It's the code words... you'll see. Behe will say he isn't a creationist either.
His actions speak louder than his own words, though. There is plenty of evidence demonstrating he is a Creationist, if he admits it or not. Intelligent Design, after all, implies the basic gist of creationism.
It's the insistence than evolution really is random... that Dawkins is wrong and unclear when he says that natural selection is not random and that whatever it is they are saying is somehow more clear. It's mostly the inability to convey natural selection ... the way they confuse more than clarify... ask questions they don't want the answer to... dis Dawkins at every turn. I could give you links if you want--check out the threads he's started with smarmy loaded questions of the creationist type. I'm just trying to keep you from getting into digression land regarding whether evolution is random-- but pay no heed to me.
I think this is more of a semantics battle, than a creation vs. evolution battle. Just because we are arguing what is "random" or not, does not necessarily mean one of the parties must be a creationist!
It seems Mijo thinks evolution is valid, he just disagrees on what constitutes randomness in it.
Some people explain things and converse so that both of you seem to be learning more and some people seem to use a lot of words but never quite say anything. Behe, for example.
Just because someone uses a lot of words, without "saying anything", does not automatically mean the person is a Creationist. I think you are jumping the gun.
A creationist is one who thinks life could not have emerged naturally, but had to be created by some pre-existing outside entity of some sort. Behe is searching for one, true. But, near as I can tell, Mijo is not, (based on his posts here, anyway).
(And calling someone a creationist isn't nearly as bad as calling them a liar. I promise you I've never called anyone a creationist who hasn't called me something worse first.)
You should call people what they are. If you find evidence that someone knowingly told a mistruth, you can call them a liar. Not all liars are creationists. Not all creationists are really liars: some are delusional.
What do you make of people who insist on using randomness to describe evolution... and what do you think of Dawkins commentary on this bizarre insistence?
It depends on what you mean by Random. Dawkins, himself, used the word, when he says evolution is "Non-random adaptation from random mutations". But, he then goes on to explain those mutations are only "random" as to whether or not they will benefit the life form.
For this reason, I prefer to use "indifferent", instead of "random". But, whatever.
To me, another clue is when they use Behe terminology such as continually referring to the cell as the replicator rather than the DNA... they confuse the ability for a beneficial mutation to get itself copied with an organisms ability to copy it's genetic information. There is just this funny way they have of imply certain things without actually saying anything... like the way Behe' infers there is something wrong with evolution without offering an iota of anything for any alternative theory.
Just because someone erroneously thinks the cell is the ultimate replicator in contemporary life forms, instead of the gene; does
not automatically make one a Creationist.
Until I read
The Selfish Gene, and other material about genetics, I thought the cell was the ultimte replicator, as well. And, I was never a Creationist.
Evolution shall be random.
Well, if Paul declares it so, then that means it
must be true!!
A better question is do you honestly believe that IDers hold that "god poked the genome".
IDers hold that
something must have been poked at. They just cannot seem to figure out what it could possibly be. (All their examples keep getting explained by evolutionary biologists, all the time. Kinda annoying, don't you think?)
(Aside to others: Note Paul's use of "god" and "biologists". Not so subtly suggesting that people who believe in ID hold a designer to be god, and also cannot be biologists.)
Until you can identify what the nature of the Intelligent Designer is, we might as well use the shorthand "god" in the meantime. I am sure the Designer would be honored, no matter what its true nature actually is.
