THE two most Important words in talk.origins

[nyik...@gmail.com]

It should be obvious what they are: "evolution" and "creationism" [or "creationist, but as far as this post is concerned, they play the same role].

Unfortunately, there is wide disagreement on what the words mean or should mean. That wouldn't be so bad if t.o. participants made it clear what they think they mean/should mean, but some do not because it doesn't occur to them that there are those reading their words think any differently about their meanings. [There are other people who don't make it clear for other reasons, but I don't want to go into that here.]

Meanings in use for "creationist" range all the way from "YEC (Young Earth Creationism)" to "belief in a creator" without even specifying what the creator is supposed to have created. [There is one well-known talk.origins regular who is at this latter extreme.]

The range for "evolution" is almost as great, and is the source of endless
misunderstandings, where the phrase "the theory of evolution" is used, on the one hand, to mean "common descent" or, at the opposite extreme, to mean "evolution due exclusively to naturalistic influences."


Back to "creationism": there are two very important intermediates between the two extremes. One is OEC, which accepts the prevailing geological consensus on the earth being approximately 4.5 gigayears old, yet also entails God having created a huge variety of"kinds" from nothing (or "from the dust of the earth") beyond which evolution cannot go.

The other is exemplified by believing in common descent but also in evolution that is guided by periodic nudges by supernatural entities.

For instance, I have often said that Behe is not a creationist because he believes in common descent. But lately I've been getting pushback in the form of being told that Behe *is* a creationist in the sense that he
believes in at least the "periodic supernatural nudges."

FTR, Behe has never publicly espoused this belief, but that is beside the
point: he has never made it part of his theory of ID (Intelligent Design),
and so he cannot be charged with espousing that "form of creationism."


There are similar confsions where "the theory of evolution" is concerned,
but I'm leaving that for a later post to this thread.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[dale]

On 12/8/2020 4:32 PM, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
> It should be obvious what they are: "evolution" and "creationism" [or "creationist, but as far as this post is concerned, they play the same role]....

what about cause and effect?

cyclical nature?

the last effect is the first cause?

combination of the big-bang and the big-crunch for instance?

cosmology without cosmological origins?


--
Minister Dale Kelly, Ph.D.
https://www.dalekelly.org/
Board Certified Holistic Health Practitioner
Board Certified Alternative Medical Practitioner

[jillery]

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:32:14 -0800 (PST), "nyik...@gmail.com"
<nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:

>It should be obvious what they are: "evolution" and "creationism" [or "creationist, but as far as this post is concerned, they play the same role].
>
>Unfortunately, there is wide disagreement on what the words mean or should mean. That wouldn't be so bad if t.o. participants made it clear what they think they mean/should mean, but some do not because it doesn't occur to them that there are those reading their words think any differently about their meanings. [There are other people who don't make it clear for other reasons, but I don't want to go into that here.]

It's no surprise that you criticize others for not making clear what
they mean by "creation", while at the same time you don't say what you
mean by it. That's a "tu quoque back atcha", which you willfully
conflate with "tu quoque" and your infantile PeeWeeHermanisms.

>Meanings in use for "creationist" range all the way from "YEC (Young Earth Creationism)" to "belief in a creator" without even specifying what the creator is supposed to have created. [There is one well-known talk.origins regular who is at this latter extreme.]
>
>The range for "evolution" is almost as great, and is the source of endless
>misunderstandings, where the phrase "the theory of evolution" is used, on the one hand, to mean "common descent" or, at the opposite extreme, to mean "evolution due exclusively to naturalistic influences."
>
>
>Back to "creationism": there are two very important intermediates between the two extremes. One is OEC, which accepts the prevailing geological consensus on the earth being approximately 4.5 gigayears old, yet also entails God having created a huge variety of"kinds" from nothing (or "from the dust of the earth") beyond which evolution cannot go.
>
>The other is exemplified by believing in common descent but also in evolution that is guided by periodic nudges by supernatural entities.
>
>For instance, I have often said that Behe is not a creationist because he believes in common descent. But lately I've been getting pushback in the form of being told that Behe *is* a creationist in the sense that he
>believes in at least the "periodic supernatural nudges."
>
>FTR, Behe has never publicly espoused this belief, but that is beside the
>point: he has never made it part of his theory of ID (Intelligent Design),
>and so he cannot be charged with espousing that "form of creationism."

FTR you have regularly asserted the above factually incorrect
statement, and to the best of my knowledge, have been authoritatively
corrected each time. That makes your statement above just more of
your meaningless noise.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[Robert Camp]

"By “intelligent design” I mean to imply design beyond the laws of
nature. That is, taking the laws of nature as given, are their other
reasons for concluding that life and its component systems have been
intentionally arranged? In my book, and in this essay, whenever I refer
to intelligent design (ID) I mean this stronger sense of
design-beyond-laws.” - Philosophical Objections to Intelligent Design, 2002


"I’m still not against Darwinian evolution on theological grounds. I’m
against it on scientific grounds. I think God could have made life using
apparently random mutation and natural selection. But my reading of the
scientific evidence is that he did not do it that way, that there was a
more active guiding. I think that we are all descended from some single
cell in the distant past but that that cell and later parts of life were
intentionally produced as the result of intelligent activity. As a
Christian, I say that intelligence is very likely to be God." - Can You
Believe in God and Evolution?, Time, 2005

[Oxyaena]

On 12/8/2020 4:32 PM, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:

> It should be obvious what they are: "evolution" and "creationism" [or "creationist, but as far as this post is concerned, they play the same role].
>
> Unfortunately, there is wide disagreement on what the words mean or should mean. That wouldn't be so bad if t.o. participants made it clear what they think they mean/should mean, but some do not because it doesn't occur to them that there are those reading their words think any differently about their meanings. [There are other people who don't make it clear for other reasons, but I don't want to go into that here.]
>
> Meanings in use for "creationist" range all the way from "YEC (Young Earth Creationism)" to "belief in a creator" without even specifying what the creator is supposed to have created. [There is one well-known talk.origins regular who is at this latter extreme.]
>
> The range for "evolution" is almost as great, and is the source of endless
> misunderstandings, where the phrase "the theory of evolution" is used, on the one hand, to mean "common descent" or, at the opposite extreme, to mean "evolution due exclusively to naturalistic influences."
>
>
> Back to "creationism": there are two very important intermediates between the two extremes. One is OEC, which accepts the prevailing geological consensus on the earth being approximately 4.5 gigayears old, yet also entails God having created a huge variety of"kinds" from nothing (or "from the dust of the earth") beyond which evolution cannot go.
>
> The other is exemplified by believing in common descent but also in evolution that is guided by periodic nudges by supernatural entities.
>
> For instance, I have often said that Behe is not a creationist because he believes in common descent. But lately I've been getting pushback in the form of being told that Behe *is* a creationist in the sense that he
> believes in at least the "periodic supernatural nudges."
>
> FTR, Behe has never publicly espoused this belief, but that is beside the
> point: he has never made it part of his theory of ID (Intelligent Design),
> and so he cannot be charged with espousing that "form of creationism."

There is no theory of intelligent design.

[dale]

there is no evidence of life from an assumed primordial soup

[jillery]

On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 05:42:01 -0500, Oxyaena <oxy...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>There is no theory of intelligent design.

That's true, but there are lots of baseless claims and assertions of
fact not in evidence, which is good enough for lots of people.

[jillery]

On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 08:12:33 -0500, dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:

>> There is no theory of intelligent design.
>>
>
>there is no evidence of life from an assumed primordial soup

That's a condensed objection.

[Öö Tiib]

Lack of knowledge or evidence or theory is not theory.
Otherwise anyone can take and claim that
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_unsolved_problems>
is their "Theory of Noodle Appendages"?

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2020-12-09 13:12:33 +0000, dale said:

> On 12/9/2020 5:42 AM, Oxyaena wrote:
>>

>> [ … ]

>>
>> There is no theory of intelligent design.
>>
>
> there is no evidence of life from an assumed primordial soup

You're a couple of decades out of date. Hardly anyone working on the
origin of life still takes the primordial soup seriously. See, for
example, Wächtershäuser G (1997) The origin of life and its
methodological challenge. J Theor Biol 187(4):483–494.
doi:10.1006/jtbi.1996.0383.

That's more than 20 years ago, but Wächtershäuser's argument wasn't
accepted overnight.

Besides, no one ever thought that there was _experimental_ evidence for
the primordial soup: they thought it offered a plausible mechanism.

Some of "evidence" against it was silly: people noted that Oparin was a
Lysenko supporter and that Haldane was a communist. Irrelevant, of
course, but no sillier than some of the ad hominem arguments that
creationists make about scientists that they don't like.

--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years

[Bill]

It may be that Behe is not speaking for everyone or that his views exhaust
every variation of the idea of intelligent design.

If the universe once consisted of nothing but the potential of its
existence, that no matter or energy existed (the pre-big bang state), we are
left with the only option of creation ex nihilo. Nobody likes this
possibility so we have to gloss over it with obscure conjecture.

Something had to have started the process of the evolution of the universe.
Most explanations seem to rely on luck or maybe magic. Once the process of
evolution begins, we have to invent explanations for each subsequent step.
And so on. A Designer becomes more plausible as the evolution of the
universe progresses and accident seems less likely.

The objection to this scenario is based on human sensibilities but is
otherwise as credible as any other proposal. If the Designer is understood
as God(s) and one denies the existence of God(s), then some other
explanation is necessary. Reality is not the issue, what matters is what we
are prepared to believe.

Bill

[jillery]

Almost everything you wrote above is factually incorrect, consisting
of your standard misrepresentations of what scientists say and other
people believe. Not sure how you think that's even remotely
convincing.

[nyik...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 8:50:28 PM UTC-5, dale wrote:
> On 12/8/2020 4:32 PM, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
> > It should be obvious what they are: "evolution" and "creationism" [or "creationist, but as far as this post is concerned, they play the same role]....


> what about cause and effect?
>
> cyclical nature?
>
> the last effect is the first cause?
>
> combination of the big-bang and the big-crunch for instance?
>
> cosmology without cosmological origins?

I do realize that the phrases you listed above mean a lot to you, but as far as this thread is
concerned, the most helpful questions for you to address are: (1)what meaning do you attach to "evolution" and "creationism"? (2) IF you are consistent in what they mean
to you, do you think talk.origins ought to adopt those as the "default" meanings?

The same applies to everyone reading this. I have made my answers clear many
times as to "creationism": I use it to mean what I said YECs and OECs have in common,
and I have also explained that it would be disastrous to NAS and other educational
institutions to adopt the dictionary definition "belief in a creator". This is because
the "anti-science" connotations of the word "creationism" that these same institutions
have made pervasive in the minds of untold millions.

Moreover, such an adoption would make these instutions explicitly anti-theistic,
resulting in widespread public backlash that would probably make the
pro-life backlash to Roe v. Wade look like a Sunday School picnic in comparison.


Your thoughts on this, Minister Kelly?

> Minister Dale Kelly, Ph.D.
> https://www.dalekelly.org/
> Board Certified Holistic Health Practitioner
> Board Certified Alternative Medical Practitioner

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

PS Do you have a congregation with regular religious services?

[Bill]

If you add some clarifications to your assertions maybe I'll see my errors
and repent.

Bill

[nyik...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, December 9, 2020 at 12:20:29 AM UTC-5, Robert Camp wrote:
> On 12/8/20 1:32 PM, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
> > It should be obvious what they are: "evolution" and "creationism" [or "creationist, but as far as this post is concerned, they play the same role].
> >
> > Unfortunately, there is wide disagreement on what the words mean or should mean. That wouldn't be so bad if t.o. participants made it clear what they think they mean/should mean, but some do not because it doesn't occur to them that there are those reading their words think any differently about their meanings. [There are other people who don't make it clear for other reasons, but I don't want to go into that here.]
> >
> > Meanings in use for "creationist" range all the way from "YEC (Young Earth Creationism)" to "belief in a creator" without even specifying what the creator is supposed to have created. [There is one well-known talk.origins regular who is at this latter extreme.]
> >
> > The range for "evolution" is almost as great, and is the source of endless
> > misunderstandings, where the phrase "the theory of evolution" is used, on the one hand, to mean "common descent" or, at the opposite extreme, to mean "evolution due exclusively to naturalistic influences."
> >
> >
> > Back to "creationism": there are two very important intermediates between the two extremes. One is OEC, which accepts the prevailing geological consensus on the earth being approximately 4.5 gigayears old, yet also entails God having created a huge variety of"kinds" from nothing (or "from the dust of the earth") beyond which evolution cannot go.
> >
> > The other is exemplified by believing in common descent but also in evolution that is guided by periodic nudges by supernatural entities.
> >
> > For instance, I have often said that Behe is not a creationist because he believes in common descent. But lately I've been getting pushback in the form of being told that Behe *is* a creationist in the sense that he
> > believes in at least the "periodic supernatural nudges."
> >
> > FTR, Behe has never publicly espoused this belief, but that is beside the
> > point: he has never made it part of his theory of ID (Intelligent Design),
> > and so he cannot be charged with espousing that "form of creationism."
> >
> >
> > There are similar confsions where "the theory of evolution" is concerned,
> > but I'm leaving that for a later post to this thread.

> "By “intelligent design” I mean to imply design beyond the laws of
> nature.

As long as you make this clear in your posts, I have no objections.
It is when people use words like "creatonist" in a way different than
than what I wrote about OEC up there, but don't let people know how
they are using it, that I take exception.

This is because of the highly negative, anti-science connotations that
the word "creationist" has for millions of people, including many who
post to talk.origins on a regular basis.

>That is, taking the laws of nature as given, are their other
> reasons for concluding that life and its component systems have been
> intentionally arranged?

This is ambiguous, because you don't spell out whether by "life" you
mean "life as we know it" or a far more general concept. And if the
latter, just what does that concept encompass?

> In my book, and in this essay, whenever I refer
> to intelligent design (ID) I mean this stronger sense of
> design-beyond-laws.” - Philosophical Objections to Intelligent Design, 2002
>
>
> "I’m still not against Darwinian evolution on theological grounds. I’m
> against it on scientific grounds. I think God could have made life using
> apparently random mutation and natural selection. But my reading of the
> scientific evidence is that he did not do it that way, that there was a
> more active guiding. I think that we are all descended from some single
> cell in the distant past but that that cell and later parts of life were
> intentionally produced as the result of intelligent activity. As a
> Christian, I say that intelligence is very likely to be God." - Can You
> Believe in God and Evolution?, Time, 2005

Who is being quoted here? Except for the last sentence, it is a perfect
supplement to what I wrote about the second intermediate up there.
I didn't broach the issue of OOEL [1], because that seems to be
of exremely limited interest in talk.origins. But it might be good to talk about
the ambiguity of the word "abiogenesis."

[1] The E stands for "Earth" and makes OOEL all about "life as we know it."

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

PS It just now occurred to me: perhaps the reason most anti-ID types want to focus
all their energies around the most rudimentary beginnings of life [2] is that this is
all they think life in the universe is likely to have in common.

[2] A prime example is Bill Rogers, who in his periodic clashes with MarkE
shows no interest in the higher stages of OOEL that interest Mark,
while berating Mark for not showing any interest in the latest research
of the only plausible beginnings of " OOL in general".

[jillery]

You first.

[Robert Camp]

I mistakenly thought it obvious that the above are two quotes from
Michael Behe.

[jillery]

Once again, you demand that others specify what they mean by
"creationist" while at the same time not specifying what *you* mean by
it. What you provide above is an "extreme" range, but you don't
specify where you stand within that range. Why is that?

>>That is, taking the laws of nature as given, are their other
>> reasons for concluding that life and its component systems have been
>> intentionally arranged?
>
>This is ambiguous, because you don't spell out whether by "life" you
>mean "life as we know it" or a far more general concept. And if the
>latter, just what does that concept encompass?

When discussing evolution and creationism, unless explicitly included,
speculations about life as we don't know it is obfuscating noise. Your
complaint above is meaningless noise.

If you really intend to make this topic strictly about "the two most
important words in talk.origins", then you would do well to eliminate
from your posts allusions to other posters and what you think others
think, like you do above.

Of course, you are entitled to post whatever tickles you, but such
inclusions suggest your intent lies elsewhere. Not sure how even you
*still* don't understand this.

[erik simpson]

I don't think you're mistaken.

[Lawyer Daggett]

It was indeed obvious.

[Robert Camp]

Try telling that to my kids...

[erik simpson]

OK, ok, maybe not always, but time you're all right.

[nyik...@gmail.com]

> > On Wednesday, December 9, 2020 at 5:45:29 AM UTC-5, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 12/8/2020 4:32 PM, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
> > It should be obvious what they are: "evolution" and "creationism" [or "creationist, but as far as this post is concerned, they play the same role].
> >
> > Unfortunately, there is wide disagreement on what the words mean or should mean. That wouldn't be so bad if t.o. participants made it clear what they think they mean/should mean, but some do not because it doesn't occur to them that there are those reading their words think any differently about their meanings. [There are other people who don't make it clear for other reasons, but I don't want to go into that here.]
> > Meanings in use for "creationist" range all the way from "YEC (Young Earth Creationism)" to "belief in a creator" without even specifying what the creator is supposed to have created. [There is one well-known talk.origins regular who is at this latter extreme.]
> >
> > The range for "evolution" is almost as great, and is the source of endless
> > misunderstandings, where the phrase "the theory of evolution" is used, on the one hand, to mean "common descent" or, at the opposite extreme, to mean "evolution due exclusively to naturalistic influences."
> >
> >
> > Back to "creationism": there are two very important intermediates between the two extremes. One is OEC, which accepts the prevailing geological consensus on the earth being approximately 4.5 gigayears old, yet also entails God having created a huge variety of"kinds" from nothing (or "from the dust of the earth") beyond which evolution cannot go.
> >
> > The other is exemplified by believing in common descent but also in evolution that is guided by periodic nudges by supernatural entities.
> >
> > For instance, I have often said that Behe is not a creationist because he believes in common descent. But lately I've been getting pushback in the form of being told that Behe *is* a creationist in the sense that he
> > believes in at least the "periodic supernatural nudges."
> >
> > FTR, Behe has never publicly espoused this belief, but that is beside the
> > point: he has never made it part of his theory of ID (Intelligent Design),
> > and so he cannot be charged with espousing that "form of creationism."

> There is no theory of intelligent design.

There is one, but only the fine-tuning [1] sub-theory of it is beyond a very early gestational phase.
If you restrict yourself to biological ID, it is in a somewhat earlier gestational phase
than the theory of macroevolution,
which has had over 100 years since its modern conception to develop. It is hamstrung
by the legacy of Darwin, who adopted a microevolutionary definition of "natural selection"
which didn't even bother that notorious species immutabilist, Ray Martinez.

[1] more properly: the extremely low tolerance of the basic physical constants to alteration
without destroying any reasonable prospect of life forming and evolving to intelligence
and the ability to form languages of great sophistication, like all human languages
apart from some sign languages.


Of course, you might be working from a different definition of "theory of evolution"
than I am. I hope you aren't at either of the two extremes I wrote about up there:

[quoted from above]

"the theory of evolution" is used, on the one hand, to mean "common descent" or, at the opposite extreme, to mean "evolution due exclusively to naturalistic influences."

[end of quote]


> >
> > There are similar confusions where "the theory of evolution" is concerned,

> > but I'm leaving that for a later post to this thread.

We may be in the process of producing a real-life confusion, and if so, that
would be my first example.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

U. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[nyik...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, December 9, 2020 at 10:35:29 AM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2020-12-09 13:12:33 +0000, dale said:
>

> > there is no evidence of life from an assumed primordial soup

> You're a couple of decades out of date. Hardly anyone working on the
> origin of life still takes the primordial soup seriously. See, for
> example, Wächtershäuser G (1997) The origin of life and its
> methodological challenge. J Theor Biol 187(4):483–494.
> doi:10.1006/jtbi.1996.0383.

Most of it is history and philosophy, with only the last few pages qualfying as
original. These are preceded by a debunking, not of primordial soup, but of the
overly enthusiastic researchers who took it to be more promising than it really was.

> That's more than 20 years ago, but Wächtershäuser's argument wasn't
> accepted overnight.

You mean the part I wrote about just now, or the part after where he finally
gets down to his "metabolism first" theory?

Some of what is in those last few pages isn't taken seriously these days either,
at least to hear some t.o. regulars tell. One seems to be the acceptance
of Christian de Duve's "thioester world" which de Duve had made a big deal of
in _Vital Dust_ two years before Wächtershäuser's paper appeared .

The criticism began shortly after Mark Isaak wrote that,
as a library volunteer, he would probably recommend that the library
put its copy of Christian de Duve's _Vital Dust_ out to pasture because
it is more than two decades old.

This in itself was a superficial statement, but others posted certain
things in that book that were passe, including "thioester world" IIRC.

>
> Besides, no one ever thought that there was _experimental_ evidence for
> the primordial soup: they thought it offered a plausible mechanism.

Have the lipid vesicles championed by Wächtershäuser fared any better than the "primordial soup" in that respect?

>
> Some of "evidence" against it was silly: people noted that Oparin was a
> Lysenko supporter and that Haldane was a communist. Irrelevant, of
> course, but no sillier than some of the ad hominem arguments that
> creationists make about scientists that they don't like.

But nowhere near as silly as some of the ad hominem arguments
some anti-ID zealots make against people they don't like, right here in t.o.
An example can be found right on this thread. But I probably won't get
around to it for a day or two, and maybe only next week. There is enough
on-topic discussion here that takes priority in the few hours I can squeeze out
each day in the midst of administering and grading final exams.

Your comments in this post are a good example, Athel. Moreover, I'd never heard of
Wächtershäuser before I saw this post of yours.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

U. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[jillery]

The cite "Philosophical Objections to Intelligent Design" was a bit of
a hint.

I suppose the cite "Can You Believe in God and Evolution?" might be a
bit of a distraction, but a simple Google search shows whom Pinker
quoted.

[jillery]

On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 05:42:01 -0500, Oxyaena <oxy...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>On 12/8/2020 4:32 PM, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>> It should be obvious what they are: "evolution" and "creationism" [or "creationist, but as far as this post is concerned, they play the same role].
>>
>> Unfortunately, there is wide disagreement on what the words mean or should mean. That wouldn't be so bad if t.o. participants made it clear what they think they mean/should mean, but some do not because it doesn't occur to them that there are those reading their words think any differently about their meanings. [There are other people who don't make it clear for other reasons, but I don't want to go into that here.]
>>
>> Meanings in use for "creationist" range all the way from "YEC (Young Earth Creationism)" to "belief in a creator" without even specifying what the creator is supposed to have created. [There is one well-known talk.origins regular who is at this latter extreme.]
>>
>> The range for "evolution" is almost as great, and is the source of endless
>> misunderstandings, where the phrase "the theory of evolution" is used, on the one hand, to mean "common descent" or, at the opposite extreme, to mean "evolution due exclusively to naturalistic influences."
>>
>>
>> Back to "creationism": there are two very important intermediates between the two extremes. One is OEC, which accepts the prevailing geological consensus on the earth being approximately 4.5 gigayears old, yet also entails God having created a huge variety of"kinds" from nothing (or "from the dust of the earth") beyond which evolution cannot go.
>>
>> The other is exemplified by believing in common descent but also in evolution that is guided by periodic nudges by supernatural entities.
>>
>> For instance, I have often said that Behe is not a creationist because he believes in common descent. But lately I've been getting pushback in the form of being told that Behe *is* a creationist in the sense that he
>> believes in at least the "periodic supernatural nudges."
>>
>> FTR, Behe has never publicly espoused this belief, but that is beside the
>> point: he has never made it part of his theory of ID (Intelligent Design),
>> and so he cannot be charged with espousing that "form of creationism."
>
>There is no theory of intelligent design.

Since nyikos the peter is determined to rechew cud he has chewed for
the past ten years, it is appropriate to cite a Youtube video made
back then, where PZ Myers gave an excellent summary of the theory of
Intelligent Design:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba2h9tqNYAo>
****************************
@1:03
I've listened to Michael Behe and Demski and John West and Steven
Meyer and all these people from the Discovery Institute that are
cruising around giving their talks. And so what I thought I would do,
since you probably haven't heard them all, is I would give you their
lecture first. So I'm going to give you a condensed version of an
Intelligent Design Creationists lecture. It will be very entertaining
complexity complexity complexity complexity

Oh look, there's a pathway. It's very complicated.

complexity complexity complexity complexity complexity

And did you know that cells are really really complicated?

But we're not done:

complexity complexity complexity complexity

And you're going to be blown away by the bacterial flagellum. It's
like a little machine and it's really, really complicated.

complexity complexity complexity complexity

We need more cells. They're really complicated. You just get blown
away by these things. They are so amazingly complicated.

complexity, therefore design.
****************************

I will be very surprised if nyikos the peter's posts in this topic
include anything more substantial than what PZ described above.

Of course, I will be very surprise if his posts include much substance
of any kind. Perhaps it's just me.

[nyik...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, December 9, 2020 at 3:35:30 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 11:51:30 -0800 (PST), "nyik...@gmail.com"
> <nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, December 9, 2020 at 12:20:29 AM UTC-5, Robert Camp wrote:
> >> On 12/8/20 1:32 PM, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > It should be obvious what they are: "evolution" and "creationism" [or "creationist, but as far as this post is concerned, they play the same role].
> >> >
> >> > Unfortunately, there is wide disagreement on what the words mean or should mean. That wouldn't be so bad if t.o. participants made it clear what they think they mean/should mean, but some do not because it doesn't occur to them that there are those reading their words think any differently about their meanings. [There are other people who don't make it clear for other reasons, but I don't want to go into that here.]
> >> >
> >> > Meanings in use for "creationist" range all the way from "YEC (Young Earth Creationism)" to "belief in a creator" without even specifying what the creator is supposed to have created. [There is one well-known talk.origins regular who is at this latter extreme.]
> >> >
> >> > The range for "evolution" is almost as great, and is the source of endless
> >> > misunderstandings, where the phrase "the theory of evolution" is used, on the one hand, to mean "common descent" or, at the opposite extreme, to mean "evolution due exclusively to naturalistic influences."
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Back to "creationism": there are two very important intermediates between the two extremes. One is OEC, which accepts the prevailing geological consensus on the earth being approximately 4.5 gigayears old, yet also entails God having created a huge variety of"kinds" from nothing (or "from the dust of the earth") beyond which evolution cannot go.
> >> >
> >> > The other is exemplified by believing in common descent but also in evolution that is guided by periodic nudges by supernatural entities.
> >> >
> >> > For instance, I have often said that Behe is not a creationist because he believes in common descent. But lately I've been getting pushback in the form of being told that Behe *is* a creationist in the sense that he
> >> > believes in at least the "periodic supernatural nudges."
> >> >
> >> > FTR, Behe has never publicly espoused this belief, but that is beside the
> >> > point: he has never made it part of his theory of ID (Intelligent Design),
> >> > and so he cannot be charged with espousing that "form of creationism."
> >> >
> >> >

> >> > There are similar confusions where "the theory of evolution" is concerned,

> >> > but I'm leaving that for a later post to this thread.
> >
> >> "By “intelligent design” I mean to imply design beyond the laws of
> >> nature.
> >
> >As long as you make this clear in your posts, I have no objections.
> >It is when people use words like "creatonist" in a way different than
> >than what I wrote about OEC up there, but don't let people know how
> >they are using it, that I take exception.
> >
> >This is because of the highly negative, anti-science connotations that
> >the word "creationist" has for millions of people, including many who
> >post to talk.origins on a regular basis.

> Once again, you demand

I am in no position to demand anything in talk.origins. You on the other
hand are in such a position, and exercise it regularly.

> that others specify what they mean by
> "creationist" while at the same time not specifying what *you* mean by
> it. What you provide above is an "extreme" range, but you don't
> specify where you stand within that range.

Any time you get around to reading something I wrote this morning,
let me know.

____________________________ to dale ____________________________

I do realize that the phrases you listed above mean a lot to you, but as far as this thread is
concerned, the most helpful questions for you to address are:
(1)what meaning do you attach to"evolution" and "creationism"?
(2) IF you are consistent in what they mean
to you, do you think talk.origins ought to adopt those as the "default" meanings?

The same applies to everyone reading this. I have made my answers clear many
times as to "creationism": I use it to mean what I said YECs and OECs have in common,
and I have also explained that it would be disastrous to NAS and other educational
institutions to adopt the dictionary definition "belief in a creator". This is because
the "anti-science" connotations of the word "creationism" that these same institutions
have made pervasive in the minds of untold millions.

Moreover, such an adoption would make these instutions explicitly anti-theistic,
resulting in widespread public backlash that would probably make the
pro-life backlash to Roe v. Wade look like a Sunday School picnic in comparison.

================== end of position statement===============================

> Why is that?

In contrast to my statement above, I've never seen where YOU stand.
You don't see anything wrong with Ron O's extreme, which I described in
the OP without naming him. Here is that description again, for the
scrolling-impaired:

> >Meanings in use for "creationist" range all the way from "YEC (Young Earth
> > Creationism)" to "belief in a creator" without even specifying what the creator
> > is supposed to have created. [There is one well-known talk.origins regular who
> > is at this latter extreme.]

Do you think it would be good if Ron O's definition became the "default" one
in talk.origins?

Or do you prefer a wild free-for-all, with everyone adopting his own definition
without any regard for the impairment of free flow of ideas that this entails?

> >>That is, taking the laws of nature as given, are their other
> >> reasons for concluding that life and its component systems have been
> >> intentionally arranged?
> >
> >This is ambiguous, because you don't spell out whether by "life" you
> >mean "life as we know it" or a far more general concept. And if the
> >latter, just what does that concept encompass?


> When discussing evolution and creationism, unless explicitly included,
> speculations about life as we don't know it is obfuscating noise.

You've got to be kidding!

It seems like just about every time Directed Panspermia (DP) gets mentioned, some Tom,
Dick, or Harry says "that only kicks the can down the road" or words to that effect.
(Unless, of course, some prominent t.o. regular says it first.) When I emphasize
that DP has to do with the origin of life ON EARTH, they seem to lose interest.

I"d LOVE to quote what you wrote above the next time that happens. Can I
count on you not to spring a complete disavowal, complete with insults,
on me if I do that?

> Your complaint above is meaningless noise.

Is there a word for someone who "sees complaints under every bed" in the sense
that McCartyites were ridiculed for "seeing a Communist under every bed"?

That would be utterly ridiculous. Here in t.o., the way thread topics metamorphose,
sometimes with whiplash-inducing suddenness, it's a King Canute project to
try to keep the tides of change from affecting the topics one would like to talk about.

MUCH more importantly, there are innumerable targets of opportunity of a highly
on-topic nature. Athel's mention of an author on abiogenesis, Wächtershäuser,
whom I had never heard of before, is that sort of enrichment. And the support
for the importance of the *issue* of DP from a most unexpected quarter (yourself) was
enough to make my day.


Peter Nyikos
NEW VIRTUAL FOUR LINE .SIG
This post is highly relevant to the issues of OOL in general and OOEL in particular,
with some talk of the latter leading to what looks like a real game-changer.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Even if not obvious, it was easy enough for people with more than two
or three neurones to deduce.

[jillery]

On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 19:47:07 -0800 (PST), "nyik...@gmail.com"

>> Once again, you demand that others specify what they mean by

>> "creationist" while at the same time not specifying what *you* mean by
>> it. What you provide above is an "extreme" range, but you don't
>> specify where you stand within that range.
>
>I am in no position to demand anything in talk.origins. You on the other
>hand are in such a position, and exercise it regularly.

You don't explain how you think I am in a position to demand but you
are not in that position.

You don't explain how you think I demand but you do not demand.

And because you don't explain your accusations, this topic has already
gone off the rails.

>Any time you get around to reading something I wrote this morning,
>let me know.

In fact, it was exactly what you wrote before that prompted my comment
which has your KNAPPIES in a twist. For example, you don't say what
YECs and OECs have in common. More to the point, and as usual, you
describe creationism by what you think it is not, but don't get around
to specifying what you think it is.

So, once again, rather than dancing around like some child with a full
bladder, evading the question and giving excuses, it would be really
helpful for you to satisfy your own demands and specify what you mean
by creationism.

>____________________________ to dale ____________________________
>
>I do realize that the phrases you listed above mean a lot to you, but as far as this thread is
>concerned, the most helpful questions for you to address are:
>(1)what meaning do you attach to"evolution" and "creationism"?
>(2) IF you are consistent in what they mean
>to you, do you think talk.origins ought to adopt those as the "default" meanings?
>
>The same applies to everyone reading this. I have made my answers clear many
>times as to "creationism": I use it to mean what I said YECs and OECs have in common,
>and I have also explained that it would be disastrous to NAS and other educational
>institutions to adopt the dictionary definition "belief in a creator". This is because
>the "anti-science" connotations of the word "creationism" that these same institutions
>have made pervasive in the minds of untold millions.
>
>Moreover, such an adoption would make these instutions explicitly anti-theistic,
>resulting in widespread public backlash that would probably make the
>pro-life backlash to Roe v. Wade look like a Sunday School picnic in comparison.
>
>================== end of position statement===============================
>
>> Why is that?
>
>In contrast to my statement above, I've never seen where YOU stand.

If I had spammed a criticism that others don't specify what they mean
by creationism, you might have a point. But I didn't so spam, so you
have no point.

If it makes any difference, I stipulate I will use within the scope of
this topic, any definition of creationism you cite from a dictionary.
I make that specification to avoid arbitrary and self-serving personal
definitions.

>You don't see anything wrong with Ron O's extreme, which I described in
>the OP without naming him.

You described RonO's definition as extreme, in the sense of being one
end of a range. However, his definition is found in standard
dictionaries, and so not extreme in the sense of being an arbitrary
and self-serving personal definition. There's a difference.

>Here is that description again, for the
>scrolling-impaired:
>
>> >Meanings in use for "creationist" range all the way from "YEC (Young Earth
>> > Creationism)" to "belief in a creator" without even specifying what the creator
>> > is supposed to have created. [There is one well-known talk.origins regular who
>> > is at this latter extreme.]
>
>Do you think it would be good if Ron O's definition became the "default" one
>in talk.origins?
>
>Or do you prefer a wild free-for-all, with everyone adopting his own definition
>without any regard for the impairment of free flow of ideas that this entails?

Your questions above imply a false dichotomy that only you mention.
More to the point, what I think has nothing to do with your failure to
specify what you mean by creationism.

Once again, I stipulate I will use within the scope of this topic, any
definition of creationism you cite from a dictionary. I make that
specification to avoid arbitrary and self-serving personal
definitions.

>> >>That is, taking the laws of nature as given, are their other
>> >> reasons for concluding that life and its component systems have been
>> >> intentionally arranged?
>> >
>> >This is ambiguous, because you don't spell out whether by "life" you
>> >mean "life as we know it" or a far more general concept. And if the
>> >latter, just what does that concept encompass?
>
>
>> When discussing evolution and creationism, unless explicitly included,
>> speculations about life as we don't know it is obfuscating noise.
>
>You've got to be kidding!

That's exactly what I thought when you brought it up!

>It seems like just about every time Directed Panspermia (DP) gets mentioned, some Tom,
>Dick, or Harry says "that only kicks the can down the road" or words to that effect.
>(Unless, of course, some prominent t.o. regular says it first.) When I emphasize
>that DP has to do with the origin of life ON EARTH, they seem to lose interest.
>
>I"d LOVE to quote what you wrote above the next time that happens. Can I
>count on you not to spring a complete disavowal, complete with insults,
>on me if I do that?

I assumed you mentioned life as we don't know it in order to spam your
favorite non-sequiturs about DP.

If you want to talk about life ON EARTH, then by definition that
excludes life as we don't know it. Doing so avoids all of the wild
free-for-all speculations you claimed above you want to avoid.

OTOH if you want to talk about DP, then by definition that is a
discussion that has almost nothing to do with what is known about
evolution and creationism. You can't have it both ways.

>> Your complaint above is meaningless noise.
>
>Is there a word for someone who "sees complaints under every bed" in the sense
>that McCartyites were ridiculed for "seeing a Communist under every bed"?

Is there a word for someone who asks inane and irrelevant questions in
the sense that cdesign proponentsists do?

Either way, the point remains: the default case is that discussions
about evolution is about life as we know it. Those who want to
discuss life as we don't know it have the obligation to say so.

>> important words in talk.origins", then you would do well to eliminate

>> from your posts allusions to other posters and what you think others
>> think, like you do above.
>

>That would be utterly ridiculous. Here in t.o., the way thread topics metamorphose,
>sometimes with whiplash-inducing suddenness, it's a King Canute project to
>try to keep the tides of change from affecting the topics one would like to talk about.
>
>MUCH more importantly, there are innumerable targets of opportunity of a highly
>on-topic nature. Athel's mention of an author on abiogenesis, Wächtershäuser,
>whom I had never heard of before, is that sort of enrichment. And the support
>for the importance of the *issue* of DP from a most unexpected quarter (yourself) was
>enough to make my day.

So you have no intention of even trying to make this topic strictly
about "the two most important words in talk.origins". Your comments
above affirms my impression, and puts the lie to the implied promise
in your .sig below.

>Peter Nyikos
>NEW VIRTUAL FOUR LINE .SIG
>This post is highly relevant to the issues of OOL in general and OOEL in particular,
>with some talk of the latter leading to what looks like a real game-changer.
>
>>

>> Of course, you are entitled to post whatever tickles you, but such
>> inclusions suggest your intent lies elsewhere. Not sure how even you
>> *still* don't understand this.

And you *still* don't understand this.

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/8/20 1:32 PM, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:

> [...]

> Unfortunately, there is wide disagreement on what the words mean or should mean.

Almost all words in the English language have more than one meaning.
That's not a bug; it's a feature.

Sometimes the multiplication of meanings arises from artistic license,
as when words are used metaphorically. Sometimes the words acquire more
or different meaning as the concepts they apply to change, at least in
our understanding. Sometimes meanings simply drift randomly (though
this has become less of a factor since the invention of the printing
press). Sometimes they are deliberately ambiguous to describe an
inherently ambiguous concept, or to allow leeway in interpretations.

The words "creation" and "evolution" both have had their meanings
extended because of extensions in what the words apply to.
"Creationism", according to my 1950 Merriam-Webster dictionary, is "the
doctrine that the Earth was created out of nothing (through an act or
series of acts) by a transcendent Creator"; it says nothing about life,
much less about time scales or design. (A second definition refers to
separate creation of human souls.) The word "evolution" has evolved
even more, from its meaning as the unfolding related to development to
its technical meaning of allele change in populations, with various
other meanings in between.

All of the various meanings serve a purpose, or people would not be
using them.

It is the writer's duty to make clear what meaning, or shades of
meaning, they intend with a word. Some writers are better at this than
others. It is the reader's duty to infer from context what meaning, or
shades of meaning, a writer intends. Some readers are better at this
than others. (I might add that I consider it wrong for a writer to
deliberately mislead a reader by equivocating with a word's meaning, or
for a reader, through lack of charity, to infer a meaning that the
writer did not put there.)

So what definitions of the key words in "evolution vs. creationism"
apply to this newsgroup? All of them (excepting, for the most part, the
doctrine of separate creation of human souls, and definitions of
evolution which are long obsolete or apply only to non-biology fields).

And if someone says, "X is a creationist", what does that mean? Well,
the word "creationist" covers a lot of possibilities. Without further
details from the writer, we can say only that the writer believes that X
fits one of those possibilities. *Any* one of them. It doesn't mean X
is a young-earth creationist; it doesn't mean X is an old-earth
creationist; it doesn't mean X is an intelligent design creationist; but
it does mean that X (so the writer says) is one of those, or one of
another category of creationist.

And if a reader is unclear about what, exactly, a writer means, I remind
the reader that this is a forum, and the reader may ask.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"If one day, my words are against science, choose science."
- Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

[nyik...@gmail.com]

The main point is that you are in a POSITION to demand various things,
and I am not.

You are in a "I've got your back" relationship with at least three very active regulars
I could name, and two of them reciprocate;
and I could name over half a dozen very active others in a mutual "see no evil,
hear no evil, speak no evil" relationship with you, including one whom I described
last month as being in a long "stately minuet" with you.

I have nothing like that with anyone. In particular, and Glenn and I are in the same uneasy
relationship that you and John Harshman were in until quite recently, except that we
don't let our personal disagreements evolve into extended tiffs, like you and John
have had periodically.

Incidentally, over in the WHY I KEEP POSTING TO TALK.ORIGINS thread, with which
this one was precipitated, John seems to have taken a "if you can't lick 'em, join 'em"
attitude towards you. I'll have to ask him whether his behavior there signals a
permanent end to tiffs between the two of you.

> And because you don't explain your accusations, this topic has already
> gone off the rails.

All you had to do was ask, and I would have been glad to explain. But you
are so addicted to your self-appointed vendetta against me, that you are
now playing a "blame the victim" game as to why YOU have decided
to derail this topic.

It all stems from you having been spoiled rotten, first by your tutelage under
Dr. Paul Gans[enstein], and then by the regulars I've described above [no names
this time, but I'll gladly give them if you are curious].

They too have been spoiled rotten in a similar way. As a
result, y'all seem never have learned something I learned after just
my first couple of weeks of intensive back-and-forth on Usenet.

This is that initial arguments and initial counter-arguments seldom
accomplish much. And on politically charged newsgroups like this one,
even counter-counter arguments, and counter-counter-counter arguments
are generally just warm-ups. It is in only later "counters" that an
accurate picture has a good chance to emerge, and usually it takes many more
exchanges (if it happens at all) before spectators can really get a
good idea where the truth lies.

And even then, little of value is accomplished if one or more parties
to the debate are holding in reserve what they think to be the ultimate
refutation, for some forum where they could really make a name for
themselves by revealing it for the first time.

> >Any time you get around to reading something I wrote this morning,
> >let me know.

> In fact, it was exactly what you wrote before that prompted my comment
> which has your KNAPPIES in a twist.

Do you think you make a great role model for all non-theists in talk.origins
when you make cracks like this last sentnce of yours?

Anyway, you've demonstrated just how much my "counter-..." paragraphs
apply to you. If you were sincerely motivated by getting at the truth of things,
you would have replied to the post that I did in my reply to Dale, in which
I laid out my position on the word "creationism" in detail, and asked
for clarification of any issues you had with it.

Instead, you LIED [1] as follows [repeated from above]:

> >> Once again, you demand that others specify what they mean by
> >> "creationist" while at the same time not specifying what *you* mean by it.

I had specified it, and,

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ jillery posting style on

you got your KNAPPIES in a twist over the fact

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ jillery posting style off

that I hadn't read your mind as to every tiny detail that
you are insatiably curious about.


[1] Unlike the utterly bogus use you make of a slightly -- but only slightly --
different description, you told a lie in the classical sense of uttering a falsehood
that you know to be a falsehood, with the intention of deceiving others.

And it's a particularly odious use of lying, to use this as a way of denigrating
the person about whom it is told. Such is the case with your lie.

Give yourself a gold star for having done what comes naturally to you.


Remainder deleted, to be replied to later, complete with
examples of you demanding things.


Peter Nyikos

[André G. Isaak]

On 2020-12-10 10:40, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 12/8/20 1:32 PM, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>> [...]
>> Unfortunately, there is wide disagreement on what the words mean or
>> should mean.
>
> Almost all words in the English language have more than one meaning.
> That's not a bug; it's a feature.
>
> Sometimes the multiplication of meanings arises from artistic license,
> as when words are used metaphorically.  Sometimes the words acquire more
> or different meaning as the concepts they apply to change, at least in
> our understanding.  Sometimes meanings simply drift randomly (though
> this has become less of a factor since the invention of the printing
> press).  Sometimes they are deliberately ambiguous to describe an
> inherently ambiguous concept, or to allow leeway in interpretations.

And sometimes they change due to confusion. I bring this up only because
*immediately* before reading this post I'd come across an interesting
example which I thought I’d share despite being entirely off-topic:

The word 'miniature' comes from the latin verb 'miniare' which means 'to
apply red pigment'.

In illuminated manuscripts, illustrations were called 'miniatures'
because they generally used vermillion dye, but the fact that they were
smaller than full sized paintings combined with confusion caused by the
coincidental resemblance between the initial syllables of 'miniature'
and 'minuscule' this evolved into the modern meaning of 'small'.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

[dale]

On 12/9/2020 2:20 PM, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 8:50:28 PM UTC-5, dale wrote:
>> On 12/8/2020 4:32 PM, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> It should be obvious what they are: "evolution" and "creationism" [or "creationist, but as far as this post is concerned, they play the same role]....
>
>
>> what about cause and effect?
>>
>> cyclical nature?
>>
>> the last effect is the first cause?
>>
>> combination of the big-bang and the big-crunch for instance?
>>
>> cosmology without cosmological origins?
>
>
> I do realize that the phrases you listed above mean a lot to you, but as far as this thread is
> concerned, the most helpful questions for you to address are: (1)what meaning do you attach to "evolution" and "creationism"? (2) IF you are consistent in what they mean
> to you, do you think talk.origins ought to adopt those as the "default" meanings?
>
> The same applies to everyone reading this. I have made my answers clear many
> times as to "creationism": I use it to mean what I said YECs and OECs have in common,
> and I have also explained that it would be disastrous to NAS and other educational
> institutions to adopt the dictionary definition "belief in a creator". This is because
> the "anti-science" connotations of the word "creationism" that these same institutions
> have made pervasive in the minds of untold millions.
>
> Moreover, such an adoption would make these instutions explicitly anti-theistic,
> resulting in widespread public backlash that would probably make the
> pro-life backlash to Roe v. Wade look like a Sunday School picnic in comparison.
>
>
> Your thoughts on this, Minister Kelly?
>

Nature speaks?

>
>> Minister Dale Kelly, Ph.D.
>> https://www.dalekelly.org/
>> Board Certified Holistic Health Practitioner
>> Board Certified Alternative Medical Practitioner
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>
> PS Do you have a congregation with regular religious services?
>

I use my ordination for compassion. If someone close to me wanted a
service I might try.

--

[seand...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 3:35:29 PM UTC-6, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
> It should be obvious what they are: "evolution" and "creationism" [or "creationist, but as far as this post is concerned, they play the same role].
>

> Unfortunately, there is wide disagreement on what the words mean or should mean. That wouldn't be so bad if t.o. participants made it clear what they think they mean/should mean, but some do not because it doesn't occur to them that there are those reading their words think any differently about their meanings. [There are other people who don't make it clear for other reasons, but I don't want to go into that here.]
>
> Meanings in use for "creationist" range all the way from "YEC (Young Earth Creationism)" to "belief in a creator" without even specifying what the creator is supposed to have created. [There is one well-known talk.origins regular who is at this latter extreme.]
>
> The range for "evolution" is almost as great, and is the source of endless
> misunderstandings, where the phrase "the theory of evolution" is used, on the one hand, to mean "common descent" or, at the opposite extreme, to mean "evolution due exclusively to naturalistic influences."
>
>
> Back to "creationism": there are two very important intermediates between the two extremes. One is OEC, which accepts the prevailing geological consensus on the earth being approximately 4.5 gigayears old, yet also entails God having created a huge variety of"kinds" from nothing (or "from the dust of the earth") beyond which evolution cannot go.
>
> The other is exemplified by believing in common descent but also in evolution that is guided by periodic nudges by supernatural entities.
>
> For instance, I have often said that Behe is not a creationist because he believes in common descent. But lately I've been getting pushback in the form of being told that Behe *is* a creationist in the sense that he
> believes in at least the "periodic supernatural nudges."
>
> FTR, Behe has never publicly espoused this belief, but that is beside the
> point: he has never made it part of his theory of ID (Intelligent Design),
> and so he cannot be charged with espousing that "form of creationism."
>
>

> There are similar confsions where "the theory of evolution" is concerned,

> but I'm leaving that for a later post to this thread.
>
>

> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

Well... context is everything, isn't it?

Obviously, evolution in its broadest sense means change in something (anything) over time. Creationism in the broadest sense means belief that the Divine is the ultimate creator of life and/or the universe.

But within the context of the Evolution/Creationism debate, the relevant definitions are at least a little less glitteringly broad.

Evolution means biological (and, depending on context, pre-biotic) evolution... that is, change and diversification in the genomic and therefore phenotypic characteristics of populations over time. Evolution is an observable fact.

The Theory OF Evolution is a particular explanation of this phenomenon which has, as its heart, the mechanisms of random-to-fitness variation, and non-random-to-fitness survival selection. It is generally also understood to encompass the conclusion that all known life on Earth shares descent from common ancestors. The Theory of Evolution neither confirms nor denies the possibility of the Divine, but like ALL scientific theories, it does not require Divine intercession to be explanatorily robust. The Theory of Evolution does not encompass Abiogenesis, though analogous mechanisms are also at the heart of virtually all scientific hypotheses regarding the origins of life.

Evolutionary Theory is the body of scientific work that has accreted around the Theory of Evolution, and it is a body that continues to develop and includes any number of unresolved debates about historical or mechanical aspects of evolution.

"Evolutionism" is mainly a pejorative hurled by disbelievers in evolution, to create the strawman that acceptance of naturalistic evolution is, like Creationism, no more than a religious position (for anti-God atheists).

Creationism is generally understood to include ANY belief that includes the notion that the Divine at some point "poofed" life into existence... that is, that it cause living things to spontaneously arise, fully formed, via direct "fiat" rather than through the naturalistic mechanisms described by the Theory of Evolution. Basically, if you think that the Theory of Evolution and a naturalistic abiogenesis CANNOT account for what we see, and therefore Divine intercession is logically NECESSARY to account for it, you are a Creationist. This can run the gamut from belief in a vaguely defined divine entity "poofing" the first cell, to a god poofing kinds/baramins at some point in the deep past, to the specifically Judeo-Christian God poofing all life more or less exactly as it is now, more or less immutable, 4000-6000 years ago. They are all flavors of Creationism.

Intelligent Design is, in practice, a form of crypto-Creationism. While in theory ID makes room for the possibility of a naturalistic intelligent designer, serious advocates of NID are unicorns, given that NID is without evidence and fails to offer any explanatory power that the Theory of Evolution does not already offer. Scratch an ID proponent, and there is almost always some form of Creationism under the surface, both in beliefs and motivations. Historically and presently, discrediting all or part of Evolutionary Theory to supplant it with supernatural explanation is ID's raison d'etre.

Obviously, there is a fair amount of POTENTIAL overlap between acceptance of biological evolution and belief in creationism, as Michael Behe so aptly demonstrates. However, the ultimate dividing line as to whether or not one is a Creationist (and therefore ascientific or anti-scientific on biological questions) is whether one believes that Divine Intercession is logically NECESSARY in life's existence or development, or whether one believes that naturalistic mechanisms are/may be sufficient to explain life as we know it... whether or not the Divine may be the "higher cause" behind those naturalistic mechanisms.

[erik simpson]

In the context of TO (and nowhere else that I know of), the instigator of this thread broadens ID to include
alien introduction and pehaps further alien intervention in the appearance and evolution of life (ON EARTH,
as he frequently shouts). There has not (again to myknowledge) been any suggestion of alien intercession
for our sins, but wait for it. Whether this is a sort of "creationism" or not, or whether it is or is not "scientific"
would require the definition of still more words, like "hypothesis", "theory", "testable" and "bullshit".

[Öö Tiib]

These are opinions who has what goals.

> Obviously, there is a fair amount of POTENTIAL overlap between acceptance of biological evolution and belief in creationism, as Michael Behe so aptly demonstrates. However, the ultimate dividing line as to whether or not one is a Creationist (and therefore ascientific or anti-scientific on biological questions) is whether one believes that Divine Intercession is logically NECESSARY in life's existence or development, or whether one believes that naturalistic mechanisms are/may be sufficient to explain life as we know it... whether or not the Divine may be the "higher cause" behind those naturalistic mechanisms.

It remains possibility for long time that such necessity was real. For significant portion of age of
our universe this planet wasn't hit by any such event that would wipe all life from its surface.
Restoring most steps taken during that time is likely impossible. So is showing that those were
natural. To find some other as lucky place in our universe likely takes unimaginable advance
in our transport technologies. So materialists are doomed to have single instance of evolving
nature with dim history for long time. The issue for creationists is that even if to show that
something was ever altered (that they do not try much) how to show that it was Divine? Or
even if to show that there exists Divine (that they also don't try) how to show that He is
interested in affairs on that tiny rock here?

[seand...@gmail.com]

I mean I've heard the argument before, but honestly never in good faith. It is almost always a rhetorical feint... the an intentionally silly explanation that tries to get ID off on a technicality, but leaves no doubt that there is no serious contender for the Intelligent Designer except God. ID is, as always, a PR effort, not a scientific one.

[nyik...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, December 10, 2020 at 12:45:30 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 12/8/20 1:32 PM, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
> > [...]
> > Unfortunately, there is wide disagreement on what the words mean or should mean.


> Almost all words in the English language have more than one meaning.
> That's not a bug; it's a feature.

Yes, and that is true also of whole phrases, like "wants to take away fundamental human rights gays"
to include wanting licenses of same-sex civil unions to include disclaimers like:

This license of same-sex union grants to the couple it unites all the legal rights
and privileges a marriage license would give, but it is not a marriage license.

You have repeatedly used that phrase to include my wanting this.

> Sometimes the multiplication of meanings arises from artistic license,
> as when words are used metaphorically.

When confronted by this example from time to time, you generally whine
that you haven't made that accusation about me for some time, conveniently
neglecting to add that you've never recanted it, nor shown any sign of having
regretted it, nor tried to say you didn't really mean it literally.

> Sometimes the words acquire more
> or different meaning as the concepts they apply to change, at least in
> our understanding. Sometimes meanings simply drift randomly (though
> this has become less of a factor since the invention of the printing
> press). Sometimes they are deliberately ambiguous to describe an
> inherently ambiguous concept, or to allow leeway in interpretations.

And sometimes, they are so in-your-face that it is hard to imagine
that there is any such leeway.

The only leeway I ever saw you give was that you didn't want to
quibble over the distinction between singular and plural: "a ...right" in place of "rights."

Of course, that easily creates the impression that you take
"a fundamental human right" so seriously that to take away just one is
hardly any better than taking away dozens.

> The words "creation" and "evolution" both have had their meanings
> extended because of extensions in what the words apply to.

Do you seriously think that the use of "fundamental human rights"
has had its meaning extended because of publicly widespread
extensions of what that phrase means? I mean, of course, to a point
where you could extend it FURTHER to your usage in a way that
seems to make it a natural extension of what the general public has
already accustomed itself to?

> "Creationism", according to my 1950 Merriam-Webster dictionary, is "the
> doctrine that the Earth was created out of nothing (through an act or
> series of acts) by a transcendent Creator"; it says nothing about life,

> much less about time scales or design. (A second definition refers to
> separate creation of human souls.) The word "evolution" has evolved
> even more, from its meaning as the unfolding related to development to
> its technical meaning of allele change in populations, with various
> other meanings in between.

That "in between" reminds me of the way a critic pannned a performance
by Katherine Hepburn: "She ran the whole gamut of emotions from A to B."

>
> All of the various meanings serve a purpose, or people would not be
> using them.
>
> It is the writer's duty to make clear what meaning, or shades of
> meaning, they intend with a word. Some writers are better at this than
> others. It is the reader's duty to infer from context what meaning, or
> shades of meaning, a writer intends.

More about this particular "duty" below.

> Some readers are better at this
> than others. (I might add that I consider it wrong for a writer to
> deliberately mislead a reader by equivocating with a word's meaning, or
> for a reader, through lack of charity, to infer a meaning that the
> writer did not put there.)

In your case, there's no lack of charity if a person, even if his wildest dreams,
would never suspect that "fundmental human rights" was used so broadly
as you use it.

It would be utterly perverse for you to claim that it is that person's duty to stop you
in the middle of a rant to ask what the phrase means to you.

>
> So what definitions of the key words in "evolution vs. creationism"
> apply to this newsgroup? All of them (excepting, for the most part, the
> doctrine of separate creation of human souls, and definitions of
> evolution which are long obsolete or apply only to non-biology fields).
>
> And if someone says, "X is a creationist", what does that mean? Well,
> the word "creationist" covers a lot of possibilities.

So does "fundamental human right," apparently. Would you care to give
us a small sample of what ELSE it covers? For example, do you think
a law that says "a transgender MUST be referred to by the personal pronoun
with which 'e wants to be referred" is enforcing a fundamental human right,
according to your use of the term?

> Without further
> details from the writer, we can say only that the writer believes that X
> fits one of those possibilities. *Any* one of them.

I was surprised that you actually spelled out some of them, until I realized that
you were taking advantage of having snipped the following description by myself:

Meanings in use for "creationist" range all the way from "YEC (Young Earth Creationism)"
to "belief in a creator" without even specifying what the creator is supposed to have
created. [There is one well-known talk.origins regular who is at this latter extreme.]

> It doesn't mean X
> is a young-earth creationist; it doesn't mean X is an old-earth
> creationist; it doesn't mean X is an intelligent design creationist; but
> it does mean that X (so the writer says) is one of those, or one of
> another category of creationist.

With the fig leaf of that last sentence, you obscured the fact that you had
snipped out the "right" half of the whole gamut.

It is the half that would NEVER occur to anyone reading statements in
the mainstream press that Donald Trump is favorably disposed towards creationism.
To say the least.

Which, I submit, is why you took care that anyone who reads your posts
but not mine should not see any hint of that other half.

> And if a reader is unclear about what, exactly, a writer means, I remind
> the reader that this is a forum, and the reader may ask.

By "the reader," I take it that you leave out jillery, who flagrantly violated
that "reminder".

After all, you are one of the regulars who belong to the secondary category
of over half a dozen people in a mutual "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"
relationship with jillery to which I alluded without mentioning names.
But with this performance, you've earned

the fundamental human right to be named. :-) :-)

Peter Nyikos
NEW VIRTUAL FOUR LINE .SIG

Although this post is mostly about semantic and personal issues,
it also helps to set some thing straight about one of the most crucial words used in talk.origins.

[erik simpson]

Surreal.

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Thursday, December 10, 2020 at 8:35:29 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:

...

> Surreal.

Festivus all year round (at least the airing of ... part)

[jillery]

Word.

[jillery]

On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 10:14:12 -0800 (PST), "nyik...@gmail.com"

If I am in a position to demand, but I do not demand, then what
exactly is your criticism against me?

And you *still* haven't specified what you mean by "creationism".

<snip your remaining spamming lies>

[seand...@gmail.com]

Peter, because I know self-reflection and the accurate interpretation of others are not your strengths, let me spell out what erik, Lawyer, and jillery are likely getting at here. I share this with you, not because I'm in some sort of cahoots with them OR with Mark -- I'm not -- but because we each of us are capable of using our powers of reasoning to observe the obvious:

This post is the exemplar of your twisted mentality, and Exhibit A in why you find yourself so generally disliked here.

You asked a question and received a response that directly addressed that question, thoughtfully and politely. Rather than applying that answer to the question that YOU YOURSELF ASKED, you adopted it as a jumping off point to rehash and reignite a debate with that poster on a much earlier, utterly unrelated topic, casting aspersions as you went. Everything to you is just grist to the narcissistic mill of personal grievance. Past slights are your hammer, and the whole world is full of nails. Give it a rest, kiddo. You're a direct impediment to the meaningful exchange of ideas... even your own. Hell, ESPECIALLY your own.

[jillery]

Etymology, the evolution of words, can be enlightening, as it
illuminates historical and cultural connections of memes.

[Mark Isaak]

Peter, you are your own worst enemy.

[nyik...@gmail.com]

Mark is, with the way he pays lip service to effective communication,
yet violates it in the spectacular ways I have laid out, in real life.

If you had something different in mind, don't wait for Sean Dillon to
make his usual wild stab in the dark about what someone (you) tried to say. Spell it out for all to see.

That's not a demand, just a suggestion. And if you don't want to take it,
I'll settle for a candid reaction from you to the main takeaway where
the big outside world is concerned, as to the meaning of "creationism":

> > It is the half that would NEVER occur to anyone reading statements in
> > the mainstream press that Donald Trump is favorably disposed towards creationism.
> > To say the least.

[quoted from above]

And I don't mean Okimoto's extreme of that right half: I mean a belief that
God did create something as priceless as, e.g., the human soul, or our
observable universe, or the first cells that were capable of evolving
without further guidance into humans. All this and more is in the right hand half
that Mark omitted.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

[erik simpson]

My previous reaction still stands.. surreal.

[seand...@gmail.com]

Hardly a wild stab, Peter.

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Friday, December 11, 2020 at 7:35:29 AM UTC-5, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, December 10, 2020 at 8:35:29 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 10, 2020 at 4:55:29 PM UTC-8, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:

[...]

> > Surreal.

> Mark is, with the way he pays lip service to effective communication,
> yet violates it in the spectacular ways I have laid out, in real life.
>
> If you had something different in mind, don't wait for Sean Dillon to
> make his usual wild stab in the dark about what someone (you) tried to say. Spell it out for all to see.
>
> That's not a demand, just a suggestion. And if you don't want to take it,
> I'll settle for a candid reaction from you to the main takeaway where
> the big outside world is concerned, as to the meaning of "creationism":

Candidly, I felt like I knew exactly what sentiment was being expressed
as I shared it. The same with Sean's. It's a common thing where somebody
else expresses what I'm thinking about your posts. It's equally common
for you to come back and question their sincerity.

This has the obvious effect of me not trusting your judgement about the
sincerity of people.

But let's step back. You assert both that "evolution" and "creation" are the two
most important terms for talk.origins, presumably along with their ism and ist
suffixed derivatives. But you further like to press that your particular definitions
for these terms are superior to how others use the terms, and especially so
within the context of talk.origins.

Despite what I confess seem like personally sabotage in your attempts to
communicate your definitions and rational behind your preferences, I think
I understand it. Further, I think I understand your perspective enough to see
why you believe as you do.

However, I also see that others have different perspectives with different
preferences and I see comparable legitimacy to their beliefs within their
perspectives. I'm more inclined to be sympathetic to those who are less
bombastic about asserting that their preference and opinion is privileged
to be superior.

I think you suffer on that account. And I think you often fail to recognize
the perspectives of others. In fact, it seems to me that the only time you
attempt the "walk a mile in their moccasins", you just slip the moccasins
on briefly and imagine the other being a liar and satisfy yourself that
they are thus dishonest. You don't seem able to consider others in the
best possible light.

As Sean put it, that post was Exhibit A.

Now you aren't the only person who shows up loaded for bear and looking
for a fight. The internet seems to bring that out in many, but Exhibit A.

You'll no doubt be announcing a posting break soon. The sharp edges
to your clashes will dull with distance. Perhaps you'll have time to reflect.
If for no other reason than just to be more effective at making your points,
perhaps you'll think about toning it down. Hope springs eternal.

[jillery]

I confess you have me at an disadvantage, that you have discerned from
nyikos the peter's posts to this topic what he means by "creationism"
and it cognates. As my efforts to that end have been futile, will you
share the results of your insight, and specify said meaning and how
you came to that conclusion. Thank you in advance.

[erik simpson]

If you've figured out what Peter is "getting at", good for you. I'm way behind, but
I don't feel any need to catch up. As you say, he's probably going to announce his
posting break soon, and maybe it'll be good for him, although it rarely seems to have
that effect.

[Lawyer Daggett]

It's a coin flip whether I respond here or to Jillery with essentially the same
challenge to translate back my "understanding" of what referenced definitions
are (creation [ism, ist], evolution [ism, ist]).

I'll fail both your requests. My understanding is predicated upon my attempt to
grasp his perspective. Ultimately, there's too much extrapolation, coupled to the
distortion involved in what in my youth was the telephone game, sometimes
called Chinese whispers (which I find politically incorrect in the sense that I
have no idea what Chinese has to do with it but it seems to beg to be taken in
some stereotype reinforcing manner which seems gratuitous).

Further, my concept of his perspective is not entirely charitable, though I attempt
to make allowances.

This is as close as I will venture. He has certain perspectives about the authentic
dangers of "creationism" that are somewhat idiosyncratic. These entangle with
an ethos that would white-knight believers and not consider them dangerous
if their erstwhile creationist views were innocently naive because they had not
yet been offered enlightenment by the select sort of arguments that he is somehow
privileged to recognize as the significant and compelling ones.

Yes, it rapidly becomes convoluted but it is a perspective that has been
consistently presented. Somehow, he knows the right arguments that a
creationist has to accept if exposed to. And they aren't the arguments that
you think are important, he has his own perspective on what is compelling
and significant, while he doesn't see merit in your alternative arguments.

So in some sense there a split between innocent naive creationism and
recalcitrant creationism. The naive sort hasn't thought deeply and is just
trusting what Mommy and Daddy told them, and their Sunday School
teacher told them --- in contrast to the ones who were offered properly
configured scientific enlightenment. The distinct types of creationism
reflects back on the threat and the point of, utility of, a forum like talk
origins ultimately folding into if an example of creationism is maliciously
refractive to objective reality.

Yes, it's convoluted. But this wraps into "creationism" as a danger, which is
the willful denial of objective reality __if__ the creationist has been properly
presented with Truth(TM). So it all wraps into a situational and operative
perspective on how to "define" the key terms with respect to a perceived mission.

Perhaps you get the gist. Ultimately, it seems to me that he sees everything
through the lens of his belief that he has a privileged view of what the real
dangers of creationism are, what the real ways to expose people to "reality",
and a rather circular notion of the dangerous sort of creationism that are
unaccountably refractive to __his__ sense of how to rebut them.

It makes more sense if you begin by recognizing an epistemology that
is rooting in a near infallible sense of somehow knowing what's best.

I can imagine myriad reasons to reject that sort of framework. But tell
me where you're sure I've read him incorrectly.

[jillery]

First, and most important, I want to apologize if you felt my question
put you on the spot to speak for someone else. I acknowledge it's not
fair to ask someone to do that, but given his evasion, and your
apparent confidence, I thought it a reasonable request in this
particular case.

Second, I am a bit relieved that I'm not the only one who noted his
lack of a clear explanation.

Third, whether your reading is right or wrong, I would be frankly
surprised if agrees with it, which is really the only valid measure of
answers to questions like "what do you think he means?"

Fourth, your reply above reminds me a story you may have heard. It's
a likely apocryphal tale of a young lad named Johnny, who came home
from his first day of school. As soon as Johnny saw his mother, he
blurted out, "Mom, what's sex?"

And his Mom thought to herself "Oh dear, he must have overheard some
older kids talking. Why did I wait so long to have "the talk" with
him?". So Mom sat down with Johnny, and proceeded to explain to him
about the birds and bees and men and women and where babies come from
and how they are made.

And after Mom delivered her long, non-stop monologue, she took a deep
breath, smiled sweetly, and said, "So Johnny, do you have any
questions?"

After several seconds of deep thought, Johnny reached into his
backpack, pulled out a sheet of paper, and said, "Well, the teacher
gave us this form to fill out about ourselves. I know my name and
address and age and all that, but one of the questions on it is 'sex',
and I don't know what to put there. So can you tell me?"

I mean no criticism, but like Johnny, I still have no idea what to put
there. IIUC whatever you think he means by "creationism" and its
cognates, you did not derive your opinion primarily from his posts to
this topic.

[erik simpson]

I have to punt here. I wasted too much time (actually any is too much) thinking I
was getting some glimmering of Peter's inner motivation and thinking. I abandoned
the effort some time ago. His exposition is so tortured, and his manner so off-putting
as to effective encrypt his meaning beyond my ability to grasp. I think he's getting worse,
but others who have seen him in action more than I say that he's pretty much the same.
Some of what you say rings true: he believes he is in possesion of the Truth, and that he
believes he understands what we are *really* saying, even if that's not what we actually
say. So I'm not going to interact with him. I may, rarely, address him, but I'm not likely to
respond to him, particularly to his venomous tirades. Good luck with your efforts to light
the dark.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Maybe I should boycott him given:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/q1jpLLvjM3Y/m/VCpibN-zBwAJ

[erik simpson]

Nobody would blame you, certainly not I.

[*Hemidactylus*]

But boycott means still indirectly snarking at someone via piggybacking the
posts of others, you know, in a thoroughly instrumental pawn fodder manner.

[erik simpson]

Peter's "boycott" model is indeed a very childish device.

[*Hemidactylus*]

An announcing the boycott over and over and over just because it makes me
feel so powerful and important. Adler had said stuff about
overcompensation. So yeah plenty of that.

[Oxyaena]

On 12/9/2020 8:34 PM, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, December 9, 2020 at 5:45:29 AM UTC-5, Oxyaena wrote:

>> On 12/8/2020 4:32 PM, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> It should be obvious what they are: "evolution" and "creationism" [or "creationist, but as far as this post is concerned, they play the same role].
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, there is wide disagreement on what the words mean or should mean. That wouldn't be so bad if t.o. participants made it clear what they think they mean/should mean, but some do not because it doesn't occur to them that there are those reading their words think any differently about their meanings. [There are other people who don't make it clear for other reasons, but I don't want to go into that here.]

>>> Meanings in use for "creationist" range all the way from "YEC (Young Earth Creationism)" to "belief in a creator" without even specifying what the creator is supposed to have created. [There is one well-known talk.origins regular who is at this latter extreme.]
>>>

>>> The range for "evolution" is almost as great, and is the source of endless
>>> misunderstandings, where the phrase "the theory of evolution" is used, on the one hand, to mean "common descent" or, at the opposite extreme, to mean "evolution due exclusively to naturalistic influences."
>>>
>>>
>>> Back to "creationism": there are two very important intermediates between the two extremes. One is OEC, which accepts the prevailing geological consensus on the earth being approximately 4.5 gigayears old, yet also entails God having created a huge variety of"kinds" from nothing (or "from the dust of the earth") beyond which evolution cannot go.
>>>
>>> The other is exemplified by believing in common descent but also in evolution that is guided by periodic nudges by supernatural entities.
>>>
>>> For instance, I have often said that Behe is not a creationist because he believes in common descent. But lately I've been getting pushback in the form of being told that Behe *is* a creationist in the sense that he
>>> believes in at least the "periodic supernatural nudges."
>>>
>>> FTR, Behe has never publicly espoused this belief, but that is beside the
>>> point: he has never made it part of his theory of ID (Intelligent Design),
>>> and so he cannot be charged with espousing that "form of creationism."
>

>> There is no theory of intelligent design.
>
> There is one, but only the fine-tuning [1] sub-theory of it is beyond a very early gestational phase.
> If you restrict yourself to biological ID, it is in a somewhat earlier gestational phase
> than the theory of macroevolution,
> which has had over 100 years since its modern conception to develop. It is hamstrung
> by the legacy of Darwin, who adopted a microevolutionary definition of "natural selection"
> which didn't even bother that notorious species immutabilist, Ray Martinez. >
> [1] more properly: the extremely low tolerance of the basic physical constants to alteration
> without destroying any reasonable prospect of life forming and evolving to intelligence
> and the ability to form languages of great sophistication, like all human languages
> apart from some sign languages.

That's not a theory of ID, a scientific theory needs to be able to make
testable predictions. ID makes no testable predictions, ergo it is not a
theory. QED.

[snip]

[Oxyaena]

On 12/10/2020 7:55 PM, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, December 10, 2020 at 12:45:30 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 12/8/20 1:32 PM, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Unfortunately, there is wide disagreement on what the words mean or should mean.
>
>
>> Almost all words in the English language have more than one meaning.
>> That's not a bug; it's a feature.
>
> Yes, and that is true also of whole phrases, like "wants to take away fundamental human rights gays"
> to include wanting licenses of same-sex civil unions to include disclaimers like:
>
> This license of same-sex union grants to the couple it unites all the legal rights
> and privileges a marriage license would give, but it is not a marriage license.
>
> You have repeatedly used that phrase to include my wanting this.

You have yet to give one rational reason for your consternation about
gay marriage. We've been going back and forth on this subject for years.
Man up.

>
>
>> Sometimes the multiplication of meanings arises from artistic license,
>> as when words are used metaphorically.
>
> When confronted by this example from time to time, you generally whine
> that you haven't made that accusation about me for some time, conveniently
> neglecting to add that you've never recanted it, nor shown any sign of having
> regretted it, nor tried to say you didn't really mean it literally.

Because it's off-topic, irrelevant, and also true.

[snip idiocy]

>
>
>> The words "creation" and "evolution" both have had their meanings
>> extended because of extensions in what the words apply to.
>
> Do you seriously think that the use of "fundamental human rights"
> has had its meaning extended because of publicly widespread
> extensions of what that phrase means? I mean, of course, to a point
> where you could extend it FURTHER to your usage in a way that
> seems to make it a natural extension of what the general public has
> already accustomed itself to?

I have a video for you, Peter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhRBsJYWR8Q

It's a discussion of the historical foundations of rights theory.

>
>
>> "Creationism", according to my 1950 Merriam-Webster dictionary, is "the
>> doctrine that the Earth was created out of nothing (through an act or
>> series of acts) by a transcendent Creator"; it says nothing about life,
>
>> much less about time scales or design. (A second definition refers to
>> separate creation of human souls.) The word "evolution" has evolved
>> even more, from its meaning as the unfolding related to development to
>> its technical meaning of allele change in populations, with various
>> other meanings in between.
>
> That "in between" reminds me of the way a critic pannned a performance

> by Katherine Hepburn: "She ran the whole gamut of emotions from A to B."]

I don't get the relevance of this.

>
>>
>> All of the various meanings serve a purpose, or people would not be
>> using them.
>>
>> It is the writer's duty to make clear what meaning, or shades of
>> meaning, they intend with a word. Some writers are better at this than
>> others. It is the reader's duty to infer from context what meaning, or
>> shades of meaning, a writer intends.
>
> More about this particular "duty" below.
>
> > Some readers are better at this
>> than others. (I might add that I consider it wrong for a writer to
>> deliberately mislead a reader by equivocating with a word's meaning, or
>> for a reader, through lack of charity, to infer a meaning that the
>> writer did not put there.)
>
> In your case, there's no lack of charity if a person, even if his wildest dreams,
> would never suspect that "fundmental human rights" was used so broadly
> as you use it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhRBsJYWR8Q

>
> It would be utterly perverse for you to claim that it is that person's duty to stop you
> in the middle of a rant to ask what the phrase means to you.

What's perverse is your homophobia.

>
>>
>> So what definitions of the key words in "evolution vs. creationism"
>> apply to this newsgroup? All of them (excepting, for the most part, the
>> doctrine of separate creation of human souls, and definitions of
>> evolution which are long obsolete or apply only to non-biology fields).
>>
>> And if someone says, "X is a creationist", what does that mean? Well,
>> the word "creationist" covers a lot of possibilities.
>
> So does "fundamental human right," apparently. Would you care to give
> us a small sample of what ELSE it covers? For example, do you think
> a law that says "a transgender MUST be referred to by the personal pronoun
> with which 'e wants to be referred" is enforcing a fundamental human right,
> according to your use of the term?

It's called common decency, you dick.

[snip idiocy]

[Oxyaena]

You should try yoga, I hear it works wonders for the mind and body.

[jillery]

On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 10:49:59 -0500, Oxyaena <oxy...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

To add your comment, I point out that a scientific theory also needs
to provide a rigorous explanatory framework for prior observations.

More to the point, nyikos the peter makes a similar mistake as "that
notorious species immutabilist, Ray Martinez", in that both argue
against macroevolution but explain not what stops cumulative
microevolutionary change from adding up over time into
macroevolutionary change.

[nyik...@gmail.com]

On Friday, December 11, 2020 at 11:25:30 AM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
> On Friday, December 11, 2020 at 4:35:29 AM UTC-8, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 10, 2020 at 8:35:29 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 10, 2020 at 4:55:29 PM UTC-8, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, December 10, 2020 at 12:45:30 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> > > > > On 12/8/20 1:32 PM, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > Unfortunately, there is wide disagreement on what the words mean or should mean.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Almost all words in the English language have more than one meaning.
> > > > > That's not a bug; it's a feature.

> > > > Yes, and that is true also of whole phrases, like "wants to take away fundamental human rights [from] gays"
> > > > to include wanting [nothing more than for] licenses of same-sex civil unions to include disclaimers like:

> > > >
> > > > This license of same-sex union grants to the couple it unites all the legal rights
> > > > and privileges a marriage license would give, but it is not a marriage license.

> > > > You have repeatedly used that phrase to include my wanting this.

> > > > > Sometimes the multiplication of meanings arises from artistic license,
> > > > > as when words are used metaphorically.

> > > > When confronted by this example from time to time, you generally whine
> > > > that you haven't made that accusation about me for some time, conveniently
> > > > neglecting to add that you've never recanted it, nor shown any sign of having
> > > > regretted it, nor tried to say you didn't really mean it literally.

<snip for focus>

For reasons known only to (at most) you, you didn't comply with either suggestion,
but doubled down with:

> My previous reaction still stands.. surreal.

Let me try again. Perhaps you think the following question [repeated from above]
was surreal:

> > > >For example, do you think
> > > > a law that says "a transgender MUST be referred to by the personal pronoun
> > > > with which 'e wants to be referred" is enforcing a fundamental human right,
> > > > according to your use of the term?

Do you? If you do, is it because you think it is surreal to compare:

(a) the feelings of humiliation, or whatever, of a biological male who never felt at home in
his body until he decided he was a woman, to

(b) the humiliation, or whatever, of one who cannot honestly claim to be legally married to
his same-sex partner, but must bear the stigma of being legally in a mere civil union
which grants the same legal rights and privileges as a marriage does to people of
opposite biological sexes?

And if so, which humiliation, or whatever, do you think is by far the greater?


Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

The two most important words in TO are "creationism" and "evoolution". And
"marriage". The three words are creationism and evolution and marraige,
and an almost fanatical devotion to the truth... our four... no... amongst
our words... amongst our vocabulary are such elements as creationism,
evolution... I'll come in again.

[nyik...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, December 15, 2020 at 11:00:31 AM UTC-5, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 12/10/2020 7:55 PM, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 10, 2020 at 12:45:30 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 12/8/20 1:32 PM, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>> Unfortunately, there is wide disagreement on what the words mean or should mean.
> >
> >
> >> Almost all words in the English language have more than one meaning.
> >> That's not a bug; it's a feature.
> >
> > Yes, and that is true also of whole phrases, like "wants to take away fundamental human rights gays"
> > to include wanting licenses of same-sex civil unions to include disclaimers like:
> >
> > This license of same-sex union grants to the couple it unites all the legal rights
> > and privileges a marriage license would give, but it is not a marriage license.
> >
> > You have repeatedly used that phrase to include my wanting this.

> You have yet to give one rational reason for your consternation about
> gay marriage.

There is no such consternation. My ONE AND ONLY complaint is the lack of
licenses with such disclaimers involving same-sex [which does NOT necessarily
mean "gay"] unions of the sort that have only been generally looked upon as marriages
in the last three decades, and never before in human history.

> We've been going back and forth on this subject for years.

CORRECTION: People *other* than yourself have gone back and forth with me
on this HIGHLY RESTRICTIVE subject at widely separated times in the the last half decade.
And my reasons, given on each such episode, are highly rational and momentous.

Looks to me like you are in touch with your inner Thrinaxodon here.


> Man up.

I bet one of your favorite scenes in Shakespeare's "King Lear" is where
Goneril says to her husband, the Duke of Albany, "Milk-livered man!"
You obviously have no use for the kind of goodness the duke represented.

> >> Sometimes the multiplication of meanings arises from artistic license,
> >> as when words are used metaphorically.
> >
> > When confronted by this example from time to time, you generally whine
> > that you haven't made that accusation about me for some time, conveniently
> > neglecting to add that you've never recanted it, nor shown any sign of having
> > regretted it, nor tried to say you didn't really mean it literally.

> Because it's off-topic, irrelevant, and also true.

It is true that Mark's libel is off-topic whenever he confirms it, and that it is irrelevant
to the truth of the matter, which is exactly as I have recounted, as is every falsehood,
and it is true that it is defamatory.

> [snip idiocy]

It seems that you are giving full rein to your inner Thrinaxodon.

> >> The words "creation" and "evolution" both have had their meanings
> >> extended because of extensions in what the words apply to.
> >
> > Do you seriously think that the use of "fundamental human rights"
> > has had its meaning extended because of publicly widespread
> > extensions of what that phrase means? I mean, of course, to a point
> > where you could extend it FURTHER to your usage in a way that
> > seems to make it a natural extension of what the general public has
> > already accustomed itself to?

> I have a video for you, Peter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhRBsJYWR8Q
>
> It's a discussion of the historical foundations of rights theory.

They go back to before the American Revolution. But it is a perversion
of rights theory to say that transgenders have a fundamental human right
to be called by their trans-chosen name, while transracials like Rachel Donezal
have no right to be treated according to their trans-chosen race.

You even went further and claimed that Ms. Donezal was a "fraud,"
and the natural inference is that you are unfit to discuss my stand
on licenses of same-sex civil union in a rational manner.


<snip for focus>

> >> And if someone says, "X is a creationist", what does that mean? Well,
> >> the word "creationist" covers a lot of possibilities.
> >
> > So does "fundamental human right," apparently. Would you care to give
> > us a small sample of what ELSE it covers? For example, do you think
> > a law that says "a transgender MUST be referred to by the personal pronoun
> > with which 'e wants to be referred" is enforcing a fundamental human right,
> > according to your use of the term?


> It's called common decency,

As is the calling of Rachel Donezal a "fraud," in your wretched opinion?
a fine spokesperson you are for your fellow atheists on the subject of common decency!


> you dick.

Goneril also had choice things to say about that aspect of her husband (literally,
not in the sense you are using the word).

Review the whole scene, you'll love it.


Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 19:51:58 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:

No one expects you to; just sit in the Comfy Chair and watch
the fun.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[nyik...@gmail.com]

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, Sean.

[Oxyaena]

On 12/16/2020 12:10 PM, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 15, 2020 at 11:00:31 AM UTC-5, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 12/10/2020 7:55 PM, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, December 10, 2020 at 12:45:30 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 12/8/20 1:32 PM, nyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> Unfortunately, there is wide disagreement on what the words mean or should mean.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Almost all words in the English language have more than one meaning.
>>>> That's not a bug; it's a feature.
>>>
>>> Yes, and that is true also of whole phrases, like "wants to take away fundamental human rights gays"
>>> to include wanting licenses of same-sex civil unions to include disclaimers like:
>>>
>>> This license of same-sex union grants to the couple it unites all the legal rights
>>> and privileges a marriage license would give, but it is not a marriage license.
>>>
>>> You have repeatedly used that phrase to include my wanting this.
>
>> You have yet to give one rational reason for your consternation about
>> gay marriage.
>
> There is no such consternation. My ONE AND ONLY complaint is the lack of
> licenses with such disclaimers involving same-sex [which does NOT necessarily
> mean "gay"] unions of the sort that have only been generally looked upon as marriages
> in the last three decades, and never before in human history.
>

And the rational reason for it is?

>> We've been going back and forth on this subject for years.
>
> CORRECTION: People *other* than yourself have gone back and forth with me
> on this HIGHLY RESTRICTIVE subject at widely separated times in the the last half decade.
> And my reasons, given on each such episode, are highly rational and momentous.

Bullshit. You realize that society evolves, right? Nothing is set in stone.

[snip idiocy]

>
>
>>>> The words "creation" and "evolution" both have had their meanings
>>>> extended because of extensions in what the words apply to.
>>>
>>> Do you seriously think that the use of "fundamental human rights"
>>> has had its meaning extended because of publicly widespread
>>> extensions of what that phrase means? I mean, of course, to a point
>>> where you could extend it FURTHER to your usage in a way that
>>> seems to make it a natural extension of what the general public has
>>> already accustomed itself to?
>
>> I have a video for you, Peter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhRBsJYWR8Q
>>
>> It's a discussion of the historical foundations of rights theory.
>
> They go back to before the American Revolution. But it is a perversion
> of rights theory to say that transgenders have a fundamental human right
> to be called by their trans-chosen name, while transracials like Rachel Donezal
> have no right to be treated according to their trans-chosen race.

"Transgenders" have a biological basis for the gender they identify
with. You should really make yourself up to date on the science of
gender identity and sexual physiology.

[snip bad faith bullshit]

PS: Check your email.

[Oxyaena]

Peter cries out in pain as he strikes Erik.

[erik simpson]

Peter needs (more than ever) to take a break.

[Oxyaena]

He's probably gone on his winter break.

[nyik...@gmail.com]

You think you feel my pain, but it's all yours.

Peter Nyikos

[nyik...@gmail.com]

Erik's style here makes him look like is channeling Hemidactylus.

> No one expects you to; just sit in the Comfy Chair and watch
> the fun.

Erik can sit more easily, now that Oxyaena has felt his pain for him
and thereby transferred it to herself.


Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

Apparently my snark went over your head.

[Oxyaena]

You really are a fool, you know that?

>
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

[erik simpson]

It was a paraphrase of a comedy routine, I shouldn't expect that you'd get it. But you
needn't be concerned for my "pain". Enjoy your break.

[nyik...@gmail.com]

<small snip>

> >>> The two most important words in TO are "creationism" and "evoolution". And
> >>> "marriage". The three words are creationism and evolution and marraige,
> >>> and an almost fanatical devotion to the truth... our four... no... amongst
> >>> our words... amongst our vocabulary are such elements as creationism,
> >>> evolution... I'll come in again.
> >
> > Erik's style here makes him look like is channeling Hemidactylus.
> >
> >> No one expects you to; just sit in the Comfy Chair and watch
> >> the fun.
> >
> > Erik can sit more easily, now that Oxyaena has felt his pain for him
> > and thereby transferred it to herself.

> You really are a fool, you know that?

Said the gnat to the bull on whose horns it was perched [1].

You are flagrantly ignoring the issues raised by my questions in the
snarky post of which you are oh-so-proud. Issues which not only
put Erik's mindless bullshit about "surreal" to the test [2] but also
strike at the way transgenders are becoming the New Aristocracy,
above even the Almost-New Arisocracy, gays.

[1] that's an allusion to a fable attributed to Aesop.

[2] Even Sean Dillon backed away from trying to spin-doctor it into
something Erik could be proud of.


You are a lover of deceit, Oxyaena/Thrinaxodon, second only in ardor to your
mentor and role model jillery. It is a tossup whose influence is greater on you,
hers or that of your other role model and mentor, Harshman.


Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

I think we can safely agree you are the gnat and I am the bull.

>
> You are flagrantly ignoring the issues raised by my questions in the
> snarky post of which you are oh-so-proud. Issues which not only
> put Erik's mindless bullshit about "surreal" to the test [2] but also
> strike at the way transgenders are becoming the New Aristocracy,
> above even the Almost-New Arisocracy, gays.

You've been watching too much Fox News.

>
> [1] that's an allusion to a fable attributed to Aesop.
>
> [2] Even Sean Dillon backed away from trying to spin-doctor it into
> something Erik could be proud of.
>
>
> You are a lover of deceit, Oxyaena/Thrinaxodon, second only in ardor to your
> mentor and role model jillery. It is a tossup whose influence is greater on you,
> hers or that of your other role model and mentor, Harshman.

Lmao.

>
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

[John Harshman]

He probably didn't expect that.

[Lawyer Daggett]

¿ Que esperaba ?

[erik simpson]

La inquisición española.

[John Harshman]

Nobody does.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Ok do I really need to start cracking down on this excessive Monty Python
bullshit. It was just a show people. And not even funny by British
standards baselined at Mr. Bean. Now that was a show.

[Lawyer Daggett]

You demonstrate a similar appreciate of human as Professor Peter.
Have you considered consulting a professional therapist? Or maybe you
could cure yourself by simply availing yourself of some environmental
therapy. Perhaps you should journey to climb the twin peaks of Kilimanjaro.

[Oxyaena]

I bless the rains down in Africa....

[*Hemidactylus*]

Doesn’t parse on multiple levels. Gin? That’s my excuse.

>
> Have you considered consulting a professional therapist?

One that “gets” Python? No thanks.

> Or maybe you
> could cure yourself by simply availing yourself of some environmental
> therapy.

The ancient realm when Python was “hip”? I prefer old SNL and SCTV. Hell
Levy on American Pie or Schitt’s Creek is far more funny than frickin’
Python. I’ll take Phil Hartman as anal retentive whatever or Unfrozen
Caveman Lawyer any day over Python. Python merely pretended to be funny
poorly. They were no Kids in the Hall or the worst Seth Rogan movie.

> Perhaps you should journey to climb the twin peaks of Kilimanjaro.
>

I discovered Community quite recently and nothing touches it. No Britcom,
though the Goodies and Mr. Bean were ok. Dave Allen was Irish and much
funnier than Python.

Community does scifi better than Brits at their own game:

https://community-sitcom.fandom.com/wiki/Inspector_Spacetime_(television_show)

And Donald Glover in his infancy runs circles around some Britcom nonsense.
Teddy Perkins as his mature work in Atlanta is a clinic. Not to mention
Chevy Chase as awkward old guy and the subtle genius of Yvette Nicole Brown
in Community.

They deal with Python properly in the Everglades. Those snakes aren’t funny
either.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Do you got a Boston Legal reference for me? Denny Crane! Who knew Shat was
a comic genius. Better than Python. Denny Crane! And Alan Shore.

[*Hemidactylus*]

To think Petey assumes we are all allies. Daggett is put on notice. And you
are an accomplice.

[Lawyer Daggett]

Long ago and far away the cool kid gathered together and smoked some
refer, likely doing tricks with a 5 gallon jug and high content alcohol. There
may have been some youthful sexual indiscretions that occurred in the wings.
Some of them also gathered to play games, like D&D in the wee hours emerging
to visit the local donut shops at 5 AM where they joked with the local constabulary
prior to getting themselves together to work their weekend jobs prior to repeating
their consumption of drugs and alcohol while watching Python and SNL or listening
to Pink Floyd.

I'm sorry that they didn't include you. It must have been lonely.

On the other hand, you have those memories of listening the the Alan Parson's Project
all by yourself. Nobody can take that from you. But we still remember how to laugh.

[jillery]

There seems to be an epidemic among posters desperate to prove nyikos
the peter wrong about their motives. My impression is their efforts
are misdirected.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[jillery]

He suffers from mad cow.

[jillery]

Nadie espera la inquisición española

[*Hemidactylus*]

I strongly doubt D & D playing and sexual indiscretions went hand in hand.
Parents worried D & D was satanic, but on the upside it guaranteed
virginity.

>
> Some of them also gathered to play games, like D&D in the wee hours emerging
> to visit the local donut shops at 5 AM where they joked with the local constabulary
> prior to getting themselves together to work their weekend jobs prior to repeating
> their consumption of drugs and alcohol while watching Python and SNL or listening
> to Pink Floyd.
>

SNL and pre-Wall Pink Floyd yes. Or Pink Floyd coupled with Wizard of Oz.

>
> I'm sorry that they didn't include you. It must have been lonely.
>

D & D and Python? No loss.

>
> On the other hand, you have those memories of listening the the Alan Parson's Project
> all by yourself. Nobody can take that from you. But we still remember how to laugh.
>

Alan Parsons? What’s that?

[a...@littlepinkcloud.invalid]

Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> jillery wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 09 Dec 2020 11:34:16 -0600, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Something had to have started the process of the evolution of the
>>>universe.
>>
>> Almost everything you wrote above is factually incorrect, ...
>
> If you add some clarifications to your assertions maybe I'll see my
> errors and repent.

Okay, I'll bite. Your assertion above doesn't follow from anything, as
far as I can see.

Andrew.

[jillery]

Your comment above is unclear which assertion you think doesn't
follow.

Perhaps if you left more context. That would have an additional
benefit of keeping you from looking like a quotemining troll.

*********************************
BILL:

Something had to have started the process of the evolution of the

universe. Most explanations seem to rely on luck or maybe magic. Once
the process of evolution begins, we have to invent explanations for
each subsequent step. And so on. A Designer becomes more plausible as
the evolution of the universe progresses and accident seems less
likely.

The objection to this scenario is based on human sensibilities but is
otherwise as credible as any other proposal. If the Designer is
understood as God(s) and one denies the existence of God(s), then some
other explanation is necessary. Reality is not the issue, what matters
is what we are prepared to believe.

JILLERY:
Almost everything you wrote above is factually incorrect, consisting
of your standard misrepresentations of what scientists say and other
people believe. Not sure how you think that's even remotely
convincing.

BILL:

If you add some clarifications to your assertions maybe I'll see my
errors and repent.

JILLERY:
You first.
*********************************

[a...@littlepinkcloud.invalid]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 05:17:44 -0600, a...@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:
>
>>Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> jillery wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 09 Dec 2020 11:34:16 -0600, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Something had to have started the process of the evolution of the
>>>>>universe.
>>>>
>>>> Almost everything you wrote above is factually incorrect, ...
>>>
>>> If you add some clarifications to your assertions maybe I'll see my
>>> errors and repent.
>>
>>Okay, I'll bite. Your assertion above doesn't follow from anything, as
>>far as I can see.
>

> Your comment above is unclear which assertion you think doesn't
> follow.

There's only one assertion in the material I quoted: "Something had to
have started the process of the evolution of the universe." All the
rest of Bill's argument flows from it.

> Perhaps if you left more context. That would have an additional
> benefit of keeping you from looking like a quotemining troll.

Hmm. I try to snip everything I'm not replying to. I want to see Bill
justify that first assertion. He usually plunges into deep solipsism,
saying that in effect everything is unknowable, but that is a definite
statement.

Andrew.

[Bill]

Let's add some context: "It may be that Behe is not speaking for everyone or
that his views exhaust every variation of the idea of intelligent design.

If the universe once consisted of nothing but the potential of its
existence, that no matter or energy existed (the pre-big bang state), we
are left with the only option of creation ex nihilo. Nobody likes this
possibility so we have to gloss over it with obscure conjecture.

Something had to have started the process of the evolution of the universe.

Most explanations seem to rely on luck or maybe magic. Once the process of
evolution begins, we have to invent explanations for each subsequent step.
And so on. A Designer becomes more plausible as the evolution of the
universe progresses and accident seems less likely.

The objection to this scenario is based on human sensibilities but is
otherwise as credible as any other proposal. If the Designer is understood
as God(s) and one denies the existence of God(s), then some other
explanation is necessary. Reality is not the issue, what matters is what we
are prepared to believe.

So you're saying that my comment, "Something had to have started the process
of the evolution of the universe" is an unjustified assertion? There are
arguments made that nothing started the process of evolution of the universe
but that makes the universe eternal, without a beginning and, possibly,
without an end. Surely this isn't what you mean.

The only fact we have here is that the universe exists. Beyond that is all
guesswork.

Bill

[jillery]

On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 04:05:04 -0600, a...@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:


> I want to see Bill
>justify that first assertion. He usually plunges into deep solipsism,
>saying that in effect everything is unknowable, but that is a definite
>statement.

I agree Bill shows a morbid fascination for sophistry and solipsism.

[a...@littlepinkcloud.invalid]

Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Let's add some context: "It may be that Behe is not speaking for everyone or
> that his views exhaust every variation of the idea of intelligent design.
>
> If the universe once consisted of nothing but the potential of its
> existence, that no matter or energy existed (the pre-big bang state), we
> are left with the only option of creation ex nihilo. Nobody likes this
> possibility so we have to gloss over it with obscure conjecture.
>
> Something had to have started the process of the evolution of the universe.
> Most explanations seem to rely on luck or maybe magic. Once the process of
> evolution begins, we have to invent explanations for each subsequent step.
> And so on. A Designer becomes more plausible as the evolution of the
> universe progresses and accident seems less likely.
>
> The objection to this scenario is based on human sensibilities but is
> otherwise as credible as any other proposal. If the Designer is understood
> as God(s) and one denies the existence of God(s), then some other
> explanation is necessary. Reality is not the issue, what matters is what we
> are prepared to believe.
>
> So you're saying that my comment, "Something had to have started the process
> of the evolution of the universe" is an unjustified assertion?

Yes.

> There are arguments made that nothing started the process of
> evolution of the universe but that makes the universe eternal,
> without a beginning and, possibly, without an end. Surely this isn't
> what you mean.

No, it isn't.

Firstly, causality, where it is observed, is a property of the
universe: causes precede effects. But this doesn't necessarily apply
to the origin of the universe itself. If the start of the universe was
the beginning of time, then there was no time "before" the universe.

> The only fact we have here is that the universe exists.

OK, but "something had to have started the process" is a much stronger
assumption than "the universe exists." We don't know that something
had to have started it.

Consider, for example, the Hartle-Hawking no-boundary proposal. Is
that proposal true? That remains to be seen, and may never be
known. But it doesn't require anything to have existed before the
universe, nor any cause.

Andrew.