On Mar 4, 9:44 am, John Harshman <
jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Ron O wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 8:24 pm, John Harshman <
jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> Ron O wrote:
> >>> On Mar 3, 4:55 pm, John Harshman <
jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> Ernest Major wrote:
> >>>>> In message
> >>>>> <
199060b6-9f05-425f-8ec6-e45327071...@t15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, Ron
> >>>>> O <
rokim...@cox.net> writes
> >>>>>> On Mar 3, 8:41 am, Ernest Major <{$
t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>>>>> In message
> >>>>>>> <
02b480a3-27c4-451c-a2ed-da0eb9245...@t16g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>, Ron
> >>>>>>> O <
rokim...@cox.net> writes
> >>>>>>>> On Mar 3, 7:44 am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
> >>>>>>>>
orig...@moderators.isc.org" <
rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 3, 2012 12:27:49 PM UTC, Ron O wrote:
SNIP
> >>>> This should be easy to settle. Forget Behe. Ron, is Kenneth Miller a
> >>>> creationist? He certainly believes in a creator. How about Theodosius
> >>>> Dobzhansky?
> >>> Why forget about Behe? Ken Miller is a creationist and he likely
> >>> would agree that he is one, he just isn't one like Behe or Ken Ham or
> >>> Dembski or Philip Johnson or etc.
> >> So it's a pretty useless word, then. And I doubt that Miller would agree
> >> to being a creationist.
>
> > It would seem that any use of the word is pretty useless unless you
> > define what you mean.
>
> Unless you're Humpty Dumpty, however, you can't just enforce your
> personal meaning on everyone. This definition thing has a social
> component. Communication is in theory the goal, so we should come to
> some agreement.
Major's definition isn't the usual definition either. You are just
restating the facts. There are different ways of dealing with the
situation. You can stick with the usual fundy definition that is used
on TO (not a good option for the dishonest IDiots and ID perps). You
can go with my option or something like Major's option. Both options
require definition of what is a creationist. My option the IDiots
can't deny that they are creationists, and have to differentiate
themselves in some meaningful way from other creationists that they do
not want to be associated with. Major would produce his definition
when he got the usual denial of being a creationist and what would
happen? What does happen is that the IDiots and ID perps continue to
claim that they are not creationists (they can't do that under my
definition) and the blow smoke about how Major's definition doesn't
apply to them anyway. That is how it always goes down. Nyikos is
just an example of that. Do the ID perps at the Discovery Institute
deny being creationists? Yes. What happens when someone takes them
to task for that? This is just the reality of the situation.
>
> > That is just the way things are as long as there are people that will
> > lie about being creationists in order to be like the Discovery
> > Institute ID perps.
>
> > I believe that Miller has said that he was a creationist,
>
> Can you find an actual statement?
Probably not. It may have been put up at the Panda's Thumb, but it
could have been ARN or even here. It was probably at least 6 or 7
years ago and may have been an older quote than that. I do recall
that the quote included something like "I make no bones about the
fact" so using that quote and Ken or Kenneth Miller might turn up
something if the links are not broken.
I tried it but you end up with a bunch of junk to wade through and
Miller uses the expression quite often.
>
> > just not the
> > fundy type, probably some type of theistic evolutionist. I recall
> > something where he said he made no bones about believing in a creator
> > god. He obviously does not rule out the science and so he is likely
> > the same as Collins with God in there somewhere.
>
> So the question is whether it's useful to call such people creationists.
> I suggest that it isn't, because the useful distinction is between
> creationists and mainstream science. If you accept all of mainstream
> science it just isn't useful to call you a creationist. We can still
> make distinctions among creationists based on the particular tenets of
> mainstream science they reject.
My point is that the other option allows the dishonest to blow smoke.
My option makes them admit that they are creationists and then defend
themselves. Nothing works that well against the dishonest. Look at
how Nyikos has sidestepped the issue for over a year and keeps
repeating that he isn't the fundy type of creationist. He just
doesn't answer the question. My way make the guys look as bogus as we
all know that they are. After we determine who is or isn't a
creationists then the liars have to come up with some way to
distinguish themselves from what they claim that they are not. Then
they have to demonstrate that they are not Major's type of creationist
while knowing that they are creationists. My definition just makes it
easier to make it evident that they are lying. Nyikos is a case in
point because he has had to manipulate posts and delete my definition
of creationists in order to keep from admitting that he is a
creationist. Honest people do not do bogus things like that. What is
sad is that I admit to being a creationist so just being a creationist
is not the issue. The issue is what type of creationist the person
is, and Nyikos is the type that has lied about the ID scam and tried
to defend the ID perps for over a year.
SNIP:
> >> In what way is Nyikos a creationist? He has never, as far as I know,
> >> said he believes in a creator.
>
> > Nyikos admitted that he was a Christian over a year ago.
>
> Yes, but he's also a Christian agnostic: he agrees that the evidence for
> God's existence is weak, but he's a Christian because he would like it
> to be true. Nor is a Christian necessarily a creationist, unless we
> adopt your position in which the term is synonymous with "theist".
He hasn't claimed to be an agnostic, not to me. He just rambles on
about less than 1% probability and "hope" instead of the usual
"faith." That isn't claiming to be an agnostic because religious
belief isn't based on probability, and he can still believe in
something no matter how low the probability is. He just keeps
evading.
>
> > He just
> > claimed that he was unconventional in his beliefs. He has dodged
> > stating where his creator fits in, but he just claimed last week that
> > he will finally come clean next week. Don't ask me why he put it off
> > for a week after dodging for a year. So we will see. If he does
> > finally say I'll let you know. He has constantly dodged claiming that
> > he isn't the fundy type of creationist,
>
> Not true. In fact he has been exceedingly clear on the subject. Old
> earth, common descent, natural processes. His only approach to
> creationism is the fine-tuning argument. His version of ID for the
> bacterial flagellum and such is purely and explicitly naturalistic. A
> weird position but not creationism by any stretch, as he claims the
> Designers evolved naturally.
Where is his intelligent designer in the mix? He has been as clear as
mud. How could you be deceived by what he claims? Is Behe a
creationist? Yes. How is Nyikos different? Where do his aliens come
from? Who created his immortal soul? Who created the universe?
Nyikos didn't spend a year defending the ID scam because he was not a
creationist. He didn't start spouting Bible verses in his defense
because he isn't a creationist. We will see next week if he makes
good on his promise.
>
> > but that is the same thing
> > that a lot of the ID perps claim and Major's definition would define
> > them as creationists, just not the fundy type of creationist. My
> > definition is actually the standard definition and covers all
> > creationists.
>
> Standard in what sense? You seem to be the only person using it. Though
> not quite. Some years ago at the North American SF convention (Worldcon
> was somewhere else that year) there was a panel discussion organized
> between creationists and "evolutionists". At the very outset it became
> apparent that the so-called creationists were merely creationist in your
> sense: they accepted all of mainstream science but thought that God had
> been in some way involved. The panel was forced to adjourn because no
> source for argument could be found.
Standard as in terms of what is in the dictionary. There are a lot of
definitions of creationist. Only one is the fundy type. The broad
definition is the one I use.
My Random House College dictionary (1975) just states that "The
doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing" and the single
example given is a soul for each individual. It doesn't list the
fundy definition of creationism. My Webster dictionary doesn't list
creationism nor creationist. Jillery put up some web definitions that
included my definition and the fundy definition. I haven't seen
Major's definition listed anywhere, but I would agree that it is as
good a definition of the type of creationist that we are concerned
with as any.
>
> > Once we get that far then you have to determine what
> > type of creationist they are. I use the standard definition because
> > it makes guys like Nyikos squirm.
>
> In other words, you're being an asshole for the fun of it?
No, because it doesn't allow them to be dishonest without having to
understand how dishonest they are. If they were honest, they wouldn't
have to squirm. Why let the jerks get away with blowing smoke as if
they had an argument? You have to know that they are laughing at you
as they lie to your face thinking that they are getting away with
something with word games.
>
> > I have no problem admitting that I
> > am a creationist because I don't have anything to hide in that
> > regard. The fundy definition doesn't apply to me and Major's
> > definition doesn't apply to me because I am not that type of
> > creationist. The fundy definition allows guys like the ID perps to
> > lie to themselves about why they believe what they do.
>
> Major's definition isn't the fundy one, you will note. And it does apply
> to Behe.
I have already stated that. That was part of my argument. Major
would have to define what he meant as much as I would, but it is
easier for them to deny what they are since Major's definition
requires the elucidation of what their problem with science is when
they can keep claiming not to be creationists. My way they have to
admit to being creationists and then say why it doesn't matter. Just
check out how the ID perps confuse and lie about the issue. Just
check out how Nyikos is doing it in the By their fruits thread.
>
> > You have to admit that guys like Behe and Dembski would deny that they
> > were creationists if Major called them creationists.
>
> Yet they fit his definition. Don't be too sure that Behe would deny it,
> though. He has been forced to acknowledge several YEC beliefs in the
> past few years, whether he really believes them or not.
Major's definition does not rely on YEC beliefs. When guys like
Dembski and Behe are called creationists they consistently deny that
they are creationists and usually have some qualifiers about biblical
literalist or scientific creationists in their denial when you know
that, that doesn't matter.
I would agree with Major about his definition being a good one for the
faction of creationists that we are concerned with on TO. Kalk is the
type of creationist that we are talking about by Major's definition
and that is the way it should be.
>
> > He would have to
> > define what his definition was and what they do is repeat that they
> > are not fundy types of creationists, run or change the subject. What
> > do Behe and Dembski do when someone calls them a creationist? Isn't
> > the fundy definition the basis of their denial? Does the fundy
> > definition matter in their case as to their being creationists or
> > not? Major would say no and so would I. I keep saying that these
> > guys are not bogus because they are creationist, but because of what
> > they do because they are creationists.
>
> So what makes Peter a creationist other than the sense in which you are?
> Why should we care if he's just like you?
Well he claims to be a Christian, and I haven't met one that isn't a
creationist. Who made Peter being just like me an issue? Did I miss
something somewhere? Isn't it what Peter is that matters? Peter is
supposed to say next week, and I will let you know about what he
claims.
Ron Okimoto
SNIP: