What I actually said was "I am not not not a creationist either."
What you wrote was, "I am not a creationist."
Not only do I not belong in the group of people who are creationists but I also don't belong in the group who are not creationists
My definition of a creationist is anybody who believes that our universe was intelligently designed and created by a sentient agent with a purpose in mind. The complement is everybody else. By that definition, everybody is either a creationist or not, and nobody is both or neither.
The problem with most believers in science and many scientists is they still have the 19th century notion of a clockwork universe and clockwork reality. On some level (often every level) they believe reality was set in motion in the past (such as a big bang) and all things derive from it; all things are predictable with sufficient evidence and data.
That's not my understanding of what a clockwork universe is. It's one that runs itself without intelligent oversight. It's one where the sun doesn't need Apollo to drag it through the sky and where electrons travel through a circuit with nobody pushing them. Remember, the first wave of scientists (Renaissance to mid 19th century) demonstrated that the universe ran itself day to day on autopilot. This was followed by a second wave of scientists who showed us how the universe could assemble itself without intelligent oversight. Thus, the builder-ruler god became the builder god, then the builder god was dismissed. This is nicely documented by the rise of deism in the late 19th century as with American founding fathers, and then its relative disappearance and the rise of atheism following Darwin and the 20th century cosmologists and particle physicists.
Not really. Language is such that you can define a sphere as being flat.
That's a circle (2D). A sphere is a 3D object.
No! You are simply ascribing human characteristics to animals. A pavlovian reaction to preparing a meal for an animal simply means the animal knows it's meal time.
What I wrote was, "My dogs' actions indicate what they believe." You wrote "No!" but didn't otherwise contradict me. In fact, you agreed. What the "animal knows" is its belief. And I disagree that this is an example of pavlovian (classical) conditioning, which doesn't require any understanding of the consequences of the stimulus. The dogs know what to expect, which is why they are not merely salivating, but dancing around in anticipation as their bowls are being prepared.
Their beliefs aren't in words, but they are beliefs nevertheless.
I don't think this is strictly true. I'm the very first individual on the planet to "understand" two different metaphysics or at least know they exist and this does give me a unique perspective. However, I doubt I've ever said anything some scientist or philosopher hasn't already said.
I wrote, "You have criticisms of science not found within the scientific and critical thinking communities." First, you disagree, then offer an example of an original idea and a unique perspective. Then you deny its originality.
What I've added is that thought arises from the comparison of the senses to our beliefs
Why do you consider that original? We have an apprehension (evidence, or that which is evident to the senses), and this is quickly fleshed out with an understanding of what the apprehension signifies (thing in driveway, car in driveway, Bob's car in driveway, Bob's here, I owe Bob money I don't have) followed by how we feel about it (uh-oh). These are the cognitive and affective tags added to the apprehension. You've described the cognitive one - a tour through memory looking for relevant prior associations.
and that other animals and ancient people never think.
You must be using a different definition of
think than I do. All intelligent life thinks. We can see that birds and mammals do. We can watch them solve problems. It gets harder as we go back to fish through reptiles and amphibians, which seem to be conscious, but not problem-solvers.
