Scientists Who Believe in a Creator, and Why.

[Wildswanderer]

Oh look! Another one that shoots himself in the foot right from the start. Only ignorant creationists think that either evolution or even abiogenesis was "by chance". He loses all credibility when he uses that strawman.

Surely you can do better than this collection of liars, loons, and losers.

Interpretation: I'm smarter than all these dumb scientists... because I'm an internet warrior.

 

[Polymath257]

Interpretation: I'm smarter than all these dumb scientists... because I'm an internet warrior.

Only if you think that creationists are really scientists. The problem is that they aren't.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Only if you think that creationists are really scientists. The problem is that they aren't.

Look another internet warrior who knows more than actual scientists!

 

[Polymath257]

Look another internet warrior who knows more than actual scientists!

No, I know what the *actual* scientists say because I read their research papers. Creationists don't tend to publish in refereed journals, which means they don't qualify as scientists.

It looks to me like you want to claim some non-scientists are scientists to justify a particular doctrine you hold.

 

[Wildswanderer]

No, I know what the *actual* scientists say because I read their research papers. Creationists don't tend to publish in refereed journals, which means they don't qualify as scientists.

It looks to me like you want to claim some non-scientists are scientists to justify a particular doctrine you hold.

You're only a scientist if you publish a paper?

 

[Polymath257]

You're only a scientist if you publish a paper?

A paper in a refereed journal, yes. Also, the paper should be in the area of study you are claiming as your scientific specialty.

 

[Wildswanderer]

A paper in a refereed journal, yes. Also, the paper should be in the area of study you are claiming as your scientific specialty.

So it's a publicity contest? If your papers aren't accepted how can they be published?

 

[Polymath257]

So it's a publicity contest? If your papers aren't accepted how can they be published?

Many papers are published that don't agree with mainstream positions. The key is to make a good argument based on unexplained data or providing a good critique of current ideas.

Creationists, on the other hand, can't seem to do this. They generally move directly to popular books as opposed to scholarly articles. Their goal is clearly to get a following, not to argue the actual ideas (which by their writings, they don't understand). The reason? Their scholarship is poor and their arguments have been refuted, often 150 years ago. So they peddle their stuff to an ignorant public that wants to hear how little real scientists understand.

Creationism was, in some ways, the original conspiracy theory stating that scientists are trying to promote atheism instead of the doctrines of creationism. Anyone who has ever actually met a group of scientists knows this is laughable.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Many papers are published that don't agree with mainstream positions. The key is to make a good argument based on unexplained data or providing a good critique of current ideas.

Creationists, on the other hand, can't seem to do this. They generally move directly to popular books as opposed to scholarly articles. Their goal is clearly to get a following, not to argue the actual ideas (which by their writings, they don't understand). The reason? Their scholarship is poor and their arguments have been refuted, often 150 years ago. So they peddle their stuff to an ignorant public that wants to hear how little real scientists understand.

Creationism was, in some ways, the original conspiracy theory stating that scientists are trying to promote atheism instead of the doctrines of creationism. Anyone who has ever actually met a group of scientists knows this is laughable.

Nice dodge but as usual no answer to the question.

 

[Polymath257]

Nice dodge but as usual no answer to the question.

Yes, actually, it was.

No, it is not a popularity contest as demonstrated that unpopular views get published. But you have to be able to make a good argument based on the evidence.

Creationists cannot do this because the evidence doesn't support their views.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Yes, actually, it was.

No, it is not a popularity contest as demonstrated that unpopular views get published. But you have to be able to make a good argument based on the evidence.

Creationists cannot do this because the evidence doesn't support their views.

I wasn't even asking about creationists per say. You can be a scientist and believe in a creator, that's not the question. If you submit a paper I assume there are editors it has to pass through. If it's not approved, then how do you get published?

 

[Polymath257]

I wasn't even asking about creationists per say. You can be a scientist and believe in a creator, that's not the question. If you submit a paper I assume there are editors it has to pass through. If it's not approved, then how do you get published?

You modify the paper according to the recommendations or send it to another journal (there are many). But the editors want to publish articles that have new and bold ideas that are supported by the evidence. That is what gives journals their reputation.

So, for example, when Einstein wrote his articles for relativity, it was a bold set of new ideas that were originally taken skeptically by many people (as they should have been). The evidence showed them to be correct.

But, make no mistake, the process of getting a paper accepted is grueling. This is true for anyone. You can't simply spout well-known views: they aren't new. You can't simply speculate about some crazy idea: you need to find evidence and support your views. You have to understand how your idea relates to the overall discussion about a topic *and be able to refute other views*. You can't simply state that the standard view makes no sense: you have to provide actual evidence that refutes it.

if you can't do this, you don't get published. But that isn't any different for creationists than it is for anyone else who needs to publish to keep their job. Being a research scientists is NOT an easy job.

it is not at all uncommon for a scientist to work on a paper for a year, send it off, having it rejected, send it to another journal, which requires edits, and only getting the paper published after a couple of years have passed. This has happened to me in mathematics.

Note: it is not uncommon either for positions to require 2 or 3 publications per year. You figure out what that means.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You modify the paper according to the recommendations or send it to another journal (there are many). But the editors want to publish articles that have new and bold ideas that are supported by the evidence. That is what gives journals their reputation.

So, for example, when Einstein wrote his articles for relativity, it was a bold set of new ideas that were originally taken skeptically by many people (as they should have been). The evidence showed them to be correct.

But, make no mistake, the process of getting a paper accepted is grueling. This is true for anyone. You can't simply spout well-known views: they aren't new. You can't simply speculate about some crazy idea: you need to find evidence and support your views. You have to understand how your idea relates to the overall discussion about a topic *and be able to refute other views*. You can't simply state that the standard view makes no sense: you have to provide actual evidence that refutes it.

if you can't do this, you don't get published. But that isn't any different for creationists than it is for anyone else who needs to publish to keep their job. Being a research scientists is NOT an easy job.

it is not at all uncommon for a scientist to work on a paper for a year, send it off, having it rejected, send it to another journal, which requires edits, and only getting the paper published after a couple of years have passed. This has happened to me in mathematics.

Note: it is not uncommon either for positions to require 2 or 3 publications per year. You figure out what that means.

And if someone has an idea that even smells the least bit like it could be promoting creation it's not going to be published....

 

[Polymath257]

And if someone has an idea that even smells the least bit like it could be promoting creation it's not going to be published....

Not necessarily true *if* they can substantiate their idea. But they will be held to the same standards as everyone else in regard to this.

But they can't be making the same, tired arguments that have been refuted multiple times already.

On the other hand, you won't find flat-earth theory published much either. For the same reasons.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

“Simply”, huh?

In a nutshell, yes.
In principle, evolution isn't exactly complicated.

Nah, sorry...genetic mutations rarely produce novel, functional information

"Rarely" is all the process of evolution needs to work with.

Consider a population of 1 million with a mutationrate of about 50 per newborn.
That's 50 million mutations per generation.

The law of big numbers.

And if mutations do create a different process, the organism always loses function in another.

For every gain, there's frequently also a cost, yes. Which isn't a problem either.

The LTEE started by Lenski is a good example of this.

You mean the one where a combination of 2 mutations triggered a population explosion because suddenly the species had access to an entirely novel metabolic pathway which enabled it to also grow on citrate while their peers in the other genetically isolated populations couldn't?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How rarely? We have millions of years to play with don't forget

And millions of individuals in every generation, each of which comes with a set of a few dozen mutations.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

...and each gain of one process has resulted in loss of function in another.

So?

This "loss" didn't seem to bother the population with knew exponential growth compared to the other populations because their beneficial mutations gave them access to entirely new food source.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And keep in mind, these mutations are from artificial means.

There's nothing artificial about those mutations. They occurred naturally. They were not genetically engineered.

Under lab-controlled conditions. The researchers are forcing pressures on the E. coli strains.

This is like objecting that the freezing process in a freezer is "artificial" because the freezer is a controlled environment and the engineers that made it are "forcing" it to be cold there.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Creationists cannot do this because the evidence doesn't support their views.

That’s bullocks. I suppose you think the Cambrian Explosion supports evolution? Or any of the other radiations?
Were they predicted?

No. Unfortunately, interpreting the evidence through an ID framework, isn’t where the money is.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

This is like objecting that the freezing process in a freezer is "artificial" because the freezer is a controlled environment and the engineers that made it are "forcing" it to be cold there.

This is a somewhat limited analogy, but let’s use it:
What does a freezer do? It gets items colder, faster / quicker.
So we should observe evolutionary advances under controlled conditions, quicker.

I predict those E. coli, will always be bacteria. Maybe a new species will arise, which I’ve never said isn’t possible. But they will always stay within their taxonomic family. And in agreement w/ the Bible: “according to their kind.”