Daggah

LWF, you should read Dawkin's chapter on punk-eek in "The Blind Watchmaker," where he points out how it is not inconsistent with gradualistic evolution at all.

Actually, several people in this thread have already admitted that they do. That science makes mistakes is one of science's strong points, in fact.

You're completely right. They aren't all liars. It's just the leaders of the movement. The majority of creationists aren't dishonest, just ignorant.

RufusAtticus

Who here is denying that evolutionists are making mistakes? We're just pointing out the puncuated equilibrium and embryonic recapitulation are not mistakes, dispite what you have been claiming.

There is no scientific controversy over evolution. There is a political and religious controversy over it. Science gets defended against the ignorant onslaught of pseudoscience. Most people, especially politicians, are not equiped to tell the difference. That is why we experts must assert ourselves in curriculum hearings when ignorant parents what their superstitions taught as science.

Daggah

Sure chief. You go ahead and introduce us to a few and we'll consider it.

You see, I don't think any scientist can BE a creationist and still be honest. If they were ignorant of science, it would be understandable how they could be creationists, but if they aren't, then the only way they can be creationists is to do what Kurt Wise did. And that's to lie to themselves.

Monkey

LWF has the ball, shoots, but misses the point.

Yes, you should have been clearer, but so far clarity isn't your strong point.

There are no creation scientists, it's an oxymoron.

Of course there are creationists with valid qualifications, for example, Duane Gish. The point is, if they work in a field that deals with Biology and such, they're doing work that has nothing to do with refuting Evolution. You can be a Biologist and a Creationist and still study the effects of predation on woodland marsupials for example but that has nothing to do with Creationism and everything to do with conservation/evolutionary ecology.

I am not at all upset with Creationists because in actuality they hold no ground, especially here in Australia and have been consistently debunked many times, by many different scientists and philosophers of science, from many different fields. I am confident, that people who hold the positions on deceiding what is and what isn't science, will choose a methodologically naturalistic interpretaion of evolution and science every time.

So do I. He could believe that the universe and everything in it were created yesterday but he would still be working from a geological framework that strongly supports an evolutionary paradigm. He isn't a creation scientist, but a scientist investigating lithostratigraphic units from the Lower Triassic and Upper Jurassic, who happens to be a creationist. He must be doing some cognitive acrobatics to get around that!

I believe you mean theistic evolutionists. If not, be more descriptive.

As Mark Vuletic says:
It's reasonable to assume, unless you state otherwise, that we are talking about Young Earth Creationists(YECs). Again, clarity isn't your strong point but if you are going to use the word creationists synonimously with YEC's, Old Earth Creationists, Day Age Creationists, Geocentrists, Gap Creationists, Intelligent Design Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists, of course there is going to be a conflict of definitions. Let's try some specificity.

I have no need of being "up to speed on current scientific creationist theories", because I'm a biological scientist and creationism, even under your loose definition, has nothing to do with science.

Evolutionists are divided on many subjects, evolutionists make mistakes and evolution is the best and only scientific theory of biodiversity that we currently have.

lpetrich

Long-Winded Fool:
"Margulis and Sagan (1986) note that the appearance of the nucleus in the evolution of a cell "looks as drastic as if the Wright Brothers' Kitty Hawk flying machine had been followed a week later by the Concorde jet" (p. 115).

Pure quote-mining. And that is a simplistic overstatement; prokaryotic cells are not quite as simple as they might at first seem. For example, last year, some of them were discovered to have a cytoskeleton -- though one embedded in their cell walls, where it had escaped previous searches.

(quote-mining on punctuated equilbrium snipped...)

Uh oh. Evolutionists are divided. Instead of being ashamed and dogmatically deny it, why don't we just accept the fact that scientists make mistakes and realize that it's not the end of evolution?

And your point is?

You ravenously deny that evolutionists make mistakes!

Where???

Are you that afraid of creationism? Truth makes itself known, it doesn't need defenders. Lies are what need defense.

Tell that to creationists; simply consider their obsession with evolution. If they believe that, then they would not need to defend creationism and attack evolution..

Try reading about the opposition from the opposition's point of view sometime. They aren't all liars.

After you, LWF.

You don't like it when a creationist picks Ernst Haeckel and uses him to refute all of evolution. So pick a particularly left-field creationist belief and refute it alone. Refuting the young earth theory doesn't automatically refute creationism.

Except that young-earthism is a mainstream belief among creationists.

"Creationists believe that humans coexisted with dinosaurs. This is proven to be untrue, therefore creationism is false."

Except that many creationists believe exactly that.

Albion

There are a lot of flavours of creationists, and you're entirely mistaken to say that we don't know the difference between YECs and IDists (for example). They do have one major thing in common, however - they believe that natural processes are insufficient to explain the origin and the workings of the universe and that some deity has performed acts of special creation that, while outside the laws of nature, are somehow accessible by the scientific method. They also believe that if the current scientific method can't investigate these acts, it needs to be changed until it does. They equate the methodological naturalism of the scientific method with the philosophical naturalism of atheism and humanism. They express these opinions in more or less sophisticated ways, but that's what they all believe. And since a large part of their platform is the reworking of science so that it becomes theistic, scientists are opposing them. THe 6000-year-old earth and the reality of the biblical Adam and Eve are details. The big deal here is the attack on the scientific method itself.

long winded fool

Albion seems to have hit the nail on the head. If I were arguing for the logic of creationism, I would have to concede.

As far as evolution goes, I do concede all your points. You are all most likely far more educated than I. Most of you have admitted that evolutionists make mistakes and that's all I was trying to point out. Some still are trying desperately to play them down. Not very scientific, but I'll play along. So I'll assume I haven't pointed out any evolutionist mistakes. Do you now assume that evolutionists don't make mistakes? Of course not. So then why demand I point them out? Accept my axiomatic premise that all humans make mistakes and proceed from there.

To assume that evolutionary mistakes are any more (or less) valid than creationist mistakes is illogical. A mistake is by definition an error in knowledge, judgment or perception. It doesn't hold different meanings when made by different people, or even by people with different levels of I.Q. or with different religious beliefs or scientific methods. Therefore we ought not to attack mistakes that have been corrected, whatever side we're on. If I find an evolutionist who believes in the law of recapitulation, I will clue him in, but I won't go onto a creationist message board and use him as an example of why evolution is ridiculous. It is easy to point out creationists who cling dishonestly to mistakes, however this does not logically discredit creationism as a whole. A theist might call this "confusing the heresy with the heretic." This seems like a very simple observation. It is surprising how many scientists, intelligent in all other respects, fail to grasp it. I should have known that I'd be assumed a creationist if I criticized certain evolutionary scientists' methods of disproving creationism. That's why I prefer to argue with philosophers. Scientists love facts, but they want you to do all their thinking for them. I'm certainly not addressing everyone of course, but scientific facts are pretty useless if one doesn't know how to remove his desire for intellectual esteem from his beliefs and be objective. The moral thing to do is treat others with the courtesy you expect from them, regardless of your personal surety of their stupidity. In other words, don't argue against creationists in ways that you wouldn't want them to use. Of course if you believe morality is subjective, then why should you do this? The value of mutual cooperation would be merely a personal preference, but then, that's a subject for another forum.

To say that "creation scientist" is by definition an oxymoron is pretty unscientific don't you think? Science is always based on theories, followed by tests and research. What makes the theory of creation unscientific exactly? Is it because it's based on an unproven idea? Even if they're mistaken, being wrong doesn't mean you're not a scientist. (Though those whose reputations rest on you being wrong might claim otherwise.) If scientific theories have to pass certain criteria before they're allowed to be scientifically investigated, then current technology would be vastly more primitive that it is. How many crazy things that were once thought impossible and "unscientific" would we be missing from our society? How many wrong theories that were once scientifically valid would we still be clinging to? Often, it's the "unscientific" theories embraced by people not even considered scientists by their peers that find their way into the science books of today. And all too often it's those shunned, unscientific scientists who make the history books. So, declaring "creationist scientist" an oxymoron must indicate an apex of scientific knowledge. What do you think are the chances that we've reached our absolute limit in knowledge?

A theistic evolutionist isn't necessarily a creationist, but a creationist who believes in evolution is both. As near as I can tell, Michael Behe is a creationist who believes in evolution. I'm sure there are other creationists who subscribe even more closely to Darwinian evolution. (I know one personally.) I see nothing in Genesis that obviously supports evolution, however there is nothing that particularly prohibits theistic evolution either, as long as one allows for metaphor and allegory. It doesn't say how God created, it just says he created. (And the order in which he created life is similar to the order science tells us life evolved.) So obviously scripture and religious tradition need not necessarily be the basis of anti-evolution beliefs. Therefore, while to say that creationists are dogmatic because they blindly follow their holy book may be true on an individual basis, it isn't a priori true and therefore isn't a sound argument against creationism.

You can argue with the easy targets or the harder ones. And you can assume a battle mentality, or a teaching and learning mentality. I truly feel sorry for those who feel they can learn nothing from a creationist. I find that those who routinely argue against the devout Christian layman who literally interprets the Bible tend to have less confidence in the truth of evolution than those who actively seek out creationists who honestly attempt to meld science with religion. The search for knowledge is the search for knowledge. For the rational, both paths ought to lead to the same place. In the meantime, let's all just lay down our pitchforks and put out our torches. I'm not a witch; I'm just her attorney.

Oolon Colluphid

You could always order it from Amazon UK, where it is £31.99. With postage, that is about US $60 and Australian $100. Still a hefty wadge, but a lot cheaper than the US branch. And it’s a hell of a book, and tremendous value if one is serious about all this.

Cheers, DT

Daggah

First of all, there IS NO THEORY OF CREATION. Secondly, creationism is unscientific because it does not even attempt to follow the scientific method. Science is about empirical evidence. Creationism has none. Science is about letting the evidence guide one to coming up with a theory. Creationism is about starting with a theory - for no better reason than that a bunch of primitive sheep-herders believed it in their primitive religious text! - and trying to fit the evidence to support it. (And let me just say, in the case of YECism - the evidence just ain't gonna fit!)

If you don't properly recognize creationism as unscientific, then your denial of this screams scientific ignorance.

Oolon Colluphid

But you thought you’d bang on about this anyway...
Fair enough. You didn’t know that we did know, but now you know differently . Mind you, a browse through some old threads here would have saved you...
Name some.
Ah, how sweet.
The difference is that creationists have a hard job keeping with the programme. I’ve lost count of the times we’ve had to point people to AiG’s Arguments we think creationists should NOT use page. In fact, all you have to do to refute 98% of creationists is learn a handful of biological and palaeontological basics, which is why us regulars here end up repeating ourselves after a while.

Whereas, you won’t find any ‘evolutionists’ using Haekel, for instance.
Good for you. This is not the general tactic of creationists though. Go read their boards. Put something soft on your desk first though, if you know any science, so you won’t hurt your head too badly.
True. But science doesn’t need to resort to that anyway. Scientific findings can refute creationism all on their own. Creationism is nothing but lies and distortions. Many of those promulgating them are doubtless unaware of that, and should only be castigated for their ignorance-born arrogance. But there are others who -- it is impossible to avoid this conclusion -- do know they are lying.
Or ‘simplistic’.
Like whom? When the message is nothing but lies, the messengers are bound to get shot sometimes.
Hmm. A lack of foresight then.
Yeah, they do love those little angels, dancing merrily on the pinhead...
That’s an impressive trick you’ve got there! So tell me: if you can do that, do you fart through your mouth?
Your phrase for the day is ‘peer review’.
Ah, I see... don’t fire facts at them, since they are unarmed...? And round here, they get back at them whatever level of courtesy they extend us. Go browse the archives for, say, Tricia, and compare it to, say, mturner or Eternal.
Nope. Creation, by definition, invokes the supernatural; science is about the natural. Therefore one cannot include the supernatural in any scientific explanation. Hence ‘creation science’ is precisely an oxymoron. Often with the emphasis on the second half.
No, dingbat, because it is based on a, by definition, unprovable idea. There are many good books and websites on basic epistemology, would you like some references to help with your homework for tonight?
No, but formulating irrefutable hypotheses does. Ignoring all the data except that which (seems to) support you idea does. Attacking fundamental stuff that science shows while claiming to be doing science does. Ignoring Ockham’s Razor does.
Cobblers. They do have to pass criteria. The criteria that scientific -- as opposed to pseudoscientific -- hypotheses have to pass are testability and peer review. These have not hampered science; they are what science is.
Magic carpets? Unicorns? Fairies in the Yorkshire Dales? Creationism?
If only you really knew what you were talking about, rather than this pretense to it, you’d know that changes in scientific understanding, ‘paradigm shifts’, invariably result in a deepening of our understanding. To win out, a hypothesis has to explain all the old data plus a load more. Paradigm shifts do not return us to outmoded ideas. Creation, for instance, is precisely the idea that has already been rejected as not accounting for the data! To win out, it needs to somehow account for all the data that already refutes it!
Often?
Ah, Wegener . Again, cobblers. Go learn the history of it.
Such as?
Like Lysenko, and Von Daniken.
So declaring "creationist scientist" not an oxymoron must indicate... that you know neither what science is nor what an oxymoron is.
Well your brain at least is obviously full. You may be excused.
You seem a little unclear as to what these terms mean.
And a duck with a green moist skin that says ‘ribbit’ while hopping... is still a duck.
You seem very unclear as to what these terms mean.
Sure. But that is not creation. Go read the AiG and ICR sites if you don’t believe me.
Erm, you’ve not read chapter 2 then. And you’re wrong anyway. Angiosperms don’t appear till the late Jurassic, somewhat after many sea creatures and certainly after the formation of the sun and the moon.
They need not. But that, since you don’t already know it, is exactly what creationists do.
:banghead:
Oh, I agree. One can learn heaps of biology when one digs below the rhetoric to check their claims. And they are a neverending source of humour too.
And this has what to do with it?
See above. And if you meld science with religion, you get a lousy version of both. Science cannot allow admittance to the supernatural; religion requires faith, which is undermined by evidence -- faith being, by definition, that which you hold to despite evidence.

A horse is a horse, of course, of course.
Still waters run deep through the toothbrush of life, Glasshopper.
Ah, Doctor Johnson, I assume? You’ll be using the Nuremberg defence then.

TTFN, DT