"You Win or You Die" - Unintentionally nourishing the ID rhetoricotrophs

Jack wrote: "Everything is a rhetorical game to the Discovery Institute!"

Because of that, one should always use the correct term "intelligent design creationism" rather than "ID" or just "intelligeent design."

Why is it that all ID proponents demand that you read all of their crap before you are entitled to an opinion, even though none of their crap ever has anything new? Why is it that they don't have any problem with being completely ignorant of all of the scientific literature themselves, especially in the fast growing, ever changing world of modern biology? The double standard is indeed ridiculous. FIrst cast out the beam that is thine own eye.

..what David is saying above is that the fact that science bloggers and scientists don’t even mention the main ID arguments makes it look like they don’t know how to respond to them. He has a bit of point here.

Oops, bad link. The html tag seems to have an issue with the fact that there's an apostrophe in the link name. Here it is in plain text. You'll have to ignore the misformatting and just cut and paste:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Courtier's_Reply

The point of my earlier post was to let scientists know that name-calling, snide comments and over-the-top snark doesn’t help convince people who are on the fence about ID and evolutionary biology.

But what David is saying above is that the fact that science bloggers and scientists don’t even mention the main ID arguments makes it look like they don’t know how to respond to them.

Like everything in origin issues what is the truth. ? How is the truth come by?
When someone says ones intellectual opinions on origins are the product of religious sentiment then one is saying they are not the product of intelligent weighing of the evidence. Conclusions are from mere assumptions.

YEC is from the great presumption of the bible as entirely the word of God.
Yet the study of nature we would see as based on natures evidence.
Well most of it. The opposition we would more easily see as beatable by looking at natural evidence..

Id people see themselves only with the barest presumption of a creator and don't , largely, believe in Genesis.
They see their conclusions from regular investigation of nature. they see their criticisms of opponents as likewise from this investigation.

So its seen by the creationist tribes a most wrong, most inaccurate, most unreasonable criticism that creationism is from religious stuff.
Nothing to do with religion.
All our stuff is striving to figure things out on natures evidence.
Just a wee bit of assumptions.
Creationism sees itself as on the winning side of intellectual history in human progress.
Creationism is all about investigation and weighing of evidence.
It just is not so its religious sentiment.
It seems like a dismissal of our "scientific" conclusions before examining the conclusions.

Robert Byers said: Creationism sees itself as on the winning side of intellectual history in human progress. Creationism is all about investigation and weighing of evidence. It just is not so its religious sentiment. It seems like a dismissal of our "scientific" conclusions before examining the conclusions.

ID is a pseudoscientific hypothesis that does not make testable claims or predictions, which are necessary components of scientific ideas. The arguments put forward by its proponents have been taken seriously and analysed by scientists and philosophers of science for nearly two decades, but all have found to be lacking in merit. It is widely known that the ID movement is a recent offshoot of creationism and its internal language is sometimes explicitly theistic – while this does not necessarily invalidate its claims, it does help explain its patterns of behaviour and the way its proponents think. The mainstream scientific community no longer pays much attention to the movement and will continue not to do so until ID proponents formulate more rigorous and persuasive ideas.

Robert Byers said: They [ID people] see their conclusions from regular investigation of nature.

mplavcan said: Here is the statement of faith from Answers in Genesis. "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

Robert Lyer said: Like everything in origin issues what is the truth. ? How is the truth come by?

When someone says ones intellectual opinions on origins are the product of religious sentiment then one is saying they are not the product of intelligent weighing of the evidence. Conclusions are from mere assumptions.

YEC is from the great presumption of the bible as entirely the word of God.

Yet the study of nature we would see as based on natures evidence. Well most of it. The opposition we would more easily see as beatable by looking at natural evidence.. Id people see themselves only with the barest presumption of a creator and don't , largely, believe in Genesis. They see their conclusions from regular investigation of nature. they see their criticisms of opponents as likewise from this investigation. So its seen by the creationist tribes a most wrong, most inaccurate, most unreasonable criticism that creationism is from religious stuff. Nothing to do with religion. All our stuff is striving to figure things out on natures evidence. Just a wee bit of assumptions. Creationism sees itself as on the winning side of intellectual history in human progress. Creationism is all about investigation and weighing of evidence. It just is not so its religious sentiment. It seems like a dismissal of our "scientific" conclusions before examining the conclusions.

Byers mentally imploded:... a most wrong, most inaccurate, most unreasonable criticism that creationism is from religious stuff. Nothing to do with religion. All our stuff is striving to figure things out on natures evidence. (All sic)

[Creationism has] nothing to do with religion

Creationism sees itself as on the winning side of intellectual history in human progress.

Creationism is all about investigation and weighing of evidence.

Here’s a crazy idea. If you don’t have time to read up properly on ID or are otherwise disinclined to do so, perhaps refrain from deciding whether its arguments are “rigorous and persuasive.”

Robert Byers said: "Nothing to do with religion. All our stuff is striving to figure things out on natures evidence."

prongs said:

Robert Byers said: "Nothing to do with religion. All our stuff is striving to figure things out on natures evidence."

Hey Robert (may I call you Bob?), What if the 'designer' of ID is an outer space alien with hyper-superior technology, like Q on Star Trek? So advanced that we have no hope of understanding him, so no need to even try and investigate. Could God be just a super-advanced, non-corporeal intelligence? An outer space alien? Would that change the way you think about the Bible? Should you still worship Him (It)? Those dern ID people have raised some embarrassing questions and issues, don't you think?

As was amply demonstrated at the Dover trial, Intelligent Design is not a field of scientific inquiry. It was a legal strategy to get around the prohibition on teaching creationism in public school science classes which failed spectacularly. The transitional form identified in the creationist/ID textbook was "cdesign proponentsists", the mash created in the book where they were replacing the term "creation scientists" with the term "design proponents". There is no ID theory; it is at best an intuitive notion that because living things appear designed they are. As such, it is so sterile its not even wrong; it has no explanatory power and makes no falsifiable predictions which could serve as a basis for scientific research. What content it does contain is derived entirely from evolutionary theory as the IDists critique real scientists' work in a futile attempt to show that certain biological structures could not have evolved. There isn't realy anything more to say about ID than that.

I think ID was originally a Saturday Night Live skit. But it was rejected as to 'scientific' for their regular audience and never produced for television.

The Onion then picked it up, developed the 'theory', put it on their website, and quickly withdrew it when their lawyers raised the likelihood of lawsuits.

But before they withdrew it, Philip Johnson, John Sarfati (CMI), Dembski, and others, picked it up and ran with it like it was real.

They figured that if they took the word 'God' out of creationism, and substituted the word 'designer', then real scientists would have to spend billions of dollars chasing down this hypothesis, that they knew could not be proven or disproven.

They were laughing up their sleeves, having sent the entire legitimate scientific community on a wild goose chase. All in the name of 'God'. So it was no sin.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

Paul Burnett noted: Similarly, here is an excerpt from the Creation Research Society's statement of belief: "The Bible is...historically and scientifically true;...All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis;" The only "evidence" creationists can accept is the Bible's creation mythos - reality has nothing to do with their worldview.

[11] And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. [20] And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. [24] And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Remarkably, the book of Genesis tells us that we humans were formed out of the dust of the earth, and evolution says pretty much the same thing - the only difference is in the details.

prongs said: I think ID was originally a Saturday Night Live skit. But it was rejected as to 'scientific' for their regular audience and never produced for television. The Onion then picked it up, developed the 'theory', put it on their website, and quickly withdrew it when their lawyers raised the likelihood of lawsuits. But before they withdrew it, Philip Johnson, John Sarfati (CMI), Dembski, and others, picked it up and ran with it like it was real. They figured that if they took the word 'God' out of creationism, and substituted the word 'designer', then real scientists would have to spend billions of dollars chasing down this hypothesis, that they knew could not be proven or disproven. They were laughing up their sleeves, having sent the entire legitimate scientific community on a wild goose chase. All in the name of 'God'. So it was no sin. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

Here’s a crazy idea. If you don’t have time to read up properly on ID or are otherwise disinclined to do so, perhaps refrain from deciding whether its arguments are “rigorous and persuasive.”

John said: Au contraire, ... That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

Carl Drews said: CRS creationists cannot even accept literal evidence from the Bible's creation story.

Clearly, when confronted with “Biblical inerrantists” we are not dealing with people who have a considered understanding of a text. We are dealing with a mutual identification system, presumably tribal in nature - an identification that is so psychologically and emotionally essential to them that it trumps received reality. If it were not tribal in nature - that is, culturally accepted to some degree - there would be good reason to describe it as actively delusional, and hence symptomatic of mental derangement.

But cultural acceptance of active delusions seems to me to be worse than individual mental derangement. Worse in its effects, I mean. Individuals subject to delusions are occasionally capable of atrocities up to and including mass murder, as we can lamentably attest. But whole cultures subject to mass delusion are capable of far worse

Paul Burnett said: Jack wrote: "Everything is a rhetorical game to the Discovery Institute!" Because of that, one should always use the correct term "intelligent design creationism" rather than "ID" or just "intelligeent design."

"The only “evidence” creationists can accept is the Bible’s creation mythos - reality has nothing to do with their worldview.

— Paul Burnett

Paul Burnett Wrote: “The only “evidence” creationists can accept is the Bible’s creation mythos - reality has nothing to do with their worldview.

Either that’s true and ID is not creationism, or ID is creationism and that’s not true. It can’t be both.

harold said: I would amend Paul's statement to read - "Creationists don't care about evidence at all. They have a certain agenda, and they make certain claims about science and the Bible, because those claims were invented to further the agenda, and have now been adopted as ritual expressions of group identity."

harold said: Dave Luckett said -

Clearly, when confronted with “Biblical inerrantists” we are not dealing with people who have a considered understanding of a text. We are dealing with a mutual identification system, presumably tribal in nature - an identification that is so psychologically and emotionally essential to them that it trumps received reality. If it were not tribal in nature - that is, culturally accepted to some degree - there would be good reason to describe it as actively delusional, and hence symptomatic of mental derangement.

This is an exceedingly valuable point. Although proclaimed creationist beliefs are clearly associated with authoritarian tendencies and juvenile emotional immaturity, they nevertheless represent culturally sanctioned claims, which identify a political and social group. Most active creationists do not have a major mental illness, and most people who do have a major mental illness are not members of the religious right/political right social group. It is critical to understand that some small percentage of mentally ill people may co-opt creationist language, to some degree of accuracy, as part of their delusion or obsession system, but that this does not mean that the audience for mainstream creationist propaganda from acknowledged "authority" sources is clinically mentally ill. In fact, mentally ill people who invent their own "creationist-sounding" obsessions tend to be rejected by the creationist community as a whole, which is perfectly able to distinguish between their chosen authorities and random interlopers. Another extremely obvious point is that taking a functional person, who happens to express right wing/fundamentalist beliefs but who is integrated into society and family, and giving them anti-psychotics, lithium, or some other grossly inappropriate psychiatric medication, would never make them into a socially integrated person who suddenly supports evidence-based science. Yet taking a group of untreated people with actual, treatable major mental illnesses and giving them appropriate drugs would greatly reduce expression of delusional or obsessive ideas. Insistence on viewing creationism, let alone "religion", as a form of drug-treatable major mental illness (which is obviously what use of medical terms drawn from psychiatry implies), while tempting, is at best a waste of time, and at worst borders on insulting those who actually struggle with treatable mental illness. I find that Richard Dawkins has a lot of insightful things to say. However, he likes to use metaphor, which can ironically be interpreted excessively literally by his American audience. Dawkins wrote a book called "The God Delusion", but for better or worse, he used the word "delusion" in a colloquial way.

But cultural acceptance of active delusions seems to me to be worse than individual mental derangement. Worse in its effects, I mean. Individuals subject to delusions are occasionally capable of atrocities up to and including mass murder, as we can lamentably attest. But whole cultures subject to mass delusion are capable of far worse

This is also exceptionally obviously true, and one very good reason not to model right wing fundamentalism as an individual, treatable mental illness*. Doing so may understate the problem. A widespread social movement based on reality denial and harsh authoritarian ideas is potentially far more serious than a large group of individuals, each with an individual mental illness. *Except in the few cases where an actual delusional system does to some degree mimic the propaganda of the social movement, of course.

There’s a lot here I don’t understand. I don’t understand your objection to the use of the word “delusion” to characterize religious beliefs. I gather that there is a technical definition which somehow excludes culturally accepted counter-factual perceptions of supernatural agents from the scope of its terms. Is that so? In any case, could you give your definition of the term “delusion”, and explain how (if) it excludes culturally accepted religious beliefs?

Isn’t it the case that we atheists (i.e., me) do NOT culturally sanction the beliefs of, say, Christians?

I don’t understand how the withdrawal of generalized tolerance (“cultural acceptance”) of a delusional idea gives it a different, more disease-like character.

It seems that if that were true, enlightened atheists could campaign for MORE social acceptance of religious beliefs, not only on the grounds of freedom of thought, but also of mercy.

Of course, nobody (i.e., not me) advocates compulsive drug therapy for religious delusion, or even wishes to denigrate or insult the ill. Those appear to be strawmen.

harold said: However, for people who really do have medical delusions, I certainly believe that offering (emphasis added) treatment IS an appropriate response. Treatment WILL often make the delusions go away or improve them, and many people who suffer from delusions are very glad to get rid of them.

harold said: Phhht - Overall, you seem like a person with whom I share many values, so I will try to explain this.

There’s a lot here I don’t understand. I don’t understand your objection to the use of the word “delusion” to characterize religious beliefs. I gather that there is a technical definition which somehow excludes culturally accepted counter-factual perceptions of supernatural agents from the scope of its terms. Is that so? In any case, could you give your definition of the term “delusion”, and explain how (if) it excludes culturally accepted religious beliefs?

The term "delusion" in and of itself has both colloquial and medical meanings, although they are related. In medicine, a "delusion" is a common symptom of a number of mental illnesses which can be diagnosed with high reliability, and in many cases, successfully treated, such that, among other things, the delusions go away or are reduced (implying that the diagnoses are not just reliable, but also have some validity). I prefer to use the term in this way. I will provide an exact definition below. It's not the mere colloquial use of the term "delusion" that I object to, but rather, an overall model of creationism or religion in general that treats these as if they were a form of mental illness. However, excessive use of the term "delusion" can lead to that impression. I prefer the medical definition. The DSM-IV TR is available on Google Books, and this link should lead directly to a page that includes the medical definition of delusion. I'd copy and paste it, which would be perfectly legit with appropriate citation, but it's easier to just give the link. http://books.google.com/books?id=FkTeZ4RJ8KsC&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=dsm+definition+of+delusion&source=bl&ots=QgjVrYOzFA&sig=paVBxlI8PM29yYUzOOpkRk4s-Sc&hl=en&ei=gXPaTs7rKMT00gH2tPGPBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&sqi=2&ved=0CG4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=dsm%20definition%20of%20delusion&f=false One way of looking at it is that most people use the fact that other people believe something as a heuristic for deciding that something is true; usually this heuristic works (things that other people also believe are more likely to be true in general), but it can lead to the widespread acceptance of factually wrong ideas. However, accepting a wrong idea because it culturally sanctioned is not, in and of itself, diagnostic of mental illness.

Isn’t it the case that we atheists (i.e., me) do NOT culturally sanction the beliefs of, say, Christians?

Yes, but of course, it is the cultural beliefs of the patient's culture that matter. That's a major reason why the definition is clarified in the way that it is. Otherwise, culturally biased physicians might misdiagnose people as "mentally ill" or "delusional", merely for holding culturally sanctioned beliefs that the physician does not share. One can very strongly oppose certain cultural beliefs. To give an extreme example, Aztec culture may have held the belief that some children should be painfully sacrificed, in order to assure that rain would fall in a desired way. Obviously, I disagree with that cultural belief as strongly as is possible, both on ethical grounds and because it is factually absurd. However, it would be very incorrect to conclude that the vast majority of Aztecs, at that time, were mentally ill for holding that cultural belief. Absolutely no deprecation of Aztec culture, past or present, is intended by this example; it's just an example of a moderately well-recorded cultural belief, that probably once existed, which is unacceptable to modern cultures. There is a reason why this distinction is very useful. Because then and now, people of Aztec ancestry, against the background of either contemporary or older cultural beliefs, could and can develop clinical mental illness, exactly as do people in all known cultures. There is no logical reason to mislabel all members of a large cultural group and mentally ill, even if you don't like some of the culturally sanctioned beliefs.

I don’t understand how the withdrawal of generalized tolerance (“cultural acceptance”) of a delusional idea gives it a different, more disease-like character.

I find this quite easy to understand. Most people are not clinically mentally ill, and all people, including you and me, hold all sorts of cultural beliefs and biases. A symptom of many types of mental illness is the cognitive problem of suddenly being convinced of things that are neither justified rationally, NOR culturally sanctioned beliefs. For example, if I met a modern person who believed sincerely that children had to be sacrificed to make it rain, in the absence of cultural support for that belief, and in the absence of drug effect, brain physical illness, or the like, I would indeed think that such a belief was essentially diagnostic of mental illness.

It seems that if that were true, enlightened atheists could campaign for MORE social acceptance of religious beliefs, not only on the grounds of freedom of thought, but also of mercy.

This is a bit difficult for me to respond to. My personal position is that I am not religious, and that I wish more people would see that you can have the ethical and psychological benefits usually attributed to religion without practicing formal religion. I also feel that skeptical analysis of ideas and strong support for science are socially beneficial, and I encourage those, in situations where this is appropriate. On the other hand, I do very strongly support freedom of religion, even of religions I don't agree with. And I observe holiday rituals which were originally religious. (As an aside, at least one of the creationist posters you sometimes engage with actually does happen to appear to have mental health problems - I'm not saying that creationism protects against mental illness, nor that the delusions of one person may not resemble the culturally sanctioned creationist or religious beliefs of another person.)

I don’t understand your objection to the use of the word “delusion” to characterize religious beliefs. I gather that there is a technical definition which somehow excludes culturally accepted counter-factual perceptions of supernatural agents from the scope of its terms. Is that so? In any case, could you give your definition of the term “delusion”, and explain how (if) it excludes culturally accepted religious beliefs?

I’m still baffled.

The DSM definition to which you refer (I see why you didn’t copy it; it’s hobbled) does NOT explain how religious delusions differ from other delusions. It simply excludes religious beliefs by fiat,

with the proviso that it’s not a delusion if all your buddies believe it too.

Otherwise - in its character as a counter-factual belief, its resistance to evidence, etc. - a religious belief appears able to qualify as a delusion in every respect. Am I incorrect in that understanding? If so, how?

Perhaps you will say that a delusion is only a delusion in conjunction with other symptoms of illness. I don’t take that from the DSM article, nor does that make sense to me. Why can’t delusion be identified as a distinct phenomenon, independent of other symptoms?

Anyway, it seems that to treat delusion, one must first change the belief not of the patient, but of all the patient’s correspondents who share it. Otherwise, the delusion is still culturally sanctioned, and thus not a delusion in the technical sense, so no treatment can be ethically applied until that is accomplished. Surely that cannot be correct? Consider the example of faith healing in the Clackamas County, OR, Followers of Christ church. Society (i.e, the congregation) sanctions the belief that modern medical attention to illness is unnecessary, because gods will miraculously heal you. It seems clear to me that that belief is delusional in the conventional sense, at least, but NOT in the DSM sense. Would you say that’s correct? Would you characterize that belief as delusional? Would your characterization change if tomorrow, all but one of the congregation were to perish? That is, how does the number of believers (social sanctioners) of a conviction affect the “delusionhood” of the conviction?

Nor do I get your Aztec example. How can one defend the position that the belief in the necessity of sacrifice of children is a delusion now, in our society, but was not a delusion in Aztec society? It seems to me that whether or not one says that all Aztecs were mentally ill, if all (or most) Aztecs believed in that necessity, it is at least justified to say that a great many indeed were delusional.

Matt Young said:

I don’t understand your objection to the use of the word “delusion” to characterize religious beliefs. I gather that there is a technical definition which somehow excludes culturally accepted counter-factual perceptions of supernatural agents from the scope of its terms. Is that so? In any case, could you give your definition of the term “delusion”, and explain how (if) it excludes culturally accepted religious beliefs?

I think there is a difference between deluded and delusional. Someone who holds beliefs that are contrary to fact is deluded; someone who is clinically nuts (sorry, Harold) is delusional. Thus, if you or your whole society believes something that is contrary to fact, then you are all deluded, perhaps because you have been lied to, but not necessarily delusional.

I hope I don't sound too grouchy here, and apologies for all the typos.

harold said:

The DSM definition to which you refer (I see why you didn’t copy it; it’s hobbled) does NOT explain how religious delusions differ from other delusions. It simply excludes religious beliefs by fiat,

It does no remotely do anything of the sort... 1) Why did you think that the definition excludes "religious" beliefs, when it is clear that what it excludes is culturally sanctioned beliefs?

with the proviso that it’s not a delusion if all your buddies believe it too.

That's right, and the reason why is that most people who have ever lived have held culturally sanctioned beliefs that seem wrong to those of other cultural beliefs, without, however, being mentally ill. Question - 2) Do you believe that all people who hold different cultural beliefs than you are mentally ill?

Consider the example of faith healing in the Clackamas County, OR, Followers of Christ church. Society (i.e, the congregation) sanctions the belief that modern medical attention to illness is unnecessary, because gods will miraculously heal you. It seems clear to me that that belief is delusional in the conventional sense, at least, but NOT in the DSM sense. Would you say that’s correct? Would you characterize that belief as delusional? Would your characterization change if tomorrow, all but one of the congregation were to perish? That is, how does the number of believers (social sanctioners) of a conviction affect the “delusionhood” of the conviction?

Question - 5) Here you express a desire to change cultural beliefs that you see as harmful, a goal that, in the case of the specific example, I strongly support. My question is, why must you mis-label the cultural beliefs as delusions? This leads, of course, to a poor strategic approach. If the belief in question is cultural, we should use reducation and persuasion, and availability of better alternatives, to incrementally reduce cultural acceptance of the harmful belief. That's how we got rid of slavery, cholera-infected drinking water, firetrap buildings with inadequate ventilation, discrimination against women, official segregation, some of the discrimination against gays, etc, etc. On the other hand, if the beliefs are clinical delusions, we should use medical treatments, such as anti-psychotics? Which approach do you prefer, and do you concede, if you choose "education" not "anti-psychotics, that this means that you don't really consider cultural beliefs to be exactly the same as delusions?"

Nor do I get your Aztec example. How can one defend the position that the belief in the necessity of sacrifice of children is a delusion now, in our society, but was not a delusion in Aztec society? It seems to me that whether or not one says that all Aztecs were mentally ill, if all (or most) Aztecs believed in that necessity, it is at least justified to say that a great many indeed were delusional.

Question - 6) In medicine, we need a way to differentiate between invalid beliefs that represent delusions and may indicate treatment for psychiatric illness (after other potential causes are ruled out), from cultural beliefs that we may not agree with but which are not symptomatic of a medical condition; do you agree with this statement, yes or no?

7) Suppose you agree with the above statement but you just really love using words like "delusion" and "schizophrenia" to refer to religious cultural beliefs that you don't like, even where you know that medical treatment is not the way to change such beliefs; do you think that perhaps we in the biomedical or neuroscience fields should change our terminology to accomodate you?

Well, that was a waste of time.

harold said: Well, that was a waste of time.

For the sake of reachable third parties, I will restate my position with clarity and brevity.

For me, the line between clinical mental illness and possession of unpleasant cultural beliefs is usually a very clear one.

Of course, the line is not always clear. But it is often clear which one is dealing with.

Many, many true delusions are religious in nature; this is one of the most common themes of delusions. Many negative cultural beliefs are not religious in nature. It is obvious that no psychiatrist or psychologist declares delusional patients healthy if the delusions have a religious content, and to suggest otherwise would be most absurd.

I feel, as I said at the beginning, that confusing these two concepts, mental illness and cultural beliefs is a poor idea.

Both are appropriate targets for non-authoritarian intervention, but the type of intervention indicated is completely different in each case.

The goal of psychiatric treatment is usually to treat implied biochemical brain abnormalities, often with drugs, in order to bring the patient as close to mental health as possible.

The method of addressing harmful cultural beliefs is education and persuasion.

I would like to make it very clear that I consider excessive negative misuse of psychiatric terminology to be part of society's long pattern of oppression of people with mental illness.

I am not offended by the conversation here, and not claiming that there has been any serious intentional bias against people impacted by mental illness.

But I personally prefer to keep the concept of mental illness as clear as possible, and will not condone "leakage" of words with clear clinical meanings. Voluntary adherence to negative-seeming cultural belief and mental illness are two separate things.

That is my stance, I most certainly have not been persuaded to change it, and others may agree or disagree, as they see fit.

As an end note, although I am non-religious and glad to see others rejecting religion-based authoritarian or and/oppressive ideologies, this does not mean that "everything is always alright as long as it's somehow an atheist criticizing religion". I realize that this view is unpopular, and that the opposite view is held by many, but it is my view.

phhht said: ...I am Jesus Christ, and as soon as I can rouse a quorum of like-minded believers, then I will no longer be deluded...

Jeepers. I know everyone's trying to do the right thing in this thread, but there's a lot of talk from people who don't have a working knowledge of psychiatry. So from someone who is not a psychiatrist but who regular treats mentally ill people, here are a few observations:

1. Deluded = delusional = holding beliefs that are false and fixed -- that is, the beliefs are resistant to evidence.

2. You can safely use "deluded" without implying mental illness. DSM is full of common words used in psychiatric context. If you object to using "deluded" because it appears in DSM, you're also going to have to give up words like narcissistic, borderline, antisocial, dependent, anxious, disorganised, disoriented, avoidant, passive-aggressive, attention-seeking, grandiose, negativistic, sadistic, self-defeating, paranoid, compulsive, jealous, persecutory, and many more.

3. Having a delusion does not by itself qualify anyone as having a mental illness. For example, the diagnosis of schizophrenia in DSM-IV requires 2 or more of {delusions, hallucinations, disorganised speech, grossly disorganised or catatonic behaviour, flattened affect} plus social or occupational dysfunction plus a duration of over 6 months plus exclusion of {schizoaffective disorder, mood disorder with psychotic features, substance abuse, other medical condition, or pervasive developmental disorder} that could cause the observed behaviours. Simply saying "deluded" is a long way from saying "mentally ill".

4. DSM is very much not based on solid evidence. I don't have time here to go through what is an enormously complex debate on the role of diagnostic criteria in psychiatry, but DSM has huge gaping flaws in the form of social opprobrium dressed up as clinical illness, pathologising of normal human behaviour, lack of rigour, lack of reproducibility, etc. Perhaps the most important thing to realise about DSM is that to a very large extent, the diagnostic criteria are completely arbitrary. There is no experiment that shows schizophrenia requires 2 of those 6 mental state signs -- this was an a priori decision based, admittedly, on a lot of clinical experience and debate, but not on any empirical test for schizophrenia.

5. Diagnostic reliability is a huge problem in psychiatry. Of the people I refer to psychiatrists, around a half do not fit the diagnostic criteria very well and get a new diagnosis every time they see a new specialist.

6. Avoid talking of psychiatric diagnoses such as "personality disorder" or "psychotic" unless you know exactly what they mean (and even then, remember that it is a very bad idea to make psychiatric diagnoses over the internet -- as I've said, even qualified psychiatrists who spend hours consulting patients with florid mental illness will frequently disagree on diagnoses)...but feel free to call people deluded if they hold false beliefs that they refuse to revise in the face of overwhelming contradicting evidence, for they are deluded.

harold said: For the sake of reachable third parties, I will restate my position with clarity and brevity. For me, the line between clinical mental illness and possession of unpleasant cultural beliefs is usually a very clear one. Of course, the line is not always clear. But it is often clear which one is dealing with. Many, many true delusions are religious in nature; this is one of the most common themes of delusions. Many negative cultural beliefs are not religious in nature. It is obvious that no psychiatrist or psychologist declares delusional patients healthy if the delusions have a religious content, and to suggest otherwise would be most absurd. I feel, as I said at the beginning, that confusing these two concepts, mental illness and cultural beliefs is a poor idea. Both are appropriate targets for non-authoritarian intervention, but the type of intervention indicated is completely different in each case. The goal of psychiatric treatment is usually to treat implied biochemical brain abnormalities, often with drugs, in order to bring the patient as close to mental health as possible. The method of addressing harmful cultural beliefs is education and persuasion. I would like to make it very clear that I consider excessive negative misuse of psychiatric terminology to be part of society's long pattern of oppression of people with mental illness. I am not offended by the conversation here, and not claiming that there has been any serious intentional bias against people impacted by mental illness. But I personally prefer to keep the concept of mental illness as clear as possible, and will not condone "leakage" of words with clear clinical meanings. Voluntary adherence to negative-seeming cultural belief and mental illness are two separate things. That is my stance, I most certainly have not been persuaded to change it, and others may agree or disagree, as they see fit. As an end note, although I am non-religious and glad to see others rejecting religion-based authoritarian or and/oppressive ideologies, this does not mean that "everything is always alright as long as it's somehow an atheist criticizing religion". I realize that this view is unpopular, and that the opposite view is held by many, but it is my view.

Paul Burnett said:

phhht said: ...I am Jesus Christ, and as soon as I can rouse a quorum of like-minded believers, then I will no longer be deluded...

The majority is sane (not deluded) by definition?

Maybe the distinction is in whether the person believes something because it's what they were taught (esp. if taught while they were growing up), versus acquiring that belief without input from others (or from examining evidence)?

That's my 3 cents on that.

ID/creationism is merely the “creation science” of the seventies, with explicit religious references sometimes removed.

— harold

mplavcan said:

Robert Byers said: Creationism sees itself as on the winning side of intellectual history in human progress. Creationism is all about investigation and weighing of evidence. It just is not so its religious sentiment. It seems like a dismissal of our "scientific" conclusions before examining the conclusions.

Riiiiiiiggggghhhhttttttt. Here is the statement of faith from Answers in Genesis. "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information." Care to expound on how this is not religious? Seems to me like these guys are dismissing all evidence that could contradict their conclusions before they even examine it. Not only that, but they have to sign a statement to prove their faith. Now, add on to that the flagrant link between creationism and Christianity, even among the ID folks, and your statement is just a pile of disingenuous gibberish intended to hide the fact that creationism is NOT based on evidence.

Robert Byers said: Its a assumption as I said for YEC. Yet organized YEC from that point on uses and sees ourselves as using evidence from nature. We criticize our opponents use of natures evidence. There is no rejection of facts but only rejection on conclusions. Then we address the facts. Thats the equation here.

unkle.hank said:

[Creationism has] nothing to do with religion

Except when it does. Which, in the case of Intelligent Design Creationism, the Discovery Institute, Uncommon Descent, Institute for Creation Research and, of course, Answers in Genesis (first book of The Bible, for anyone who isn't paying attention) ... is all the time.

Creationism sees itself as on the winning side of intellectual history in human progress.

Nobody with the slightest shred of integrity or intellectual honesty could possibly say that with a straight face. What has creationism "won" exactly? How has it done so? The only "victory" I can see is tying up peoples' time responding to creationist attempts to shorehorn mythology into schoolrooms and other places it doesn't belong. Annoying the heck out of people by attempting to defy the law isn't winning. It's childish attention-seeking and a pointless waste of everybody's time. When creationists appear in court, they lose (except for Scopes, which was as hollow and short-lived a victory as one can imagine). When creationism runs up against science, it loses. When creationists wander into nests of laymen with apparent "gotcha" arguments/questions invariably cribbed from creationist websites, they get shredded (even if they're too clueless to notice). When creationists write vacuous books seeking to undermine evolution, they either get completely ignored or mostly ignored except for scathing reviews from real scientists - and they always get dramatically outsold by real science books. Where's the victory? Is "too stupid or ignorant to notice you've lost because you never had a chance in the first place" a kind of winning?

Creationism is all about investigation and weighing of evidence.

If creationists knew how to do either of those things properly and honestly, they wouldn't be creationists.

phhht said: I don't understand your objection to the use of the word "delusion" to characterize religious beliefs...

I gather that there is a technical definition which somehow excludes culturally accepted counter-factual perceptions of supernatural agents from the scope of its terms. Is that so? In any case, could you give your definition of the term "delusion", and explain how (if) it excludes culturally accepted religious beliefs?

Isn't it the case that we atheists (i.e., me) do NOT culturally sanction the beliefs of, say, Christians? I don't understand how the withdrawal of generalized tolerance ("cultural acceptance") of a delusional idea gives it a different, more disease-like character. It seems that if that were true, enlightened atheists could campaign for MORE social acceptance of religious beliefs, not only on the grounds of freedom of thought, but also of mercy.

Paul Burnett said: "Requiring" rather than "offering" treatment for the delusions of religion would go a long way toward making the world a better place - but that's probably not going to happen any time soon.

1. Deluded = delusional = holding beliefs that are false and fixed – that is, the beliefs are resistant to evidence.

2. You can safely use “deluded” without implying mental illness. DSM is full of common words used in psychiatric context. If you object to using “deluded” because it appears in DSM, you’re also going to have to give up words like narcissistic, borderline, antisocial, dependent, anxious, disorganised, disoriented, avoidant, passive-aggressive, attention-seeking, grandiose, negativistic, sadistic, self-defeating, paranoid, compulsive, jealous, persecutory, and many more.

3. Having a delusion does not by itself qualify anyone as having a mental illness. For example, the diagnosis of schizophrenia in DSM-IV requires 2 or more of {delusions, hallucinations, disorganised speech, grossly disorganised or catatonic behaviour, flattened affect} plus social or occupational dysfunction plus a duration of over 6 months plus exclusion of {schizoaffective disorder, mood disorder with psychotic features, substance abuse, other medical condition, or pervasive developmental disorder} that could cause the observed behaviours. Simply saying “deluded” is a long way from saying “mentally ill”.

4. DSM is very much not based on solid evidence. I don’t have time here to go through what is an enormously complex debate on the role of diagnostic criteria in psychiatry, but DSM has huge gaping flaws in the form of social opprobrium dressed up as clinical illness, pathologising of normal human behaviour, lack of rigour, lack of reproducibility, etc.

Perhaps the most important thing to realise about DSM is that to a very large extent, the diagnostic criteria are completely arbitrary.

There is no experiment that shows schizophrenia requires 2 of those 6 mental state signs – this was an a priori decision based, admittedly, on a lot of clinical experience and debate, but not on any empirical test for schizophrenia.

5. Diagnostic reliability is a huge problem in psychiatry. Of the people I refer to psychiatrists, around a half do not fit the diagnostic criteria very well and get a new diagnosis every time they see a new specialist.

6. Avoid talking of psychiatric diagnoses such as “personality disorder” or “psychotic” unless you know exactly what they mean (and even then, remember that it is a very bad idea to make psychiatric diagnoses over the internet – as I’ve said, even qualified psychiatrists who spend hours consulting patients with florid mental illness will frequently disagree on diagnoses)…but feel free to call people deluded if they hold false beliefs that they refuse to revise in the face of overwhelming contradicting evidence, for they are deluded.

You don't start with assumptions, you start with a CONCLUSION, then attempts to fit the "evidence" to your conclusion.

Science starts with a QUESTION, then takes the evidence and comes to a conclusion.

To say we use the same method, but different assumptions is a blatant attempt to be deceitful.

apokryltaros said:

Robert Byers said: Its a assumption as I said for YEC. Yet organized YEC from that point on uses and sees ourselves as using evidence from nature. We criticize our opponents use of natures evidence. There is no rejection of facts but only rejection on conclusions. Then we address the facts. Thats the equation here.

If Young Earth Creationists do not reject facts or reality, then why do such organizations force their employees swear statements of faith to reject facts and reality, and threaten to fire them for violating such statements?

jjm said: You don't start with assumptions, you start with a CONCLUSION, then attempts to fit the "evidence" to your conclusion. Science starts with a QUESTION, then takes the evidence and comes to a conclusion. To say we use the same method, but different assumptions is a blatant attempt to be deceitful.

Robert Byers said:

apokryltaros said:

Robert Byers said: Its a assumption as I said for YEC. Yet organized YEC from that point on uses and sees ourselves as using evidence from nature. We criticize our opponents use of natures evidence. There is no rejection of facts but only rejection on conclusions. Then we address the facts. Thats the equation here.

If Young Earth Creationists do not reject facts or reality, then why do such organizations force their employees swear statements of faith to reject facts and reality, and threaten to fire them for violating such statements?

They don't . That would be unreasonable and a good point for you if true. They require conclusions on some main points to be a part of their organization. Facts will support these conclusions or think harder to show hoe they do. There is no fact rejection only interpretation of facts rejection.

apokryltaros said: That's bullshit, Robert Byers. If organizations like Answers In Genesis, and the ICR don't reject reality, and don't threaten to fire employees who do come to conclusions contrary to a literal reading of the Bible, then they wouldn't make such and hold such statements of faith to begin with.

dalehusband said: It was already established long ago that Robert Byers is a patholigical liar. What more proof do we need of that than his own statements here?

apokryltaros said: That's bullshit, Robert Byers. If organizations like Answers In Genesis, and the ICR don't reject reality, and don't threaten to fire employees who do come to conclusions contrary to a literal reading of the Bible, then they wouldn't make such and hold such statements of faith to begin with.

dalehusbandsaid: It was already established long ago that Robert Byers is a patholigical liar. What more proof do we need of that than his own statements here?

harold said: Chris Lawson - I agree to a large extent with your comments, but must make some minor comments here.

We reviewed 92 polydiagnostic sz [schizophrenia] studies published since the early 1970s. Different sz definitions show a considerable variation concerning frequency, concordance, reliability, outcome, and other validity measures. The DSM-IV and the ICD-10 show moderate reliability but both definitions appear weak in terms of concurrent validity, eg, with respect to an aggregation of a priori important features. The first-rank symptoms of Schneider are not associated with family history of sz or with prediction of poor outcome. The introduction of long duration criteria and exclusion of affective syndromes tend to restrict the diagnosis to chronic stable patients. Patients fulfilling the majority of definitions (core sz patients) do not seem to constitute a strongly valid subgroup but rather a severely ill subgroup. Paradoxically, it seems that a century after the introduction of the sz concept, research is still badly needed, concerning conceptual and construct validity of sz, its essential psychopathological features, and phenotypic boundaries.

I have previously remarked of Byers that his mental confusion is so extreme that he hardly notices when he is making two mutually opposed statements and asserting both as fact, simultaneously. I think he actually believes that creationist organisations do not demand their conclusions as premises, when at the same time having the actual "Statements of Faith" which do that very thing right before his eyes.

Some trolls (where actually sincere) manage the same trick with extreme mental compartmentalisation, behaving as if the premises of their opposed beliefs had nothing to do with each other. Some manage it simply by blindly denying reality. Some, of course, are only saying these things to get a reaction, and probably don't give a hoot what it's about.

But Byers is in a class of his own. He believes his nonsense, and I think it isn't that he won't see its impossibilities. In his case, it's because he can't. In a sense, he isn't lying, although he is purveying obvious, blatant untruth, untruth so palpable that any attempt to check what he says will immediately demonstrate it to be untrue.

In science, all conclusions result from empirical analysis of data gathered from the material universe we live in. Nothing more or less.

jps 0869: I’d say that the scientific method is, and always will be, the only way of approaching an objectively verifiable shared model of the universe, because it’s the only one who’s entire raison d’etre is to do that and which is structured to eliminate anything that might prevent it. There are other ways of feeling, thinking and responding (and not necessarily the worse for that) but there are no other ways of knowing.

The best scientists, however are those who understand that the method can never succeed in real life. Nobody, no matter how well intentioned, is prepared to throw away their entire worldview the moment a piece of data contradicts it. They will find workarounds, post-hoc rationalisations and some will even go over the edge into outright crankery. And scientists themselves are susceptible to their own kind of rhetorical bullshit - Mary Midgley, though much-vilified and occasionally over-rhetorical, is a philosopher who’s made this her subject and is definitely worth reading even if you disagree with her (particularly ‘Science and Poetry’, which has much to say about tropes like the ‘cold, unfeeling universe’ and has a thought provoking take-down of ‘memetics’)

Dogmatic belief that science as practiced by human beings can be infallible is every bit as irrational as any other dogmatic belief, and can have equally unpleasant effects. Feminist theorists of science, who (for reasons demonstrated in your own post) had a lot of reason to look carefully at that sort of thing in the mid-20th century, did some excellent anthropological work on this sort of thing. Donna Haraway’s ‘Primate Visions’ is a classic of the genre, skewering some of the underlying androcentric assumptions of much of the primate research of the time.

jps0869 said: Did the scientific conclusion that men were smarter than women based on brain mass come from such analysis? Or was that simply confirmation bias? How about the food pyramids from the 1950s that would make modern nutritionists gasp in horror? Data gathered from the material universe, or culturally constructed idea being given the scientific stamp of approval? I'm certain (really, not being snarky) that you're familiar enough with the history of science to know that such examples abound. One can argue that modern methodological constraints prevent (often implicitly) culturally sanctioned ideas from influencing empirical knowledge, but then again, Broca and his people thought that too.

Chris Lawson -

Obviously we don't have any major disagreements.

Just to clarify one thing, it was the "completely" part of the term "completely arbitrary" that I objected to, not the "arbitrary".

Medicine is an applied science, or applied field grounded in the scientific method.

A relatively pure researcher can choose a specific problem and specific experimental system.

In applied fields, problems present themselves and have to be dealt with, with reason-based but often imperfect knowledge.

A "completely" arbitrary approach, which is what most unscientific "quack" frauds use, and which was common in western medicine before the nineteenth century, simply invents claims, often self-serving claims.

Intermediate between an unequivocally objective approach and a completely arbitrary approach is a spectrum of somewhat or partially arbitrary, or as I prefer to say, "operational" approaches. As much empirical justification as possible is employed, but where insufficient empirical rationale exists, things like prior anecdotal experience and consensus are temporarily employed.

To put it another way, even if the problem is incompletely understood, a science denying quack will attempt to make the approach to it as arbitrary as possible. An honest, rational actor may have no choice but to make some arbitrary decisions, but they try to minimize the level of self-serving or idiosyncratic arbitrariness.

jps0869 said:

In science, all conclusions result from empirical analysis of data gathered from the material universe we live in. Nothing more or less.

Hi Dale, I'm neither a creationist nor a theist, and am a generally lurking fan of PT, but I have to seriously object to that statement. Did the scientific conclusion that men were smarter than women based on brain mass come from such analysis? Or was that simply confirmation bias? How about the food pyramids from the 1950s that would make modern nutritionists gasp in horror? Data gathered from the material universe, or culturally constructed idea being given the scientific stamp of approval? I'm certain (really, not being snarky) that you're familiar enough with the history of science to know that such examples abound. One can argue that modern methodological constraints prevent (often implicitly) culturally sanctioned ideas from influencing empirical knowledge, but then again, Broca and his people thought that too. The fact of the matter is that, whether it delivers progressively better models of nature or not (I accept that it does, nor dispute its great service on many counts) science is not nature but rather a human account of it, a rhetoric that is adapted to audiences like every other rhetoric. To pretend that it is otherwise, that it is an act of pure demonstration independent of social factors, fails to explain how bad consensuses can ever arise in the first place. It also pretends that scientists form beliefs in a manner fundamentally different from the rest of the populace, placing them in a group (sometimes alone, sometimes with analytic philosophers) of people individually or collectively immune from the cultural air they breathe. The usual way around the problem, to say that science doesn't fall for such things but that scientists do, creates a definition of science that attaches to nothing, exactly the same abstraction that religious people make when they say that "pure" religion can do no harm, but only fallible individuals can. Either science is a human endeavor, fraught with the same biases, false starts, and false conclusion that arise for a variety of reasons in any other human endeavor, or it is something else like symbolic logic or mathematics, whose rules, so far as my (very) limited knowledge can tell, can operate without referents. So, is science like that? Or is it a kind of human rhetoric? Or is it a third thing altogether? I am legitimately curious, and hope my humanities-based questions are not too annoying.

Dave Luckett said: I think he actually believes that creationist organisations do not demand their conclusions as premises, when at the same time having the actual "Statements of Faith" which do that very thing right before his eyes.

nasty.brutish.tall said:

Dave Luckett said: I think he actually believes that creationist organisations do not demand their conclusions as premises, when at the same time having the actual "Statements of Faith" which do that very thing right before his eyes.

To the contrary, I think he has plainly admitted that they start with conclusions, and that they then seek to interpret things to fit those conclusions. The disconnect is not that he doesn't understand this point. It is that he doesn't see any problem with it, and the reason he doesn't see any problem with it is because he believes that is also what scientists do. And he has a point, but only at a trivially superficial level. Let me explain what I mean. We all know about the current brouhaha with faster-than-light neutrino measurements. The gut reaction from the scientific community has been to try to interpret those results in a way that fits with our prior assumptions about physics; namely, that because we "know" that nothing can travel faster than light, there must be some other explanation for the measurements--an error or something--that will eventually render them consistent with what we "know". This gut reaction is because the speed of light limit is a foundational element of the core assumptions of science with respect to which we try to interpret new observations. Similarly, evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life on earth is a foundational element of the core assumptions of science with respect to which we continually try to interpret new observations about life. So to a sincere creationist, scientists appear to be simply trying to post-hoc rationalize what they observe to fit with their a priori assumptions. So he will see nothing improper with post-hoc rationalizing what he observes to fit with his a priori assumptions. He thinks he is playing by the same rules as scientists. Which is why I say the sincere creationist (SC) has a point, but only in a trivially superficial way. The SC justifies his a priori assumptions based on the contents of a book (the Bible) and 2000 years of subsequent exegesis of that book. I think an SC truly believes that scientists similarly base their a priori assumptions on a book (Origin of Species) and 150 years of subsequent exegesis of that book. So in the mind of an SC, his justification is not only comparable to the scientists, it is preferred because it has a longer pedigree. This is also why I think many SCs make the claim that believing evolution requires as much faith as believing creationism, and also label evolutionary science as "Darwinism". They see evolutionary science as simply placing faith in a book, and then doing post hoc exegetical rationalizing to conform observations to that book. What an SC doesn't see, is that Darwin's book, while profound and revered in one sense, is completely irrelevant in another. If Darwin had never published, Wallace would have. And if not Wallace, then someone else. We'd be where we are today with science, or somewhere close at least, with or without Darwin because it was never about Darwin's ideas so much as it was about the fact that based on the evidence that Darwin amassed, his ideas were inescapable. And the modern understanding of evolution has itself evolved since Darwin based on following inescapable conclusions drawn from more recent evidence, not on any exegesis of Darwin's book. But since the typical SC doesn't really understand any of the ideas or evidence, they don't get that. What they also have trouble with is that scientific "dogmatism" is only provisional; e.g., if more and more unassailable evidence piles up that neutrinos actually do exceed light speed, scientists are willing, in principle, to abandon our old "dogmatism" about physics. Is an SC ever willing, even in principle, to abandon his dogmatism about creation? So in a sense, both scientists and creationists hold assumptions with respect to which they interpret what they observe. This superficial similarity is what the SC clings to. The disconnect occurs at the level of how one justifies one's assumptions, and one's willingness to abandon them if necessary.

John said: I respectfully beg to differ. Real scientists - including Darwin and Wallace - are constantly revising their ideas, showing just how tentative science is.

nasty.brutish.tall said:

John said: I respectfully beg to differ. Real scientists - including Darwin and Wallace - are constantly revising their ideas, showing just how tentative science is.

Perhaps you misread what I wrote, since that is exactly what I wrote...

John said: No, since you arrived at this conclusion: "So in a sense, both scientists and creationists hold assumptions with respect to which they interpret what they observe. This superficial similarity is what the SC clings to. The disconnect occurs at the level of how one justifies one’s assumptions, and one’s willingness to abandon them if necessary." I would not equate the activities of genuine scientists with those of scientific creationists, because even if they think they are doing science, what they practice instead are pale, often grotesque, imitations of it.

I look at the situation like this. Gregory House is not a real doctor. He can claim that he is a doctor, after all he wears a white coat, he works in a hospital, he sees patients, he looks at X-rays. Certainly, he appears to be a real doctor.

But on closer examination, the actor who plays House isn't really a doctor. He has no training, no skills, no expertise. He doesn't even know what the words he uses mean, he just says what he is told. No matter what the X-ray looks like, the patient either lives or dies because of what his boss decrees, the evidence is never really an issue and the outcome is never really in question.

Now the actor who plays House can call himself a doctor. He can go to parties and declare that he is a real doctor. He can even believe that he is a real doctor. He might even fool some gullible people. But of course, he isn't going to fool any real doctor. If someone actually has a heart attack at the party, the first thing he is going to do is scream for a real doctor. Unless of course he tries to fake his way through it, but that will probably end up killing the poor guy.

So it really doesn't matter whether the actor who plays House actually believes he is a real doctor or not. Any objective observer, using any rational criteria, will conclude that he is not. If he continues to insist that he is a real doctor, someone is eventually going to have to step in to prevent him from doing something illegal and killing someone, even if he has the best of intentions. You may have pity on him for his delusions, but in the end he's just an actor.

nasty.brutish.tall said:

John said: No, since you arrived at this conclusion: "So in a sense, both scientists and creationists hold assumptions with respect to which they interpret what they observe. This superficial similarity is what the SC clings to. The disconnect occurs at the level of how one justifies one’s assumptions, and one’s willingness to abandon them if necessary." I would not equate the activities of genuine scientists with those of scientific creationists, because even if they think they are doing science, what they practice instead are pale, often grotesque, imitations of it.

My conclusion is not to equate the activities of genuine scientists with those of creationists. I don't think they are even remotely similar. My point was to offer a perspective on why creationists mistakenly believe their activities can be equated with those of scientists. And my reasoning involves the creationists' misappropriation of the trivially true statement that: "both scientists and creationists hold assumptions with respect to which they interpret what they observe".

DS said: I look at the situation like this. Gregory House is not a real doctor. He can claim that he is a doctor, after all he wears a white coat, he works in a hospital, he sees patients, he looks at X-rays. Certainly, he appears to be a real doctor. (snip)

fnxtr said:

DS said: I look at the situation like this. Gregory House is not a real doctor. He can claim that he is a doctor, after all he wears a white coat, he works in a hospital, he sees patients, he looks at X-rays. Certainly, he appears to be a real doctor. (snip)

I think Hugh Laurie's "Bertie Wooster" is a better drawing of creationists than "House" is. :-)

Matt Bright said: jps 0869: I’d say that the scientific method is, and always will be, the only way of approaching an objectively verifiable shared model of the universe, because it’s the only one who’s entire raison d’etre is to do that and which is structured to eliminate anything that might prevent it. There are other ways of feeling, thinking and responding (and not necessarily the worse for that) but there are no other ways of knowing. The best scientists, however are those who understand that the method can never succeed in real life. Nobody, no matter how well intentioned, is prepared to throw away their entire worldview the moment a piece of data contradicts it. They will find workarounds, post-hoc rationalisations and some will even go over the edge into outright crankery. And scientists themselves are susceptible to their own kind of rhetorical bullshit - Mary Midgley, though much-vilified and occasionally over-rhetorical, is a philosopher who’s made this her subject and is definitely worth reading even if you disagree with her (particularly ‘Science and Poetry’, which has much to say about tropes like the ‘cold, unfeeling universe’ and has a thought provoking take-down of ‘memetics’) Dogmatic belief that science as practiced by human beings can be infallible is every bit as irrational as any other dogmatic belief, and can have equally unpleasant effects. Feminist theorists of science, who (for reasons demonstrated in your own post) had a lot of reason to look carefully at that sort of thing in the mid-20th century, did some excellent anthropological work on this sort of thing. Donna Haraway’s ‘Primate Visions’ is a classic of the genre, skewering some of the underlying androcentric assumptions of much of the primate research of the time.

jps0869 said:

Matt Bright said: jps 0869: I’d say that the scientific method is, and always will be, the only way of approaching an objectively verifiable shared model of the universe, because it’s the only one who’s entire raison d’etre is to do that and which is structured to eliminate anything that might prevent it. There are other ways of feeling, thinking and responding (and not necessarily the worse for that) but there are no other ways of knowing. The best scientists, however are those who understand that the method can never succeed in real life. Nobody, no matter how well intentioned, is prepared to throw away their entire worldview the moment a piece of data contradicts it. They will find workarounds, post-hoc rationalisations and some will even go over the edge into outright crankery. And scientists themselves are susceptible to their own kind of rhetorical bullshit - Mary Midgley, though much-vilified and occasionally over-rhetorical, is a philosopher who’s made this her subject and is definitely worth reading even if you disagree with her (particularly ‘Science and Poetry’, which has much to say about tropes like the ‘cold, unfeeling universe’ and has a thought provoking take-down of ‘memetics’) Dogmatic belief that science as practiced by human beings can be infallible is every bit as irrational as any other dogmatic belief, and can have equally unpleasant effects. Feminist theorists of science, who (for reasons demonstrated in your own post) had a lot of reason to look carefully at that sort of thing in the mid-20th century, did some excellent anthropological work on this sort of thing. Donna Haraway’s ‘Primate Visions’ is a classic of the genre, skewering some of the underlying androcentric assumptions of much of the primate research of the time.

Hi Matt, and thank you for replying. I think that we are in substantial agreement here, so I'll clarify only briefly. (This will also double as my reply to Dale Husband, who raises similar issues.) While again, I concede that scientific narrative may give more progressively "fact-like" accounts of nature which improve upon earlier accounts, my objection is to two things. The first is the existence of such an animal as "pure science," a creature divorced from its practitioners and their cultural biases. The only candidate for such an animal is method, which in the first place doesn't exist apart from people, and in the second is not stable nor consistent enough to even gain mutual assent among scientists. The second idea is that statistics are not themselves a rhetoric, a representation of aspects of nature that are themselves selectively chosen for observation based upon the priorities (conscious and unconscious) of the people designing the studies. While this critique will doubtless strike many as excessively sophistic (I do study rhetoric, after all), I neither deny epistemic realism nor the reality of a science which can deliver it. What I do deny is that there is a fundamental line in the sand that can be drawn between scientific argument as it inevitably occurs in practice (from IMRAD to popularization) and other kinds of argument. Nature exists independent of what we think about it, sure, but our narrative accounts of it inevitably bear the stamp of their lowly origins.

nasty.brutish.tall said:

apokryltaros said: That's bullshit, Robert Byers. If organizations like Answers In Genesis, and the ICR don't reject reality, and don't threaten to fire employees who do come to conclusions contrary to a literal reading of the Bible, then they wouldn't make such and hold such statements of faith to begin with.

dalehusbandsaid: It was already established long ago that Robert Byers is a patholigical liar. What more proof do we need of that than his own statements here?

I truly don't think Byers (and like others) is "lying" in the traditional sense. He unabashedly claims AIG and ICR don't require employees to reject reality, agreeing it would be unreasonable for them to do so. But at the same time, he does not hesitate to admit that they do require employees to accept a priori conclusions which they justify by "interpreting" every observation in a congenial way. That he can celebrate such egregious confirmation bias and rationalization, and argue that it is an "investigation methodology no different then (sic) opponents", suggests the deception is directed inward rather than outward.

Robert Byers said: If we were wrong we should be more clobbered in the publics eye. We are not seen that way in the publics eye.

Robert Byers said: Why is this wrong? As long as investigation is excellent then we can say every observation fits . Investigation in these matters is 98% about the natural world. Just , say, 2% of assumptions or hunch or hypothesis or apple falling on the head INSIGHT. Our opponents fail to understand their critics . In fact this should be your conclusion of why creationism does so well. If we were wrong we should be more clobbered in the publics eye. We are not seen that way in the publics eye.

nasty.brutish.tall said:

Robert Byers said: Why is this wrong? As long as investigation is excellent then we can say every observation fits . Investigation in these matters is 98% about the natural world. Just , say, 2% of assumptions or hunch or hypothesis or apple falling on the head INSIGHT. Our opponents fail to understand their critics . In fact this should be your conclusion of why creationism does so well. If we were wrong we should be more clobbered in the publics eye. We are not seen that way in the publics eye.

The "public's eye" is irrelevant. Proper scientific understanding isn't decided by acclamation of the lay public. And it shouldn't be, anymore than you would want laypersons voting on how many rivets are needed to hold the wing on your airplane, or how much tissue to resect to remove your cancer, or what wording to use to make your legal contracts airtight. In all such things you want to give great weight to the advice of people with great expertise. There is nothing wrong with starting with a hunch that the world is 10,000 yrs old (for example) so long as you are willing to abandon that hunch if, after investigation, the evidence suggests otherwise. But to start, not with a hunch, but with an unshakeable conviction that the world is 10,000 yrs old and then, after investigation, rationalizing why even the most contrary of evidence must somehow be consistent with your original conviction, is not science. There is a reason why scientists conduct double blind studies and subject their work to peer reviews, etc. Everyone is susceptible to wanting to prove their hunches true, and thereby liable to being led astray by their own biases. And the more convicted you are of your hunch, the more astray you are liable to go. Confirmation bias and post-hoc rationalization are significant tendencies in humans. Good scientists realize this take explicit measure to avoid them. In one of my classes, I do an exercise with students whereby they are shown an initial piece of data, about which I ask each of them to form a hypothesis to explain it. I then allow them to collect some additional data in order to test their hypotheses. Upon analyzing the new data they are free to keep their initial hypothesis or change to a new one. This cycle repeats until every student expresses complete confidence that their hypotheses have been confirmed as true. Typically, 100% of the students end with the same hypothesis with which they started, they are all convinced of its truth, and they are all completely wrong. When I tell them they are wrong, they are at a loss to know where they erred. Invariably, the error is because they were so enamored of their initial hunches, when I gave them opportunities to seek additional data they only sought out data that agreed with their hunches, thus reinforcing their error. After several rounds of finding what they wanted to find, they were supremely confident. When I point out all the contrary information they looked right past, they are astounded. If you are not willing to give up your initial assumptions, you are not doing science, your investigations are not scientific, and your conclusions are not scientifically valid.

Robert Byers said: You said there is nothing wrong with starting as a hunch the world is 10'000 years old. Wow. Yes. This concept has only hit me recently on some of the threads here on Pandas Thumb. Why isn't any YEC hunch or hypothesis any more/less legitimate then someone having a apple hit them on the head?! in fact millions of times when i read of some advancement in science there was first some species of insight unrelated to methodology. Then they go with the idea/hypothesis and do a methodology, as real or good as it is, another issue, and proclaim a conclusion. For investigating nature AGAIN I say there is no reason that YEC etc are banned from equality of initial insight/hunch/apple/etc for making hypothesis. The evolution crowd has tried to say that even BEFORE methodological investigation starts its illegitimate for YEC to use God/Genesis as a apple on the head. Yet it is no different then anything else. Then investigation can commence. It seems you would agree with this.

jps0869 said: What I do deny is that there is a fundamental line in the sand that can be drawn between scientific argument as it inevitably occurs in practice (from IMRAD to popularization) and other kinds of argument. Nature exists independent of what we think about it, sure, but our narrative accounts of it inevitably bear the stamp of their lowly origins.

Robert Byers said: You made two interesting points here. Your students thing is something creationists would say. That original idea and later investigation is greatly influenced by ones desire and sincere thinking framework affecting ones confidence in ones conclusions. Wow. Thats what we would criticize evolutionism. I know your going to say you HAVE done great investigation but it is a option that your students are a good analogy for TOE . Yes and everyone. I think this happens in origin issues which I add are not easily at all investigated as they are about past and gone events. You said there is nothing wrong with starting as a hunch the world is 10'000 years old. Wow. Yes. This concept has only hit me recently on some of the threads here on Pandas Thumb. Why isn't any YEC hunch or hypothesis any more/less legitimate then someone having a apple hit them on the head?! in fact millions of times when i read of some advancement in science there was first some species of insight unrelated to methodology. Then they go with the idea/hypothesis and do a methodology, as real or good as it is, another issue, and proclaim a conclusion. For investigating nature AGAIN I say there is no reason that YEC etc are banned from equality of initial insight/hunch/apple/etc for making hypothesis. The evolution crowd has tried to say that even BEFORE methodological investigation starts its illegitimate for YEC to use God/Genesis as a apple on the head. Yet it is no different then anything else. Then investigation can commence. It seems you would agree with this.

Another problem you have, Robert Byers, is that you never state why believing that the world is less than 10,000 years ago because the Bible (allegedly) says so is logical, or even conforms with reality. Other than, of course, the fact that you say so.

And that does not count at all.

Furthermore, you repeatedly demonstrate that you are totally unwilling to examine any evidence contrary to your belief that the world is magically less than 10,000 years old. In fact, you repeatedly lie that all evidence magically confirms your inane belief, and whine at us to agree with you.

nasty.brutish.tall said: Robert, you just made my day! Your response is a perfect microcosm of the confirmation bias effect I was describing. You took my post and picked out the couple of nuggets that sounded like what you wanted to hear, while completely ignoring the larger context of the point I made as if it didn't exist or matter. I don't think I could have orchestrated that outcome any better had I tried.

Robert Byers said: You said there is nothing wrong with starting as a hunch the world is 10'000 years old. Wow. Yes. This concept has only hit me recently on some of the threads here on Pandas Thumb. Why isn't any YEC hunch or hypothesis any more/less legitimate then someone having a apple hit them on the head?! in fact millions of times when i read of some advancement in science there was first some species of insight unrelated to methodology. Then they go with the idea/hypothesis and do a methodology, as real or good as it is, another issue, and proclaim a conclusion. For investigating nature AGAIN I say there is no reason that YEC etc are banned from equality of initial insight/hunch/apple/etc for making hypothesis. The evolution crowd has tried to say that even BEFORE methodological investigation starts its illegitimate for YEC to use God/Genesis as a apple on the head. Yet it is no different then anything else. Then investigation can commence. It seems you would agree with this.

if start with 2% presupposition, no i can't in any ways imagining that any evidence whatever i must to be remaining in ignorance therefore unconvinced of any conclusion on origins its only rightful and illuminated starting with only the 2% no evidences ever making any differences can be applied by unconditional nomenclatures this is what scientist do so i do in the same likewise and its just fine because they is doing first what they is doing so no just like make up scientist i no have to even looking any evidences

DS said: if start with 2% presupposition, no i can't in any ways imagining that any evidence whatever i must to be remaining in ignorance therefore unconvinced of any conclusion on origins its only rightful and illuminated starting with only the 2% no evidences ever making any differences can be applied by unconditional nomenclatures this is what scientist do so i do in the same likewise and its just fine because they is doing first what they is doing so no just like make up scientist i no have to even looking any evidences

DS said: if start with 2% presupposition, no i can't in any ways imagining...

DS said: if start with 2% presupposition, no i can't in any ways imagining that any evidence whatever i must to be remaining in ignorance therefore unconvinced of any conclusion on origins its only rightful and illuminated starting with only the 2% no evidences ever making any differences can be applied by unconditional nomenclatures this is what scientist do so i do in the same likewise and its just fine because they is doing first what they is doing so no just like make up scientist i no have to even looking any evidences

apokryltaros said: Another problem you have, Robert Byers, is that you never state why believing that the world is less than 10,000 years ago because the Bible (allegedly) says so is logical, or even conforms with reality. Other than, of course, the fact that you say so. And that does not count at all. Furthermore, you repeatedly demonstrate that you are totally unwilling to examine any evidence contrary to your belief that the world is magically less than 10,000 years old. In fact, you repeatedly lie that all evidence magically confirms your inane belief, and whine at us to agree with you.

nasty.brutish.tall said:

Robert Byers said: You said there is nothing wrong with starting as a hunch the world is 10'000 years old. Wow. Yes. This concept has only hit me recently on some of the threads here on Pandas Thumb. Why isn't any YEC hunch or hypothesis any more/less legitimate then someone having a apple hit them on the head?! in fact millions of times when i read of some advancement in science there was first some species of insight unrelated to methodology. Then they go with the idea/hypothesis and do a methodology, as real or good as it is, another issue, and proclaim a conclusion. For investigating nature AGAIN I say there is no reason that YEC etc are banned from equality of initial insight/hunch/apple/etc for making hypothesis. The evolution crowd has tried to say that even BEFORE methodological investigation starts its illegitimate for YEC to use God/Genesis as a apple on the head. Yet it is no different then anything else. Then investigation can commence. It seems you would agree with this.

Robert, It is true that we often form hypotheses based on our prior experiences and beliefs. For an example, in the early days of studying electricity (mid 1700s) people hypothesized that electricity was an invisible fluid. That was a reasonable hypothesis at the time given that electricity was perceived to "flow" in a manner similar to which fluids were known to flow, and of course there was not yet any knowledge of atomic particles. The Leyden jar was invented as a way to store electricity, and amounted to being the earliest capacitor. But people actually thought at the time that the jar was filled with electric fluid. Eventually the electric fluid hypothesis was abandoned because it became clear that it was inconsistent with newer observations and evidence, and better explanations took its place. That's how science works. The hypothesis that the Earth is 10,000 yrs old is not an inadmissible hypothesis in principle. And, like electric fluid, it may have been a reasonable hypothesis 200 yrs ago. But also like electric fluid, what we've learned in the last couple of hundred years makes it necessary to abandon the hypothesis in favor of a better explanation. To cling to the hypothesis in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and nonexistence of supporting evidence, is a choice that one can make, but a choice which takes one out of the realm of science. Let me ask you a simple, but serious question. Can you imagine any physical evidence that a scientist could lay before you that would convince you that the Earth is billions of years old?

xubist said:

jps0869 said: What I do deny is that there is a fundamental line in the sand that can be drawn between scientific argument as it inevitably occurs in practice (from IMRAD to popularization) and other kinds of argument. Nature exists independent of what we think about it, sure, but our narrative accounts of it inevitably bear the stamp of their lowly origins.

When the Sun sets, there isn't any one specific, well-defined moment of time when Day ends and Night begins... but that doesn't mean there is no difference between Day and Night, and nobody would be stupid enough to seriously argue that the absence of such a specific, well-defined moment of division means that there's no way to distinguish Day from Night. Similarly, there may well not exist any specific, well-defined dividing line by which to distinguish Science from Pseudoscience, but that doesn't mean Pseudoscience is just another form of Science. Alas, there are some idiots who point to the absence of an ironclad, 100%-universally-reliable line of demarcation between Science and Pseudoscience, and argue that the absence of that line of demarcation means you can't say that Creationism is not Science. I realize that you haven't raised any such argument here, jps0869, but there's a whole lot of Creationists out there who do raise exactly that sort of argument, eh wot?

You say you creationists use nature's evidence, Byers, but that is not true.

Creationists do not use nature's evidence to demonstrate creation. On those rare occasions when they actually refer to evidence, they either use false evidence, that is, evidence that does not exist, OR they misrepresent it as being something it is not OR the evidence does not bear on the point at all.

There is no evidence whatsoever for fiat divine creation of anything. None. Any statement to the contrary is false. If you were honest, you would now have a choice. Either you can stop repeating that false statement, or you can provide a real example of real evidence for fiat creation.

But you won't do either, Byers, which leaves us to form our own conclusions about your honesty.

if i claiming we uses evidences then evidences are we be uses no matter is i am provide no evidences of our evidences no matter i ignoring all evidences no matters all experts like individuals actual familiarize evidences concluding other likewise on origins i am standings besides my claiming of evidences even without any evidences of claimings so no experts like individuals can be claiming i am no wise correctness regardless of apples hitting on our heads and knocking sense out of minds

If Robert doesn't want to be made fun of, he could make at least a token effort to correct the egregious errors of syntax and grammar in his diatribes. Until then, he is fair game for satire, regardless of his physical infirmities.

jps0869 said: What you've highlighted is an interesting problem in philosophy (a friend of mine studies it) called "the problem of vagueness." While we all admit that people are bald and not bald, we have no real criteria for how much hair loss or hair retention makes one bald or not bald. We give ourselves outs in the form of modified language like "balding" or "thinning," but really, that just shrinks the question down to a smaller scale. What separates "balding" from "not balding" in terms of quantity? More abstractly, where do the Appalachians begin? We know when we're in them, and know when we're not, but at what point does a plain become a hill and a hill a mountain? Many language categories work this way, in which we feel comfortable within the center of a concept but cannot identify its borders. Responding to your specific claim, I would actually rather think of creationism as poorly demonstrated or poorly argued (or both) than as "non-science" or "pseudoscience." Given the flexibility and historical instability of "the" scientific method, I think that exclusionary rhetorics that operate by defining a topic or argument as "outside" don't do much but reinforce the in-group proclivities of both the excluded and included groups. I am not (again) sympathetic to the arguments against evolution made by creationists of any stripe. But, just as is the case with cryptozoology or other scientific borderlands topics, I prefer refutations based upon the substance (or, here, non-substance) of the argument as opposed to the motivations or biases of its proponents. In short, show (as science has) how the argument fails. I don't care about its categorical definition.

Robert Byers said:

nasty.brutish.tall said: Let me ask you a simple, but serious question. Can you imagine any physical evidence that a scientist could lay before you that would convince you that the Earth is billions of years old?

Thats a big question on your last sentence and I think too much for this thread.

Robert Byers said: Again I like you agreeing that YEC ideas(100,00 year earth) are NOT an inadmissible hypothesis. Well at least once. Yet why not today? You say the evidence is overwhelming that the earth is billions of years oldetc. Yet we don't think so! So why in any way would YEC hypothesis be wrong from our standpoint. Even if wrong as you say because of the better ideas it still would be okay for YEC to make hypothesis and then commence method . We are convinced, the apple hitting our head, that genesis is true.! there is nothing wrong with this as our hunch/insight/apple . In and of itself there is nothing wrong with YEC presumptions for ideas or hypothesis about nature. They can just attack us on our methodology or evidence period. Of late historic intellectual thought YEC (perhaps ID0 has been pronounced dismissed at the hypothesis gate because of the origin of our hypothesis. This has been a error of importance. They have said our insights don;t count just because of the type of apple hitting us. I say surely an apples an apple.

nasty.brutish.tall said:

Robert Byers said: Again I like you agreeing that YEC ideas(100,00 year earth) are NOT an inadmissible hypothesis. Well at least once. Yet why not today? You say the evidence is overwhelming that the earth is billions of years oldetc. Yet we don't think so! So why in any way would YEC hypothesis be wrong from our standpoint. Even if wrong as you say because of the better ideas it still would be okay for YEC to make hypothesis and then commence method . We are convinced, the apple hitting our head, that genesis is true.! there is nothing wrong with this as our hunch/insight/apple . In and of itself there is nothing wrong with YEC presumptions for ideas or hypothesis about nature. They can just attack us on our methodology or evidence period. Of late historic intellectual thought YEC (perhaps ID0 has been pronounced dismissed at the hypothesis gate because of the origin of our hypothesis. This has been a error of importance. They have said our insights don;t count just because of the type of apple hitting us. I say surely an apples an apple.

Robert, you perceive that your hypothesis is not allowed because of the fact that you take your inspiration for it from your religious beliefs, and you object to that. I understand why you might feel that way because the rhetoric on this topic often quickly turns into acrimonious religious and political argument. Yes, some people on discussion boards insult you and dismiss you because of your religious beliefs.

nasty.brutish.tall said:

Robert Byers said:

nasty.brutish.tall said: Let me ask you a simple, but serious question. Can you imagine any physical evidence that a scientist could lay before you that would convince you that the Earth is billions of years old?

Thats a big question on your last sentence and I think too much for this thread.

Robert, I don't understand why this question is too much for this thread. It is the central question. If we cannot address this question, then most everything else we might say is simply spinning our wheels.

simple yes or no answer being to big for this thread owing to mostly no being seen to being completely wrongwise if only 2% wrong then wrong is almost all completely wrongness even if only 2% wrong on origins thats all to being wrong allowed by presupposition incomprehensible allowing to average intellectuals if answers no then hypocrite ultimately displayed if answers yes then evidence used to disqualify presupposition of superstitious natruralness no looking to evidences only possibles remaining unhypocrite

jps0869 said: Given the flexibility and historical instability of "the" scientific method, I think that exclusionary rhetorics that operate by defining a topic or argument as "outside" don't do much but reinforce the in-group proclivities of both the excluded and included groups.

xubist said:

jps0869 said: Given the flexibility and historical instability of "the" scientific method, I think that exclusionary rhetorics that operate by defining a topic or argument as "outside" don't do much but reinforce the in-group proclivities of both the excluded and included groups.

I think DS has the right of it: If you want to call whatever-you're-doing 'science', you simply must be willing to allow your ideas to be refuted by physical evidence. I would even go so far as to claim that that willingness is what mathematicians would call a "necessary, but not sufficient" criterion for deciding whether or not something is honest-to-Francis-Bacon Science. Creationists flatly are not willing to allow Creationism to be refuted by physical evidence (see also: the Statements of Faith which all existing Creationist organizations require their members to swear to), therefore Creationism cannot be science. Regarding the in-group/exclusionary thing: If Thing X genuinely isn't an member of Group Y, is pointing out that lack of membership an example of exclusionary tactics.. or is it simply acknowledging the truth of a particular state of affairs?

apokryltaros said: Creationists want Intelligent Design/Creationism to be treated "called" a "science," with all the due respect, but they do not want it treated or examined like a science. In other words, when a Creationist complains about people not calling Intelligent Design/Creationism a "science," they're actually complaining that said people are not mindlessly worshiping Intelligent Design/Creationism like they do.

Have you ever read Darwin's On the Origin of Species?

Throughout he submits conditions without which his theory can no longer be considered tenable. Plain as day he suggests "If X, then my theory would fall apart."

Example: A substantial fossil record of transitional species; Darwin suggests that his contemporary archaeological pool of research was too shallow to support his theory. Given 100 years or so, however, it would become abundantly clear as future archaeologists should yield thousands of transitional species. Arguably none have been found. At least the pool of fossil evidence is almost as shallow as it was 150 years ago.

And yet Darwinian evolutionists hold strong. Sometimes I wish my Christian brothers and sisters had as much faith.

ben, you have only displayed your comprehensive ignorance of the paleontological progress of the last fifty years or more. Of transitionals "arguably none have been found", indeed! That's a lie, and it's told either in ignorance or malice.

Dave Luckett said: ben, you have only displayed your comprehensive ignorance of the paleontological progress of the last fifty years or more. Of transitionals "arguably none have been found", indeed! That's a lie, and it's told either in ignorance or malice.

I'd like something substantial. Whatever "paleontological progress" which is the object of constant reference, if I have been exposed to it, seems too thin to satisfy my interests or Darwin's hopes.

And may I suggest that this response rings like Dawkin's "Indisputable evidence" -evidence, which (perhaps mistakenly) is never cataloged in his polemic. If I wanted thin science I'd watch the Discovery Channel. Whatever happened to the scientific method?

ben said:

Dave Luckett said: ben, you have only displayed your comprehensive ignorance of the paleontological progress of the last fifty years or more. Of transitionals "arguably none have been found", indeed! That's a lie, and it's told either in ignorance or malice.

I'd like something substantial. Whatever "paleontological progress" which is the object of constant reference, if I have been exposed to it, seems too thin to satisfy my interests or Darwin's hopes.

And may I suggest that this response rings like Dawkin's "Indisputable evidence" -evidence, which (perhaps mistakenly) is never cataloged in his polemic. If I wanted thin science I'd watch the Discovery Channel. Whatever happened to the scientific method?

ben said:

apokryltaros said: Creationists want Intelligent Design/Creationism to be treated "called" a "science," with all the due respect, but they do not want it treated or examined like a science. In other words, when a Creationist complains about people not calling Intelligent Design/Creationism a "science," they're actually complaining that said people are not mindlessly worshiping Intelligent Design/Creationism like they do.

Granted, some may assent mindlessly to ID as a doctrine- as the fundamental means by which their sacred texts are defensible- and thus hold to it to a degree which cannot by any thinking person be considered rational. But isn't this the case with Darwinian evolution?

Have you ever read Darwin's On the Origin of Species?

Throughout he submits conditions without which his theory can no longer be considered tenable. Plain as day he suggests "If X, then my theory would fall apart."

Example: A substantial fossil record of transitional species; Darwin suggests that his contemporary archaeological pool of research was too shallow to support his theory. Given 100 years or so, however, it would become abundantly clear as future archaeologists should yield thousands of transitional species. Arguably none have been found. At least the pool of fossil evidence is almost as shallow as it was 150 years ago.

And yet Darwinian evolutionists hold strong. Sometimes I wish my Christian brothers and sisters had as much faith.

ben said:

Dave Luckett said: ben, you have only displayed your comprehensive ignorance of the paleontological progress of the last fifty years or more. Of transitionals "arguably none have been found", indeed! That's a lie, and it's told either in ignorance or malice.

I'd like something substantial. Whatever "paleontological progress" which is the object of constant reference, if I have been exposed to it, seems too thin to satisfy my interests or Darwin's hopes.

And may I suggest that this response rings like Dawkin's "Indisputable evidence" -evidence, which (perhaps mistakenly) is never cataloged in his polemic. If I wanted thin science I'd watch the Discovery Channel. Whatever happened to the scientific method?

"Substantial", he wants. How about this, ben: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils. How about you read through this list, then the references attached to the article?

Prediction: you won't. Further prediction: you'll pretend that you have, and if you come back at all, it'll be to say, "Nyah, nyah, it isn't good enough for me."

As the others have said, ben, you don't get to be the judge. Think what you like. It doesn't matter, because you're flat, dead, motherless wrong, and you've been busted to the wide.

ben said:

Dave Luckett said: ben, you have only displayed your comprehensive ignorance of the paleontological progress of the last fifty years or more. Of transitionals "arguably none have been found", indeed! That's a lie, and it's told either in ignorance or malice.

I'd like something substantial. Whatever "paleontological progress" which is the object of constant reference, if I have been exposed to it, seems too thin to satisfy my interests or Darwin's hopes.

And may I suggest that this response rings like Dawkin's "Indisputable evidence" -evidence, which (perhaps mistakenly) is never cataloged in his polemic. If I wanted thin science I'd watch the Discovery Channel. Whatever happened to the scientific method?

Dave Luckett said: You say you creationists use nature's evidence, Byers, but that is not true. Creationists do not use nature's evidence to demonstrate creation. On those rare occasions when they actually refer to evidence, they either use false evidence, that is, evidence that does not exist, OR they misrepresent it as being something it is not OR the evidence does not bear on the point at all. There is no evidence whatsoever for fiat divine creation of anything. None. Any statement to the contrary is false. If you were honest, you would now have a choice. Either you can stop repeating that false statement, or you can provide a real example of real evidence for fiat creation. But you won't do either, Byers, which leaves us to form our own conclusions about your honesty.

apokryltaros said:

ben said:

Dave Luckett said: ben, you have only displayed your comprehensive ignorance of the paleontological progress of the last fifty years or more. Of transitionals "arguably none have been found", indeed! That's a lie, and it's told either in ignorance or malice.

I'd like something substantial. Whatever "paleontological progress" which is the object of constant reference, if I have been exposed to it, seems too thin to satisfy my interests or Darwin's hopes.

And may I suggest that this response rings like Dawkin's "Indisputable evidence" -evidence, which (perhaps mistakenly) is never cataloged in his polemic. If I wanted thin science I'd watch the Discovery Channel. Whatever happened to the scientific method?

ben, please explain to us why we should consider paleontologists to be deluded idiots, as you are clearly implying, because you lie about how there have been no transitional forms found, even though there have been hundreds upon hundreds of transitional forms found in the fossil records. Including hundreds of lineages of different trilobites, transitions of brontotheres, including lineages of Metatitan transitioning to Proembolotherium to Embolotherium, hundreds of different clams, snails, and thousands of ammonite lineages, lineages of ceratopsian dinosaurs, ranging from small, primitive Jurassic forms to the numerous giant Cretaceous forms, fossil birds with reptilian features, and fossil non-avian dinosaurs with feathers and other bird-like features, and we even have documented the lineage of tyrannosaurs. Hell, we even see ring species today, as well as the documentation and observation of plant and animal breeds in captivity, and the appearance of new species, too. So, tell us again why we should assume that Darwin failed, and that paleontologists are delusional idiots.

John said: I think the delusional ben needs to read Donald Prothero's "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters", which is by far the best, most systematic, overview of the paleontological data that supports biological evolution.

DS said: Yes and you are qualified to be the arbiter of what is evidence exactly how? You presume that anyone cares at all what your opinion is. You presume too much.

Perhaps I'm not qualified to be an arbiter of "what is evidence." And I'm disqualified, as you all have pointed out, because my presuppositions have ruled out any possibility of coming to the proper conclusion.

It's been made very clear that, even were I to deal directly with the evidence, I'd come to the wrong conclusions, or reject the evidence entirely, or call the evidence corrupt. I'd do this to nurse my "pet ideas."

But isn't it for this very same reason that you are not qualified to arbitrate evidence toward conclusions? Let's all be very honest with each other. There is no such thing as a blank slate. You believe what you believe about the world and how it came to be, and by what means species live and die, because you were taught it. And you were taught it, no doubt, using tangible media and plausible suggestions. But you were taught it nonetheless. You came to this "evidence" in the same way that I did: with strong, sturdy presuppositions.

Keep yourself, now, from the haughty suggestion that my ignorance drives these comments. Were I to have a Ph.D. in History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge (as Stephen C. Meyer) or a Ph.D. in Mathematics (as William A. Dembski) or a Ph.D. in Biochemistry (as Michael Behe), I still would not be qualified to arbitrate; as you have suggested, my "pet ideas" would still drive my interpretation of the evidence.

And that's just the nature of the beast, isn't it. These conversations are silly. You have your ideas and I have mine. The evidence in both cases is tangible, real, convincing. If it weren't, I wouldn't be a creationist. And I'm guessing you're in the same position.

By the way, John- Thanks for throwing me in with Mahmoud Ahmajinedad. I do, for the record, believe in the Holocaust. If you needed a straw man, there's dozens more available that make you seem a lot less silly.

apokryltaros said:

ben, please explain to us why we should consider paleontologists to be deluded idiots, as you are clearly implying, because you lie about how there have been no transitional forms found, even though there have been hundreds upon hundreds of transitional forms found in the fossil records. Including hundreds of lineages of different trilobites, transitions of brontotheres, including lineages of Metatitan transitioning to Proembolotherium to Embolotherium, hundreds of different clams, snails, and thousands of ammonite lineages, lineages of ceratopsian dinosaurs, ranging from small, primitive Jurassic forms to the numerous giant Cretaceous forms, fossil birds with reptilian features, and fossil non-avian dinosaurs with feathers and other bird-like features, and we even have documented the lineage of tyrannosaurs. Hell, we even see ring species today, as well as the documentation and observation of plant and animal breeds in captivity, and the appearance of new species, too. So, tell us again why we should assume that Darwin failed, and that paleontologists are delusional idiots.

I haven't yet implied that anyone was an idiot. Let's treat each other like men, shall we?

ben said:

I haven't yet implied that anyone was an idiot. Let's treat each other like men, shall we?

ben said:

DS said: Yes and you are qualified to be the arbiter of what is evidence exactly how? You presume that anyone cares at all what your opinion is. You presume too much.

Perhaps I'm not qualified to be an arbiter of "what is evidence." And I'm disqualified, as you all have pointed out, because my presuppositions have ruled out any possibility of coming to the proper conclusion.

It's been made very clear that, even were I to deal directly with the evidence, I'd come to the wrong conclusions, or reject the evidence entirely, or call the evidence corrupt. I'd do this to nurse my "pet ideas."

But isn't it for this very same reason that you are not qualified to arbitrate evidence toward conclusions? Let's all be very honest with each other. There is no such thing as a blank slate. You believe what you believe about the world and how it came to be, and by what means species live and die, because you were taught it. And you were taught it, no doubt, using tangible media and plausible suggestions. But you were taught it nonetheless. You came to this "evidence" in the same way that I did: with strong, sturdy presuppositions.

Keep yourself, now, from the haughty suggestion that my ignorance drives these comments. Were I to have a Ph.D. in History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge (as Stephen C. Meyer) or a Ph.D. in Mathematics (as William A. Dembski) or a Ph.D. in Biochemistry (as Michael Behe), I still would not be qualified to arbitrate; as you have suggested, my "pet ideas" would still drive my interpretation of the evidence.

And that's just the nature of the beast, isn't it. These conversations are silly. You have your ideas and I have mine. The evidence in both cases is tangible, real, convincing. If it weren't, I wouldn't be a creationist. And I'm guessing you're in the same position.

apokryltaros said:

ben said:

I haven't yet implied that anyone was an idiot. Let's treat each other like men, shall we?

If you want us to "treat each other like men," then you should not have made all those lies and false claims in the first place. And actually, yes you have implied that paleontologists are idiots when you lied about them not having found any of the transitional forms Charles Darwin had predicted, and you also implied that believing in the existence of transitional forms required stronger faith than those found in Christians, thereby also implying another often repeated Creationist lie that it takes more faith to believe in Evolution than it does to believe that God magically poofed the world into existence 10,000 years ago, as according to a literal reading of the Bible.

I envy the simplicity with which you must understand the world. I haven't lied; I do actually believe the things which I've been saying. I wouldn't be writing it if I didn't. It isn't as simple as "lying" or "telling the truth." I am telling the truth, or else it wouldn't be worth saying; especially not here. A moment's suggestion that you don't embrace the doctrine of natural selection will get you ostracized.

ben said:

apokryltaros said:

ben said:

I haven't yet implied that anyone was an idiot. Let's treat each other like men, shall we?

If you want us to "treat each other like men," then you should not have made all those lies and false claims in the first place. And actually, yes you have implied that paleontologists are idiots when you lied about them not having found any of the transitional forms Charles Darwin had predicted, and you also implied that believing in the existence of transitional forms required stronger faith than those found in Christians, thereby also implying another often repeated Creationist lie that it takes more faith to believe in Evolution than it does to believe that God magically poofed the world into existence 10,000 years ago, as according to a literal reading of the Bible.

I envy the simplicity with which you must understand the world. I haven't lied; I do actually believe the things which I've been saying. I wouldn't be writing it if I didn't. It isn't as simple as "lying" or "telling the truth." I am telling the truth, or else it wouldn't be worth saying; especially not here. A moment's suggestion that you don't embrace the doctrine of natural selection will get you ostracized.

ben said:

apokryltaros said: Creationists want Intelligent Design/Creationism to be treated "called" a "science," with all the due respect, but they do not want it treated or examined like a science. In other words, when a Creationist complains about people not calling Intelligent Design/Creationism a "science," they're actually complaining that said people are not mindlessly worshiping Intelligent Design/Creationism like they do.

Granted, some may assent mindlessly to ID as a doctrine- as the fundamental means by which their sacred texts are defensible- and thus hold to it to a degree which cannot by any thinking person be considered rational.

But isn't this the case with Darwinian evolution?

Have you ever read Darwin's On the Origin of Species?

Throughout he submits conditions without which his theory can no longer be considered tenable. Plain as day he suggests "If X, then my theory would fall apart."

Example: A substantial fossil record of transitional species; Darwin suggests that his contemporary archaeological pool of research was too shallow to support his theory. Given 100 years or so, however, it would become abundantly clear as future archaeologists should yield thousands of transitional species. Arguably none have been found. At least the pool of fossil evidence is almost as shallow as it was 150 years ago.

And yet Darwinian evolutionists hold strong. Sometimes I wish my Christian brothers and sisters had as much faith.

ben said:

apokryltaros said:

ben said:

I haven't yet implied that anyone was an idiot. Let's treat each other like men, shall we?

If you want us to "treat each other like men," then you should not have made all those lies and false claims in the first place. And actually, yes you have implied that paleontologists are idiots when you lied about them not having found any of the transitional forms Charles Darwin had predicted, and you also implied that believing in the existence of transitional forms required stronger faith than those found in Christians, thereby also implying another often repeated Creationist lie that it takes more faith to believe in Evolution than it does to believe that God magically poofed the world into existence 10,000 years ago, as according to a literal reading of the Bible.

I envy the simplicity with which you must understand the world. I haven't lied; I do actually believe the things which I've been saying. I wouldn't be writing it if I didn't. It isn't as simple as "lying" or "telling the truth." I am telling the truth, or else it wouldn't be worth saying; especially not here. A moment's suggestion that you don't embrace the doctrine of natural selection will get you ostracized.

ben said:

apokryltaros said:

ben said:

I haven't yet implied that anyone was an idiot. Let's treat each other like men, shall we?

If you want us to "treat each other like men," then you should not have made all those lies and false claims in the first place. And actually, yes you have implied that paleontologists are idiots when you lied about them not having found any of the transitional forms Charles Darwin had predicted, and you also implied that believing in the existence of transitional forms required stronger faith than those found in Christians, thereby also implying another often repeated Creationist lie that it takes more faith to believe in Evolution than it does to believe that God magically poofed the world into existence 10,000 years ago, as according to a literal reading of the Bible.

I envy the simplicity with which you must understand the world. I haven't lied; I do actually believe the things which I've been saying. I wouldn't be writing it if I didn't. It isn't as simple as "lying" or "telling the truth." I am telling the truth, or else it wouldn't be worth saying; especially not here. A moment's suggestion that you don't embrace the doctrine of natural selection will get you ostracized.

ben,

Here is a link to the actual scientific evidence of transitional forms:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

It is in two parts with twenty three sections. It documents literally thousands of transitional forms, including scientific references.

Now ben, once you have proven conclusively that absolutely none of these transitional forms actually exists, then you can make your statement that they don't exist without lying. Until then, you are now aware of the evidence, or at least aware that it exists, therefore unless you can disprove every example, you will now definately be lying if you repeat your ignorant statement. By the way, simply saying you don't accept the evidence isn't good enough. SImply trying to make up your own definition of the term "transitional form" isn't good enough.

See ben, you were not ostracized. People are still responding to you and you are still allowed to post here. Although, if you don;t stop parroting stupid creationist nonsense and start discussing the actual topic of the threads you are posting on, you will no doubt find yourself on the bathroom wall. And no, that is not being ostracized either. Creationists sites are notorious for that kind of behavior. I wonder why?

ben said:

I envy the simplicity with which you must understand the world. I haven't lied; I do actually believe the things which I've been saying. I wouldn't be writing it if I didn't. It isn't as simple as "lying" or "telling the truth." I am telling the truth, or else it wouldn't be worth saying; especially not here. A moment's suggestion that you don't embrace the doctrine of natural selection will get you ostracized.

ben said: Example: A substantial fossil record of transitional species; Darwin suggests that his contemporary archaeological pool of research was too shallow to support his theory. Given 100 years or so, however, it would become abundantly clear as future archaeologists should yield thousands of transitional species. Arguably none have been found. At least the pool of fossil evidence is almost as shallow as it was 150 years ago.

Dave Luckett said: Prediction: you won’t. Further prediction: you’ll pretend that you have, and if you come back at all, it’ll be to say, “Nyah, nyah, it isn’t good enough for me.”

Ben,

When someone says, "I am a paleontologist", or "I have a PhD", that holds about as much authority and credibility as someone who says, "I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night."

But, (and this is the important part) when that person can then pick up an article, or picture, or actual fossil, and say, "See? Feature X here looks just like the similar features X' and X(-) in these other fossils over here, along with these other 15 fossils, which also happens to fit with this pattern of features X(++) found in this whole other set of fossils, but doesn't look anything like this other feature set W, then we can tentatively, with 80% confidence (+/- 10%) conclude Y", then that person has earned authority and credibility. They have demonstrated that they know what they are talking about; that they have evidence; that they have reasons; that, maybe, the "PhD" actually means something that they earned, and not something that they were simply given.

On the other hand, a creationist then comes along and says, as his sole contribution, "Nope. I'm not convinced." No evidence. No reasons. No rationale. Just, "I don't believe it", and "I don't understand how that could happen."

To which statement should we grant more authority and credibility? More importantly, why should we grant that credibility? Should we grant more credibility to, "I don't believe it", simply because it reenforces the stories that we memorized in Sunday School when we were 6 years old? Should we grant more credibility to, "I don't understand how that could happen", simply because it makes us feel more comfortable that there are other people as ignorant as ourselves? Or, should we grant more credibility to the statement that presents evidence, discusses alternatives, and invites us to think for ourselves, to challenge our own understandings, and add to our own knowledge?

I know which statement I'm willing to grant more credibility to.

Ben will now come back and say he doesn't really have enough time to continue this debate, he has a job and a family and yadda yadda yadda.

Apparently it's "Trolling for Grades" time again, just before the winter final exams.

I have to throw in a point I didn't see above. The biggest difference between science and ID is prediction. Scientists predicted that if they looked at a deposit of a certain age they should find fossils showing intermediate characteristics between groups. Tiktaalik fits the prediction/discovery scenario perfectly. What has ID/Creationism ever predicted that was later verified by a scientific discovery? That isn't a rhetorical question! As far as I know NOTHING!.

What I liked about "Your Inner Fish" (exerpts from which I use in my college classes) is the story about the Tiktaalik fossil and the 5-year-olds. Even kindergarteners could see it was both a "crocodile" and a "fish" (by 5-year-old standards). If a child can see it's a transitional then the only reason I can see for your denial is the presupposition of religious belief.

If ID can ever make a prediction and then back it up with a discovery THEN and only THEN could it begin to take a stand as science. As I tell my students evidence is the coin of the realm in science and ID is broke.

ben said:

A moment's suggestion that you don't embrace the doctrine of natural selection will get you ostracized.

Scott F said:

ben said:

A moment's suggestion that you don't embrace the doctrine of natural selection will get you ostracized.

So, what you are saying is that in science, if anyone questions the current dogma, the current "doctrine", that person will get ostracized. But this statement is demonstrably false. Look at the very current furor over faster-than-light particles. Everyone "knows" that nothing can travel faster than light. Heck, they even have mathematical equations that prove that nothing can travel faster than light. It is the dogma. It is the doctrine. It is a "fact". But some scientists have now presented evidence that particles can travel faster than light. Have they been ostracized? Have they been publicly humiliated and ridiculed? No. In fact, the physics community is so abuzz and excited about the new evidence that even us laymen have heard about it in the public news. Experimental physicists are falling all over themselves to try to understand, to replicate this evidence. Theoretical physicists are rubbing their hands in glee, to have new evidence to chew on and try to make sense of. So no, questioning the current "doctrine" will not get you "ostracized" from the scientific community. If you (Ben) continue to repeat this statement, after being shown it to be false, then you are in fact and by the very definition, lying. But note further what these physicists did and did not do. They presented evidence, carefully gathered and carefully analyzed. They explained how they gathered the evidence. They invited other physicists to try and replicate their work. They invited comment and criticism. They did *not* hold a press conference to announce their findings ahead of any publication. (I don't know if they ever held a press conference or not, but I haven't heard of one.) They did *not* ridicule the dominant paradigm. They did *not* attack their critics in the popular press and in churches and on talk radio. They did *not* hide or obscure their sources. They did *not* attempt to suppress comments and criticism. They did *not* whine about being persecuted. They did *not* go to their local school boards and politicians to try and get the physics curriculum in high schools changed, in an attempt to change physics. No other scientist issued death threats to them for daring to question their "sacred" beliefs. Instead, they presented evidence, and asked that the scientific method proceed as normal, so that the scientific community as a whole could eventually come to a consensus on an explanation for this new evidence. Do you not see the difference between "science" and "creationism"? And let's not forget Galileo (and many others). He did not embrace the current religious doctrine. He was not only "ostracized" for doing so, he was threatened with excommunication, eternal damnation, and murder by the State. Do you really not see any difference between "science" and "creationism"?

ben said: A moment's suggestion that you don't embrace the doctrine of natural selection will get you ostracized.

nasty.brutish.tall said:

Robert Byers said: Again I like you agreeing that YEC ideas(100,00 year earth) are NOT an inadmissible hypothesis. Well at least once. Yet why not today? You say the evidence is overwhelming that the earth is billions of years oldetc. Yet we don't think so! So why in any way would YEC hypothesis be wrong from our standpoint. Even if wrong as you say because of the better ideas it still would be okay for YEC to make hypothesis and then commence method . We are convinced, the apple hitting our head, that genesis is true.! there is nothing wrong with this as our hunch/insight/apple . In and of itself there is nothing wrong with YEC presumptions for ideas or hypothesis about nature. They can just attack us on our methodology or evidence period. Of late historic intellectual thought YEC (perhaps ID0 has been pronounced dismissed at the hypothesis gate because of the origin of our hypothesis. This has been a error of importance. They have said our insights don;t count just because of the type of apple hitting us. I say surely an apples an apple.

Robert, you perceive that your hypothesis is not allowed because of the fact that you take your inspiration for it from your religious beliefs, and you object to that. I understand why you might feel that way because the rhetoric on this topic often quickly turns into acrimonious religious and political argument. Yes, some people on discussion boards insult you and dismiss you because of your religious beliefs. But don't confuse the uncivil rhetoric with the real bottom line. For science, the bottom line is all about the evidence. It ultimately doesn't matter where your hypothesis comes from -- whether from your religious beliefs, an epiphany in a dream, or a little birdie whispering in your ear. If you can produce evidence to support your hypothesis, evidence that others can test, reproduce, and verify, then you can get your hypothesis accepted. There are plenty of cases of scientists who were ridiculed for proposing "kooky" hypotheses, but who eventually had their hypotheses accepted because they did the only thing that truly matters in science, which is to produce evidence that speaks for itself. When you strip it down to its core, the fact that YEC ideas aren't accepted by scientists has nothing to do with religion. The hypothesis of a young Earth isn't disallowed up front because of its religious inspiration. It is dismissed because of the lack of credible scientific evidence to support it. You say you disagree about the evidence. That's your prerogative. But that's where your problem lies with respect to being taken seriously. It's not enough to simply disagree about the evidence. Your ideas don't deserve equal standing simply because you "see it otherwise." The overwhelming majority of scientifically literate people, whether they are Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, or atheist, finds no credible evidence to support the young Earth hypothesis. It's about the evidence, not about the religion. The insults and criticisms directed toward religion only come later, when someone refuses to accept credible scientific evidence because it conflicts with their religious belief. Which is why my question to you is important.

Robert Byers said: Evolutionism or anyone must cease and desist denying the legitimacy of creationist hypothesis.

It occurred to be with a start, or being clobbered by a apple, while in conversation with you and noting a few others that is demanding true and reasonable that YEC hypothesis (or ID or anything) are not as legitimate CLEARLY as anything. I mean everyone must submit to this to be consistent. They then clobbered yous, since they could, on methodology or eviudence/conclusions. yous is excessively clobbered to deny that yous was clobbered on the evidences of conclusions about origins is total nuts when is yous goin to accepts this you has been clobbered mightly

yous must cease and desist denying the legitimacy of real scientific hypothesis. you should try to spread the word amongst organized creationism. You certainly could do with some professional help.

When confronted with the evidence, ben seems to have run away. I wonder if it is because he realized that he was completely wrong, or if he realized that he was trying to argue worth people more knowledgable than he is, or maybe because he plans on coming back later and declaring victory despite all of the evidence?

DS said: When confronted with the evidence, ben seems to have run away. I wonder if it is because he realized that he was completely wrong, or if he realized that he was trying to argue worth people more knowledgable than he is, or maybe because he plans on coming back later and declaring victory despite all of the evidence?

Robert Byers lied: Evolutionism or anyone must cease and desist denying the legitimacy of creationist hypothesis. I will try to spread the word amongst organized creationism. I could do with some help.

Robert Byers said: I'm not talking about YEC hypothesis's being accepted. I was making a careful point about the YEC hypothesis being rejected, at the gate, because of the origin of the hypothesis.

stevaroni said: Once you put some actual evidence on the table, which has always been the buy-in to the debate, we'll be more than happy to take the YEC 'hypothesis" seriously.

Robert Byers said: I will try to spread the word amongst organized creationism.

fnxtr said: Ben will now come back and say he doesn't really have enough time to continue this debate, he has a job and a family and yadda yadda yadda.

ben said:

fnxtr said: Ben will now come back and say he doesn't really have enough time to continue this debate, he has a job and a family and yadda yadda yadda.

I'm having fun. Let's continue.

ben said:

fnxtr said: Ben will now come back and say he doesn't really have enough time to continue this debate, he has a job and a family and yadda yadda yadda.

I'm having fun. Let's continue.

I guess ben ran a way again. This is fun.

apokryltaros said:

ben said:

fnxtr said: Ben will now come back and say he doesn't really have enough time to continue this debate, he has a job and a family and yadda yadda yadda.

I'm having fun. Let's continue.

Then explain to us why your alleged sincere belief in the Creationist lie of "There are no transitional fossils" magically negates all of the examples of transitional fossils we presented to you.

Because he never said "there are no transitional fossils" - no, wait ... maybe he did, but then changed it to "there aren't enough transitional fossils." Or perhaps it was "there aren't enough transitional fossils of a high enough quality for my standards," or was it "I don't care if there are or aren't any fossils of anything because Darwin was wrong, natural selection doesn't occur, species are immutable, genetics is wrong and so are radiometric and carbon dating methods, so are the entire fields of cosmology and astronomy and physics and chemistry and medicine and agriculture and selective breeding and nothing has ever been discovered to show either that creationism is wrong OR how boneheadedly wrong it is." Then again, it could even have been "There bascially isn't enough anything to make me stop thinking Genesis is a scientific text and The Flintsones was a documentary because I'm actually quite petrified of the Hell my loving God might send me to, so I'm going to shove my fingers in my ears and shout "lalalalala!" until I go to Heaven and watch you all burn forever." If it wasn't that, that's likely where we're headed.

Sorry guys. Went with the wife to dinner.

I want to clarify something. I don't take Genesis to be a scientific text. Honestly, I don't think the author of Genesis would have had much emotional investment in the current discussion, because the author of Genesis seems to have included the creation narrative to establish the framework with which the reader is to understand the creator/creation dynamic.

That is not to say that the creation narrative includes scientific inaccuracies. Whether in the literal or allegorical sense, it represents itself as being a legitimate account of the origin of the created order.

If the Christian god is the transcendent creator-mind to whom the universe owes its existence, then ultimately the scientific data will be reconciled with the creation narrative in Genesis, either in a literal or allegorical sense.

I'm suggesting, then, that a sturdy distrust of modern science is in order. Despite my Christianity, I was raised in a liberal setting. I've always held that evolution is not necessarily contrary to the creation narrative in Genesis. That is, until I read Darwin. In the history of ideas Darwin's Origin of Species can certainly be considered a great text, for it changed the direction of the Western world. I cannot, though, consider it a good text. It came across as shoddy, quickly constructed, dependent on too many variables.

ben said:

Because he never said "there are no transitional fossils" - no, wait ... maybe he did, but then changed it to "there aren't enough transitional fossils." Or perhaps it was "there aren't enough transitional fossils of a high enough quality for my standards," or was it "I don't care if there are or aren't any fossils of anything because Darwin was wrong, natural selection doesn't occur, species are immutable, genetics is wrong and so are radiometric and carbon dating methods, so are the entire fields of cosmology and astronomy and physics and chemistry and medicine and agriculture and selective breeding and nothing has ever been discovered to show either that creationism is wrong OR how boneheadedly wrong it is." Then again, it could even have been "There bascially isn't enough anything to make me stop thinking Genesis is a scientific text and The Flintsones was a documentary because I'm actually quite petrified of the Hell my loving God might send me to, so I'm going to shove my fingers in my ears and shout "lalalalala!" until I go to Heaven and watch you all burn forever." If it wasn't that, that's likely where we're headed.

Sorry guys. Went with the wife to dinner.

I want to clarify something. I don't take Genesis to be a scientific text. Honestly, I don't think the author of Genesis would have had much emotional investment in the current discussion, because the author of Genesis seems to have included the creation narrative to establish the framework with which the reader is to understand the creator/creation dynamic.

That is not to say that the creation narrative includes scientific inaccuracies. Whether in the literal or allegorical sense, it represents itself as being a legitimate account of the origin of the created order.

If the Christian god is the transcendent creator-mind to whom the universe owes its existence, then ultimately the scientific data will be reconciled with the creation narrative in Genesis, either in a literal or allegorical sense.

ben said:

I'm suggesting, then, that a sturdy distrust of modern science is in order. Despite my Christianity, I was raised in a liberal setting. I've always held that evolution is not necessarily contrary to the creation narrative in Genesis. That is, until I read Darwin. In the history of ideas Darwin's Origin of Species can certainly be considered a great text, for it changed the direction of the Western world. I cannot, though, consider it a good text. It came across as shoddy, quickly constructed, dependent on too many variables.

ben said:

I'm suggesting, then, that a sturdy distrust of modern science is in order. Despite my Christianity, I was raised in a liberal setting. I've always held that evolution is not necessarily contrary to the creation narrative in Genesis. That is, until I read Darwin. In the history of ideas Darwin's Origin of Species can certainly be considered a great text, for it changed the direction of the Western world. I cannot, though, consider it a good text. It came across as shoddy, quickly constructed, dependent on too many variables.

If the Christian god is the transcendent creator-mind to whom the universe owes its existence, then ultimately the scientific data will be reconciled with the creation narrative in Genesis, either in a literal or allegorical sense.

ben said: I'm suggesting, then, that a sturdy distrust of modern science is in order.

That is, until I read Darwin. In the history of ideas Darwin’s Origin of Species can certainly be considered a great text, for it changed the direction of the Western world. I cannot, though, consider it a good text.

ben said:

I'm suggesting, then, that a sturdy distrust of modern science is in order.

Despite my Christianity, I was raised in a liberal setting.

I've always held that evolution is not necessarily contrary to the creation narrative in Genesis. That is, until I read Darwin. In the history of ideas Darwin's Origin of Species can certainly be considered a great text, for it changed the direction of the Western world. I cannot, though, consider it a good text. It came across as shoddy, quickly constructed, dependent on too many variables.

Unkle, "distrust" is not a synonym for "skepticism."

They are similar, but they are not identical. Distrust means having a lack of trust or faith in something, whereas being skeptical means wanting to question it.

ben said: I'm suggesting, then, that a sturdy distrust of modern science is in order.

ben:

So that would be a no. You haven't looked at the evidence. You are not entitled to an opinion and no one should care if you have one. Try again later when you are willing to look at evidence.

And by "Unkle," I mean "stevaroni"

nasty.brutish.tall said:

ben said: I'm suggesting, then, that a sturdy distrust of modern science is in order.

Clearly your sturdy distrust of modern science hasn't soured you on the use of a computer. So which consequences of modern science does your sturdy distrust compel you to eschew due to their dubious provenance? Pharmaceuticals? Electric lighting? Cellular telephony? Magnetic resonance imaging? The geophysics of oil exploration? Or is your sturdy distrust of modern science not really a distrust of modern science at all, but rather a reflexive distaste for select ideas within modern science? Assuming you participate in the modern world with the rest of us, to claim a sturdy distrust of science is a little like a guy in a life raft arguing against the principle of buoyancy.

apokryltaros said: Unkle, "distrust" is not a synonym for "skepticism." They are similar, but they are not identical. Distrust means having a lack of trust or faith in something, whereas being skeptical means wanting to question it.

apokryltaros said: And by "Unkle," I mean "stevaroni"

Well a I guess ben was just another typical creationist. He demanded evidence and ran away when presented with it. These guys are terrified of the evidence because they know what it reveals. It destroys all of their presuppositions and dependence on supernatural causes. When their ignorance is revealed they either stubbornly stick to their story despite the evidence, or try to somehow claim that they and they alone know more than all the experts combined.

Oh well, I wonder if he ever looked up the term "ostracized"? It would be funny to see the look on his face when he realizes that it doesn't mean that everyone disagreed with him because he was spouting nonsense.

stevaroni said:

ben said: I'm suggesting, then, that a sturdy distrust of modern science is in order.

Too late. Science already has a sturdy distrust of itself. That's why science always insists on examining the actual evidence and bad ideas get weeded out. Perpetual motion - gone. An earth-centric universe - gone. The aether - gone. Cold Haeckles embryos - gone. Piltdown man - gone. fusion - gone. Science already runs under the "put up or shut up" rule, and that's been rule number one for 200 years. It's creationism that never brings it's game.

That is, until I read Darwin. In the history of ideas Darwin’s Origin of Species can certainly be considered a great text, for it changed the direction of the Western world. I cannot, though, consider it a good text.

Nobody considers "Origin" to be a good text on evolution. How could it be? Darwin didn't know anything about evolution when he wrote it. Darwin died 130 years ago, in an era where steam locomotives and telegraphs were brand new cutting-edge technologies. He had no idea what a gene was. He had no real concept of how heredity worked. Germ theory was a new idea. Dinosaurs were a recent discovery that mainstream biology was struggling to understand. Continental drift had not even been conceived of yet. DNA would not be accurately described for another 80 years. Dawin. Knew. Almost. Nothing. About. Evolution. Darwin doesn't matter. All Darwin did was pull back the curtain and say "hey guys, I think I see how this machine might work". Had the Beagle capsized a mile outside Southampton dock evolution would still exist. It was a concept that several scientists were converging on at the time. We'd just be talking about "Wallancian Evolution" instead. Hell, maybe Wallace would have had the foresight to call it "the LAW of evolution" and deprive the creationists of one of their silly legalistic canards. In the past 150 years human understanding stands miles ahead of what we knew in 1860. Unless you're writing this blog with a quill pen by the light of a tallow lamp, you should be able to understand this. That 150 years of empirical evidence is what we teach today as "evolution", not the rough sketch that Chuckie D wrote down 150 years ago. Nonetheless, criticizing the fact of evolution because Darwin didn't understand it fully when he wrote the first book on the subject 150 years ago is like saying that airplanes might not actually be able fly because Bernoulli had typos in his equations.

Steve P. said: Yr full a sh*t Stevaroni. evolution is f*ckin sophistry. Get with the programmed. Life is not a rock. You sound like an echo from Elzinga's evo-lounge. How many biological development thresholds has evolution explained? You get the first simple cell gratis. Start with motility. Or defense. Or sensation. Or digestion. Or vision. No cut and paste, perty please.

Steve P wrote:

"Get with the programmed."

Now that ladies and gentlemen is a Freudian slip so profound that it includes the bra and panties. Good one Steve.

Steve P. the delusional rug merchant residing in Taiwan shoulda barfed: Yr full a sh*t Behe, Dembski, Klinghoffer, Luskin, Meyer, Nelson, Wells. INTELLIGENT DESIGN cretinism is f*ckin sophistry. Get yourself outta the programmed DI IDiot Borg Collective. Embrace rational thought, not pseudoscientific religiously-motivated claptrap.

apokryltaros said:

Steve P. said: Yr full a sh*t Stevaroni. evolution is f*ckin sophistry. Get with the programmed. Life is not a rock. You sound like an echo from Elzinga's evo-lounge. How many biological development thresholds has evolution explained? You get the first simple cell gratis. Start with motility. Or defense. Or sensation. Or digestion. Or vision. No cut and paste, perty please.

Why is Evolutionary Biology "fucking sophistry," Steve P? After all, you refuse to look at anything we show you to contradict you. Is it because you pride yourself on refusing to educate yourself about it? Is it because trying to understand it makes your brain hurt? Is it because the non-explanation of GODDIDIT is more to your lazy-brained liking? Oh, and why are you typing like some whiny brat if you also want us to "converse like adults"? Do you enjoy making yourself look like a hypocrite on top of a smarmy idiot?

DS said: Steve P wrote: "Get with the programmed." Now that ladies and gentlemen is a Freudian slip so profound that it includes the bra and panties. Good one Steve.

John said: Merci beaucoup, I couldn't have said it better myself

unkle.hank said:

apokryltaros said: Unkle, "distrust" is not a synonym for "skepticism." They are similar, but they are not identical. Distrust means having a lack of trust or faith in something, whereas being skeptical means wanting to question it.

Yep, I knew once I'd clicked "submit" that I should've clarified the difference. That's what happens when I concentrate too hard on html tags! On that, creationist distrust of science seems to have its roots in the fact that science doesn't coddle you and tell you you're a special snowflake and all your enemies will burn in Hell. Science objectively and dispassionately looks at the facts and says "you're an ape sitting on a 4 billion year-old rock in a 14 billion year-old near-vaccuum and you're going to die one day and tiny things will eat you and in about 5 billion years your sun will explode, erasing any trace that you were ever sitting on that rock". Some people are obviously better equipped to deal with that reality than others.

apokryltaros said:

Steve P. said: Yr full a sh*t Stevaroni. evolution is f*ckin sophistry. Get with the programmed. Life is not a rock. You sound like an echo from Elzinga's evo-lounge. How many biological development thresholds has evolution explained? You get the first simple cell gratis. Start with motility. Or defense. Or sensation. Or digestion. Or vision. No cut and paste, perty please.

Why is Evolutionary Biology "fucking sophistry," Steve P? After all, you refuse to look at anything we show you to contradict you. Is it because you pride yourself on refusing to educate yourself about it? Is it because trying to understand it makes your brain hurt? Is it because the non-explanation of GODDIDIT is more to your lazy-brained liking? Oh, and why are you typing like some whiny brat if you also want us to "converse like adults"? Do you enjoy making yourself look like a hypocrite on top of a smarmy idiot?

nasty.brutish.tall said:

Robert Byers said: I will try to spread the word amongst organized creationism.

Robert, Have fun with that. I am sorry, though, that you didn't seem to understand my points, and that you didn't have space here to answer my yes or no question. Nice talking with you.

Robert:

You did not understand the points very well.
As i said the freedom of hypothesis origins is what i never of before .
Anything can be a apple hitting the head.
Critics dismissed the evidence or methodology AFTER the proposed hypothesis.
this is not a fine point you are making.
its very common for you to claim that your opponents say and sincerely believe that God or genesis are disqualified, at the gate, from making hypothesis.
In fact however its only methodology or evidence presented LATER that have disqualify you.
Any hypothesis from any spark is okay, but yours is conclusively disproven,
This was a interesting thread for me. You have been told dozens of times and yet you keep making the same absurd comment again and again and again. We can keep making the same rebuttal, as many times as you want, it will never make you right.

Steve P. said: Yr full a sh*t Stevaroni. evolution is f*ckin sophistry. Get with the programmed. Life is not a rock. You sound like an echo from Elzinga's evo-lounge. How many biological development thresholds has evolution explained? You get the first simple cell gratis. Start with motility. Or defense. Or sensation. Or digestion. Or vision. No cut and paste, perty please.

stevaroni said:

ben said: I'm suggesting, then, that a sturdy distrust of modern science is in order.

Too late. Science already has a sturdy distrust of itself. That's why science always insists on examining the actual evidence and bad ideas get weeded out. Perpetual motion - gone. An earth-centric universe - gone. The aether - gone. Cold Haeckles embryos - gone. Piltdown man - gone. fusion - gone. Science already runs under the "put up or shut up" rule, and that's been rule number one for 200 years. It's creationism that never brings it's game.

That is, until I read Darwin. In the history of ideas Darwin’s Origin of Species can certainly be considered a great text, for it changed the direction of the Western world. I cannot, though, consider it a good text.

Nobody considers "Origin" to be a good text on evolution. How could it be? Darwin didn't know anything about evolution when he wrote it. Darwin died 130 years ago, in an era where steam locomotives and telegraphs were brand new cutting-edge technologies. He had no idea what a gene was. He had no real concept of how heredity worked. Germ theory was a new idea. Dinosaurs were a recent discovery that mainstream biology was struggling to understand. Continental drift had not even been conceived of yet. DNA would not be accurately described for another 80 years. Dawin. Knew. Almost. Nothing. About. Evolution. Darwin doesn't matter. All Darwin did was pull back the curtain and say "hey guys, I think I see how this machine might work". Had the Beagle capsized a mile outside Southampton dock evolution would still exist. It was a concept that several scientists were converging on at the time. We'd just be talking about "Wallancian Evolution" instead. Hell, maybe Wallace would have had the foresight to call it "the LAW of evolution" and deprive the creationists of one of their silly legalistic canards. In the past 150 years human understanding stands miles ahead of what we knew in 1860. Unless you're writing this blog with a quill pen by the light of a tallow lamp, you should be able to understand this. That 150 years of empirical evidence is what we teach today as "evolution", not the rough sketch that Chuckie D wrote down 150 years ago. Nonetheless, criticizing the fact of evolution because Darwin didn't understand it fully when he wrote the first book on the subject 150 years ago is like saying that airplanes might not actually be able fly because Bernoulli had typos in his equations.

Robert Byers said: I did understand your points very well.

apokryltaros said:

Robert Byers said: I did understand your points very well.

You did not understand nasty's points at all. Creationism is dismissed by its critics because Creationism has no evidence to support it, and no one can demonstrate how it is supposed to explain anything, let alone be a science.

unkle.hank said: I really do wonder why they bother sometimes. Surely it can't be that important that they're not actually apes. Is it not sufficient to simply believe and worship as the Christians they wish to be, in a country which allows them precisely those freedoms, without attempting to force those beliefs on other people? How is a simple fact of nature so threatening?

apokryltaros said:

unkle.hank said: I really do wonder why they bother sometimes. Surely it can't be that important that they're not actually apes. Is it not sufficient to simply believe and worship as the Christians they wish to be, in a country which allows them precisely those freedoms, without attempting to force those beliefs on other people? How is a simple fact of nature so threatening?

They come up with all sorts of stupid excuses, that the Bible says we're not apes, and we're forbidden to argue with the Bible under pain of eternal damnation, or that Jesus can't love us if we're really damned, dirty apes, or that modern society will collapse into a stinking mess of evil and unChristian-ness and puppy kicking if word got out that we're all evil apes.

unkle.hank said:

apokryltaros said:

unkle.hank said: I really do wonder why they bother sometimes. Surely it can't be that important that they're not actually apes. Is it not sufficient to simply believe and worship as the Christians they wish to be, in a country which allows them precisely those freedoms, without attempting to force those beliefs on other people? How is a simple fact of nature so threatening?

They come up with all sorts of stupid excuses, that the Bible says we're not apes, and we're forbidden to argue with the Bible under pain of eternal damnation, or that Jesus can't love us if we're really damned, dirty apes, or that modern society will collapse into a stinking mess of evil and unChristian-ness and puppy kicking if word got out that we're all evil apes.

Of course Jesus can love them if they're apes. Jesus was an ape, for criminy's sake. Jesus was also a Palestinian by birth - though there are probably some creos who'd deny that, too.

bigdakine said:

unkle.hank said:

apokryltaros said:

unkle.hank said: I really do wonder why they bother sometimes. Surely it can't be that important that they're not actually apes. Is it not sufficient to simply believe and worship as the Christians they wish to be, in a country which allows them precisely those freedoms, without attempting to force those beliefs on other people? How is a simple fact of nature so threatening?

They come up with all sorts of stupid excuses, that the Bible says we're not apes, and we're forbidden to argue with the Bible under pain of eternal damnation, or that Jesus can't love us if we're really damned, dirty apes, or that modern society will collapse into a stinking mess of evil and unChristian-ness and puppy kicking if word got out that we're all evil apes.

Of course Jesus can love them if they're apes. Jesus was an ape, for criminy's sake. Jesus was also a Palestinian by birth - though there are probably some creos who'd deny that, too.

Palestine didn't exist back then. It was called Judea. He was a Jew by birth. Of course we can't allow the far left to rewrite history for us as well.

unkle.hank said:

apokryltaros said:

unkle.hank said: I really do wonder why they bother sometimes. Surely it can't be that important that they're not actually apes. Is it not sufficient to simply believe and worship as the Christians they wish to be, in a country which allows them precisely those freedoms, without attempting to force those beliefs on other people? How is a simple fact of nature so threatening?

They come up with all sorts of stupid excuses, that the Bible says we're not apes, and we're forbidden to argue with the Bible under pain of eternal damnation, or that Jesus can't love us if we're really damned, dirty apes, or that modern society will collapse into a stinking mess of evil and unChristian-ness and puppy kicking if word got out that we're all evil apes.

Of course Jesus can love them if they're apes. Jesus was an ape, for criminy's sake. Jesus was also a Palestinian by birth - though there are probably some creos who'd deny that, too.

unkle.hank said:

bigdakine said:

unkle.hank said:

apokryltaros said:

unkle.hank said: I really do wonder why they bother sometimes. Surely it can't be that important that they're not actually apes. Is it not sufficient to simply believe and worship as the Christians they wish to be, in a country which allows them precisely those freedoms, without attempting to force those beliefs on other people? How is a simple fact of nature so threatening?

They come up with all sorts of stupid excuses, that the Bible says we're not apes, and we're forbidden to argue with the Bible under pain of eternal damnation, or that Jesus can't love us if we're really damned, dirty apes, or that modern society will collapse into a stinking mess of evil and unChristian-ness and puppy kicking if word got out that we're all evil apes.

Of course Jesus can love them if they're apes. Jesus was an ape, for criminy's sake. Jesus was also a Palestinian by birth - though there are probably some creos who'd deny that, too.

Palestine didn't exist back then. It was called Judea. He was a Jew by birth. Of course we can't allow the far left to rewrite history for us as well.

I was possibly stretching the point there, I must admit. However, I don't know exactly how you read "far left" into that comment. Then again, being from Australia I sometimes I forget how low the "far left" bar can be set elsewhere, or how easily hackles can rise regarding certain areas of international interest. But that's the last I'll say on that. Such conversations always sidetrack threads beyond repair and I'd like to stay on topic.