are? He's saying that human traits (free will, ethics, cheating, group selection, etc.--could not have come about only via genes--)he's proposing a secondary mechanism--can anyone determine what that mechanism is? I am impressed by how many people he has fooled. But the term free will (without any definition) is just not used in science--it's a religious term...and he does that creationist thing, where he confuses random mutation with natural selection which is the opposite of random. It is what allows the ratcheting over eons.

Plus he support Behe who is a man whose theory of irreducible complexity has been disproven repeatedly--and there are even computer programs that show how very easily his "irreducibly complex" features can evolve. Do you think John is aware of this--because he sure doesn't seem to find it significant.

I can't believe that people think he's talking "straight". I'd like one example where he answered the question in a way that made you think he wasn't obfuscating...he was just clear--a simple question with a simple answer. If scientists are rejecting his theory, it's because he's not saying anything. Or if he is--no one has been able to sum it up --it's really fuzzy for a theory as is objection to Dawkins, genes as replicators, memes, Darwin, and evolution. He is finds a lot of things "faulty", and he has accused scientists of being liars and cheaters. But I want to know if anyone other than him knows why? Or is it just one of his obfuscations.

Remember, even smart people like skeptics can be fooled--I just got back from TAM where we could see it again and again as we, ourselves, were fooled. If you think he's not a creationist, just tell us (or me or yourself) what his theory is...in a simple way--similar to the way "random events coupled with natural selection" sum up evolution.

 

[articulett]

Sexual selection cannot possibly select for genotype, it can only select for observable phenotype. The observation requires data derived from sense organs.

Wrong and blatantly so. Moreover, it's obfuscating: The hormones we make and respond to in our bodies is genetically encoded--our bodies and brains are built from genes--the insides and the observable outsides. Our brain is affected by multiple chemicals--proteins--encoded for in genes. Without genes--there is no body...no brain...no mental traits and no physical phenotype that can be observed. If you don't think nature can select for mental traits then your understanding of science such as the way we selected dogs from wolves is extremely inadequate--and blindingly so. Long before there were observable data--genes were coding for things going on inside the body and brain--and those things are NOT phenotypic. Shame on you for trying to pass this crap off

And we know quite well, that sexual selection produces phenotypic byproducts. But these phenotypic byproducts evolved because they happened to be associated with the healthier (or more reproductively fit) of each species. It is theorized that men developed language because the better communicators got laid more. What goes on in a brain is not "phenotypic"--the resulting behavior change may be.

 

[articulett]

In this thread? In which he has repeatedly demonstrated his profound lack of relevant knowledge?

Cynical, yes. Wry, not so much. Accurate, not at all.

Agreed. I'd like to see one "cut and paste" of hammy being accurate. And just one where John is asked a simple question and answers simply. Just one. Because I think these guys are dishonest creationists pretending that they are smarter than all those "Darwinists" who practice "scientism" and their "evolutarian" theories.

Or show me one non creationist who answers the question "are you a creationist" obliquely. My standards for evidence are really low. Just one cut and paste for any of the above.

 

[articulett]

Seems reasonable to me.

Another question: do you believe that certain higher level functions exhibited by humans, such as ethics, morals, altruism, etc., could not possibly have evolved?

Can you sum up what you asked and what he said? He answered the question oddly. Why? And you think he said that he doesn't let his beliefs factor in his science--but that is not what he said. He is bs-ing you. Why? Why are is answers so unclear? You seem fine with answers that aren't answers at all.

 

[articulett]

The evolutionary question is not whether such things evolved it is how they evolved. Bioepistemic evolution argues that the best way of understanding the origin of such traits is to to see humans as actors (subsystems, if you will) within the evolving system of culture, rather than simply as evolving systems in their own right. Actors within a system cooperate rather than compete.

You also believe that humans have something that couldn't evolve via genes, correct? (just say yes or no). Your theory calls this thing "free will" correct?
And this free will is something animals don't have, correct? (simple questions, John). So define free will: (a nice simple scientific explanation, please). And you think your theory is better because it explains social competition; whereas "memes aren't useful for explaining social systems--is this correct?

Here is a simple yes or no question: Do you believe that social living, altruistic type behavior (such as that observed in the hippo), reciprocity, in group amity/ outgroup enmity, etc. can evolve from traits selected on the genetic level-- whether it's a behive or a marauding band of baboons or some other animal?

Are you saying that genes can account for what we observe in animals but not in people? (yes or no) Or is your theory that there must be something other than genes or natural selection can account for what we observe?

Now folks--watch how he ducks and weaves or avoids the question completely. Or he's say some other tangential thing so distract. You'll think he said something--but it will be less valuable than a simple yes or no (which is all I'm asking for. Pay attention to his answers...or his failure to address them. Ask yourself why. I need to teach my skeptic friends to do this--because I have a slew of students who are depending on me to do this for them. Tell me the evidence you need to prove it to yourself, and I will find it. John Hewitt is a creationist. If the evidence I have presented doesn't convince you--ask yourself--what will? And tell me. And tell me what the hell is theory is if you think he's making sense. And what his objection to evolution is.

Don't let him fool you just because he's smart and he's nice. He's still deceiving you...and, probably, himself as well. His beliefs keep him from understanding evolution and finding fault with strawmen and "lying scientists".

Ask yourself--if I was being paid a lot of money by the discovery institute to make people doubt evolution and to get them to think there was a viable alternative theory involving an "intelligent designer"--what would be the way to do so? I suggest to you it's to have men like John sow seeds of doubt. I wish you all could have been at TAM--so you could see again and again how you can see how obfuscations and omissions are used to muck up understanding rather than clarify. It's all the creationists have going for them--this tactic is one that has evolved directly from creationists learning from mistakes on the battlefield...it's creationist crap wrapped all pretty in wrapping paper made from the periodic table so that it looks like science.

I will be glad to back up any of my claims with evidence--just be specific about what you ask for. And if anyone has problems with me or my technique or if they think I'm "like a homeopath" or (insert epithet)--it would be illuminating for all of us if they could cut and paste the direct quotes I make to go with your allegations. Because, Atheist, you have made multiple claims that you have not provided support for. It makes me think you have biases turning what I say into messages I did not intend--messages only "heard" by you. How would you expect someone to react if they had much experience with a certain kind of dishonesty, but people demonized them every time they tried to keep others from being duped?

 

[articulett]

Right, that's not the problem. The problem is the implicit generalisations about sex BEYOND humans. We're not the only sexual organism you know.

If you only meant to talk about human sexuality then you should have clarified that.

I'm so glad you dropped by this thread! You'll see, he's like Von Neumann--only he has a whole different obfuscation... He's smart--but says nothing-- You may be the only person on this forum that can see the maddening similarities...If you know enough science, math, etc.--you can jerk people around for a long time without saying anything at all--because creationists really have no actual evidence in their favor. They take pot shots at evolution and pretend to have a theory but no evidence for it--ever. But they always drag you along pretending it's forthcoming and presume it's a Darwinist conspiracy when you point out they are just plain wrong. We can't whip up reality according to what they've come to believe about humanity's "intelligent designer"...

 

[articulett]

Damn, your comments sound like .... "Extremely cruel or hateful content directed toward another user".

Talk is cheap, and if my relevant knowledge can be shown to be contrary to facts, I will adjust my position to include those facts -- unlike most here.

Please cite one or more examples to demonstrate your unsustainable slur.

I don't think anyone needs to cite any example for "slurring" you--almost all your posts are either devoid of content or ad homs--you always start it--it's all you do for the most part. I don't think anyone is going to be getting in any trouble for returning the volley. As you may have observed--you do not have a lot of people who see things in the epistomologictheontologicyally way you do. People don't even know what you think...or if you think...and some wonder if you can pass the Turing test-

However, if you are a machine trying to evolve turing passing traits via forum posting and feedback--your natural selection feedback mechanism is broken, because no evolution in higher function or logic has occurred. It's hard for the first replicators to get a toehold--but once systems get started--information tends to multiply exponentially. You barely have a toehold-

 

[articulett]

Anyone tried to do that yet?

You have got to be kidding! Do you know what PCR is?

And how would John prove his theory? Having a cell copy itself with it's DNA extracted? Oh that's right...his theory hasn't been actually stated...no one but you seems to know what it is--and you aren't a very good translator--moreover, your ignorance doesn't bode well for John. So, you think it's perfectly fine to mention "free will" in scientific papers (without even a definition mind you)--and that he's not letting god get in the way of his thinking. Free will is the basis of religious teaching (life is a test, original sin, god kills kid who is really him to atone for sin, yada, yada, yada). So what is this free will thing you and he seem so sure of. Do gay people choose to be homosexuals? Do heterosexuals choose who and what they are attracted to? Certainly will is highly tied into brain function, hormones, preferences, genetic leanings, opportunities, temptations, experience, culture, learning, impulse, etc. etc. How can you see the phrase "free will" on a supposedly scientific paper and not understand the obvious? Have you ever seen the term applied like that on any scientific paper? (and believe me, you can bet John will find a different word to obfuscate the same idea very soon.) He assumes humans have something that can't be explained by genetics--he assumes that it's obvious that this is so--this special thing is "free will"--he also mentions ethics and group cooperation and the like--why? He thinks all the science in this area is semantic--because he hasn't read it. We have some stellar examples of how genes can lead to cooperation, seemingly altruistic behavior, and group selection. It's the basis of game theory...heard of it? He can't see it just like he can't "compute" memes because it interferes with his beliefs.

 

[articulett]

Well, I have no spooky forces. So I hope I'm clear of the witch hunt.
But I will examine my list of ingredients for anything that not "All Natural."

Woos usually have a belief they are trying to protect they do this by having a complete lack of understanding or curiosity--no matter how carefully something is explained or how much evidence there is. Then they obfuscate and change terms and avoid questions and attack those who attack their ideas....because they are personally invested in those ideas. They preach here, I think, to solidify their faith--but they get cantankerous should anyone suggest they might be deceiving themselves or when asked for evidence.

But creationist woo is particularly deceptive--they pretend to be all sciency--they pretend to have valid arguments about evolution...but they are hard to pin down--and when you pin them down and address their arguments (see Behe and the Dover trial)--no amount of evidence ever is good enough. They pretend to want the facts--but they will only accept facts that fit with their view. Unlike science, they don't actually offer testable theories--testing involves measurement...how would one measure something like free will? They have no facts--but they pretend the gaps in evolution or the problems they see (but aren't there) somehow discredit the theory which is as accepted in biology as everything about atomic theory (atoms, periodic chart, etc.) is in Chemistry. We don't know everything--but we know enough to know that evolution is a fact. John avoids everything having to do with religious claims--even radiometric dating and speciation--he is very non specific about why he as such enmity towards certain people or ideas--but they just so happen to be the very same people creationists seem to hate without ever even reading. They find problems with evolution that no biologist or other scientist seems to see-- but they have no problems with their own hugely flaw and much less supported alternative theory.

It's really sick. They've been slapped for being deceptive and religious--so they are trying to sound sciency--because a lot of people don't have a good understanding of what science is. People read their crap and presume that there is an actual question as to whether evolution explains life as we know it on this earth. There isn't. It just so happens that evolution makes god a little bit irrelevant. And god is a powerful meme. It's hard not to believe the invisible overlord is watching over you if you've seeped yourself in it for too long. So their new strategy is this wedge technique. It involves making Americans stupider than the rest of the developed world by making them think scientists are at odds with evolution--and that scientists are unscrupulous cheaters and liars. And then, they use that doubt to insert some unprovable assumption and that assumption just so happens to involve an intelligent designer that humans are too stupid to understand--in fact, it just so happens, that it would be "arrogant" to question this invisible, untestable, immeasurable, unimaginably complex designer. Besides, one would have to ask such an entity why he could have such powers and make us wait eons to find out the very basics of science such as germ theory. Any intelligent designer worth his salt should be distinguishable from voices in one's head. This one isn't. So obfuscation with truthiness and sciency terminology is the next best thing. Even loveable, smart, trustworthy seeming people can be lying to themselves and lying to others.

If you think free will is a simplistic term that one shouldn't or wouldn't use in science (especially without a definition), then you probably are fairly woo free. But we can all be fooled by woos in areas where we lack expertise. Creationists are particularly vile woo to me--because people trust them...they think these people speak for god...they lie about wanting scientific understanding. They want to muddy science and insert their vapid claims. Kleinman was more obvious...as was Behe. Buffoonishly so. The smarter ones can string you along a lot longer. I've just fallen for this so much that it feels like yet another spoon bender that everyone else assures Randi is "for real". Same crap different wrapping.

Creationist waste the time of intelligent well-intentioned people who actually think they are trying to understand something--they spend detailed time explaining, but creationists can't "hear" and will never change and will only use their discussion with scientists to pretend to themselves or others that scientists take them seriously. I won't be wasting my time on John Hewitt, and I want to warn others of what he is. After that--everyone can play the game with him as long as they want.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Agreed. I'd like to see one "cut and paste" of hammy being accurate.

Then want must be your master.

This is the same guy who said that the evolution of land animals to whales was "microevolution".



John Hewitt is kind of interesting, and if kleinman has finished making a fool of himself, I might post more regularly on this thread.

 

[The Atheist]

You have got to be kidding! Do you know what PCR is?

Tiny little fragments are not replicating molecules.

And how would John prove his theory? Having a cell copy itself with it's DNA extracted? Oh that's right...his theory hasn't been actually stated...no one but you seems to know what it is--and you aren't a very good translator--moreover, your ignorance doesn't bode well for John.

This is funny!

Whatever I do has no bearing on John whatsoever. Your thinking it might do is just showing up your pre-decided prejudice. That is a truly ridiculous thing to say. I get the impression from your posts of a crusader against ignorance, slaying creationists right and left, then wiping your bloody sword on your kilt.

Your fervour is religious.

So, you think it's perfectly fine to mention "free will" in scientific papers (without even a definition mind you)--and that he's not letting god get in the way of his thinking. Free will is the basis of religious teaching (life is a test, original sin, god kills kid who is really him to atone for sin, yada, yada, yada). So what is this free will thing you and he seem so sure of.

See, again you're giving yourself away.

Why am I so sure of it? All I've done so far is state that I think you (and others) are obnoxiously demanding that he answer questions which he's already answered. I also allowed that I found his work interesting. Why are you all of a sudden deciding that I'm so sure about it? Are you psychic?

Do gay people choose to be homosexuals?

Nature or nurture, you tell me. Or have you just discovered he gay gene?

Do heterosexuals choose who and what they are attracted to?

As far as I can tell, they do indeed. I think homosexuals do, too. They might not choose the gender, but they definitely choose their partners. You keep calling John as a creationist. Your zeal as a determinist is as notable.

Interesting sideline - why haven't you found the gay gene yet?

We have some stellar examples of how genes can lead to cooperation, seemingly altruistic behavior, and group selection. It's the basis of game theory...heard of it? He can't see it just like he can't "compute" memes because it interferes with his beliefs.

And just like the hippo and the gazelle, you're cherry-picking to suit your agenda.

You may well be right, but at the moment, your righteousness level is obscuring your own message.

And memes as an example? Dorkinsian rubbish. He should be out selling Amway on the back of it. An invention to back a philosophy; ideas grow and evolve. Genius.

 

[John Hewitt]

Wrong and blatantly so. Moreover, it's obfuscating: The hormones we make and respond to in our bodies is genetically encoded--our bodies and brains are built from genes--the insides and the observable outsides. Our brain is affected by multiple chemicals--proteins--encoded for in genes. Without genes--there is no body...no brain...no mental traits and no physical phenotype that can be observed. If you don't think nature can select for mental traits then your understanding of science such as the way we selected dogs from wolves is extremely inadequate--and blindingly so. Long before there were observable data--genes were coding for things going on inside the body and brain--and those things are NOT phenotypic. Shame on you for trying to pass this crap off

And we know quite well, that sexual selection produces phenotypic byproducts. But these phenotypic byproducts evolved because they happened to be associated with the healthier (or more reproductively fit) of each species. It is theorized that men developed language because the better communicators got laid more. What goes on in a brain is not "phenotypic"--the resulting behavior change may be.

Articulett, thank you for posting in response to me but I do find it difficult to reply to you. You have ten postings here and, to some extent or other, I would disagree with most of them, so I shall just concentrate on sexual selection.

The description I give of sexual selection is, in essence that given by Darwin in the Descent of Man, which included "selection by means of sex" (or some such) in the subtitle. If you are unsure of the difference between natural selection and sexual selection, you might consider looking at "The Origin of Species" and "The Descent of Man" and comparing the selective mechanisms that Darwin was proposing. Sexual selection was further mentioned by Fisher and has been extensively analysed by many people since.

In sexual selection, the selection of a sexual partner cannot possibly be made on the basis of genotype because genotype is not an observable, except to scientists. Only aspects of phenotype are observable and, for many species, that phenotype being observed may seem quite arbitrary, such as the length of the peacock's tail. Nonetheless, peahen's do use tail length as one of their decision criteria to determine mating.

Sexual selection seems to offer a faster mechanism of evolutionary change than does natural selection but it is also thought capable of causing runaway evolutionary processes. Hence one has the sight of peacock's carrying around a tail that certainly does not enhance that individual's immediate life chance – it is the mere chance of female sexual preference that has led to the male's tail. Hence, it seems likely that sexual selection can lead to rapid extinction as well as to rapid evolutionary adaptation.

Now, as you know, I am interested in describing evolution in terms of data, rather than in terms of genes. You are free to think that a silly thing to do, but I am free to disagree with you. I think it is a sensible thing to do and the point I am making about sexual selection is that this form of selection involves data that originate in sensory data not just in DNA. Therefore, that this sensory data must be subject to data processes that will gather, interpret and make selections based on sensory data. Thus sexual selection on a peacock does not drive merely the length of the peacock's tail, it also drives the peahen's ability to gather this sensory data, to interpret that data into information about tail lengths and the identity of prospective suitors, to store that information so as to enable comparison and to make a selection between the observed individual suitors. In other words, sexual selection, as a mechanism, will drive the development of sense organs and brains. This is why Darwin thought sexual selection to be relevant to the evolution of the brain. I think he was right, though his mechanism applies to a great many species, not just to humans. With humans, I think one has to add other factors, particularly social factors.

Nonetheless, sexual selection seems an important factor in human evolution – it is not woo, and it does involve data that is not on DNA.