The creationist mind at work

Cognitive dissonance, FTW

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: The creationist mind at work

#41  Postby Animavore » Oct 29, 2017 2:21 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Animavore wrote:
Besides the eye catching titles, can you point out where any of those papers say, "Mother Nature did it?" in lieu of an explanation.


Evolution of an Enzyme from a Noncatalytic Nucleic Acid Sequence
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep11405

This begs the question of whether Mother Nature has explored a similar mechanism to patiently work her evolutionary magic to evolve powerful enzymes from noncatalytic polymeric molecules, like RNA, that were available in the prebiotic world.


This snippet talks of a mechanism, which would serve as an explanation.

What I mean to say is is there anywhere in any papers it is ambiguously stated "Mother Nature did it." without mechanism, without any further explanation or description, leaving it to the reader to guess what they are talking about?
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44747
Age: 42
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The creationist mind at work

#42  Postby surreptitious57 » Oct 29, 2017 2:37 pm

Wortfish wrote:
So it is OK to say Evolution did it Mother Nature did it .... but to claim the Creator did it is a no no. This
is despite the fact that a Creator is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence for the United States

Are you really suggesting that the Declaration Of Independence falsifies evolution?
You have had I58 years to disprove it and is this the the best you can come up with?
Do you know that evolution is the most rigorously supported theory in all of science?
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
 
Posts: 10195

Print view this post

Re: The creationist mind at work

#43  Postby surreptitious57 » Oct 29, 2017 2:46 pm


The Declaration Of Independence : I776

On The Origin Of Species : I859
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
 
Posts: 10195

Print view this post

Re: The creationist mind at work

#44  Postby Shrunk » Oct 29, 2017 3:43 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Keep It Real wrote:"Creator" is anthropomorphic/creationist as it is understood in culture. "Mother Nature" is not as it is understood in culture.

"Nature", on its own, is OK....If someone said Nature did this or that, it wouldn't be a problem. But personifying Nature as a mother goddess is paganism. "Creator" can mean a deity, but it could mean an impersonal principle or force.


Well, OK. If the authors who referred to "Mother Nature" meant the term to refer to a pagan deity, then the papers should have been withdrawn. Similarly, if the paper that used the term "Creator" meant it to merely denote an "impersonal principle of force", then the paper should not have been withdrawn. In all cases, however, the editors came to the opposite conclusions. And those decisions seem quite reasonable to me. Obviously, these editorial deliberations are not required to consider the amount of butt hurt such decisions will cause Wortfish to experience.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The creationist mind at work

#45  Postby Wortfish » Oct 29, 2017 7:18 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
Keep It Real wrote:"Creator" is anthropomorphic/creationist as it is understood in culture. "Mother Nature" is not as it is understood in culture.

"Nature", on its own, is OK....If someone said Nature did this or that, it wouldn't be a problem. But personifying Nature as a mother goddess is paganism. "Creator" can mean a deity, but it could mean an impersonal principle or force.


Well, OK. If the authors who referred to "Mother Nature" meant the term to refer to a pagan deity, then the papers should have been withdrawn. Similarly, if the paper that used the term "Creator" meant it to merely denote an "impersonal principle of force", then the paper should not have been withdrawn. In all cases, however, the editors came to the opposite conclusions. And those decisions seem quite reasonable to me. Obviously, these editorial deliberations are not required to consider the amount of butt hurt such decisions will cause Wortfish to experience.


They should not have used the word "Mother" to describe "Nature". This reflects a pantheistic belief, not a theistic one. And they shouldn't have referred to any "magic" that she does. Both authors needed to issue corrigenda. Unfortunately, the editors came under enormous pressure to target the "creationists" but not the pagans.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The creationist mind at work

#46  Postby Wortfish » Oct 29, 2017 7:20 pm

Animavore wrote:
What I mean to say is is there anywhere in any papers it is ambiguously stated "Mother Nature did it." without mechanism, without any further explanation or description, leaving it to the reader to guess what they are talking about?


It also refers to Mother Nature doing "magic". That seems to be their explanation.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The creationist mind at work

#47  Postby Cito di Pense » Oct 29, 2017 7:31 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Animavore wrote:
What I mean to say is is there anywhere in any papers it is ambiguously stated "Mother Nature did it." without mechanism, without any further explanation or description, leaving it to the reader to guess what they are talking about?


It also refers to Mother Nature doing "magic". That seems to be their explanation.


Do you subscribe to biblical literalism? No? Then that means there's a possibility you'll recognize a metaphor when you see one. So if you're not stuck on literal interpretations of everything, then you can see your way clear to not requiring a literal creator god because that's what the bible told you.

On the other hand, if you are a biblical literalist, you might believe the earth is only 6000 and a few years old. There's some conflicting data you can be shown, but it might not help much. The upside for you is that you get permission from other literalists to take metaphors literally. Whoop de doo.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29554
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The creationist mind at work

#48  Postby Wortfish » Oct 29, 2017 7:41 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:cribe to biblical literalism? No? Then that means there's a possibility you'll recognize a metaphor when you see one. So if you're not stuck on literal interpretations of everything, then you can see your way clear to not requiring a literal creator god because that's what the bible told you.

On the other hand, if you are a biblical literalist, you might believe the earth is only 6000 and a few years old. There's some conflicting data you can be shown, but it might not help much. The upside for you is that you get permission from other literalists to take metaphors literally. Whoop de doo.


Obviously the authors were not referring to Harry Potter magic. But if you're going to pull papers for daring to conclude that a biological feature was created by a Creator, you have to pull all the pantheistic assertions that "Mother Nature" has created life.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The creationist mind at work

#49  Postby Blackadder » Oct 29, 2017 8:21 pm

What an utterly futile argument this is.

If there is evidence of a Creator God, fucking produce it.

If you cannot, then quit whining about semantic crapdoodle in some badly drafted document. It is evidence of nothing other than bad drafting.
That credulity should be gross in proportion to the ignorance of the mind that it enslaves, is in strict consistency with the principle of human nature. - Percy Bysshe Shelley
User avatar
Blackadder
RS Donator
 
Posts: 3776
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The creationist mind at work

#50  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Oct 29, 2017 8:24 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
Keep It Real wrote:"Creator" is anthropomorphic/creationist as it is understood in culture. "Mother Nature" is not as it is understood in culture.

"Nature", on its own, is OK....If someone said Nature did this or that, it wouldn't be a problem. But personifying Nature as a mother goddess is paganism. "Creator" can mean a deity, but it could mean an impersonal principle or force.


Well, OK. If the authors who referred to "Mother Nature" meant the term to refer to a pagan deity, then the papers should have been withdrawn. Similarly, if the paper that used the term "Creator" meant it to merely denote an "impersonal principle of force", then the paper should not have been withdrawn. In all cases, however, the editors came to the opposite conclusions. And those decisions seem quite reasonable to me. Obviously, these editorial deliberations are not required to consider the amount of butt hurt such decisions will cause Wortfish to experience.


They should not have used the word "Mother" to describe "Nature".

This is only a problem to the lazy and the disengenous creationist.
Anyone with a basic grasp of metaphorical language, will not be fazed by it.

Wortfish wrote:This reflects a pantheistic belief, not a theistic one.

It reflects neither.

Wortfish wrote: And they shouldn't have referred to any "magic" that she does. Both authors needed to issue corrigenda. Unfortunately, the editors came under enormous pressure to target the "creationists" but not the pagans.

:crazy:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The creationist mind at work

#51  Postby theropod » Oct 29, 2017 10:11 pm

I am so glad I let membership to the PCYS slide (Professional Chain Yanker Society).

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 67
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The creationist mind at work

#52  Postby Wortfish » Oct 30, 2017 1:04 am

Blackadder wrote:What an utterly futile argument this is.

If there is evidence of a Creator God, fucking produce it.

If you cannot, then quit whining about semantic crapdoodle in some badly drafted document. It is evidence of nothing other than bad drafting.


The authors did (or at least thought they had).....and had their paper retracted because of the conclusion reached.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The creationist mind at work

#53  Postby Cito di Pense » Oct 30, 2017 6:44 am

Wortfish wrote:
Blackadder wrote:What an utterly futile argument this is.

If there is evidence of a Creator God, fucking produce it.

If you cannot, then quit whining about semantic crapdoodle in some badly drafted document. It is evidence of nothing other than bad drafting.


The authors did (or at least thought they had).....and had their paper retracted because of the conclusion reached.


The word you were hunting for is 'rejected'. The fact of the matter is that these people who had their paper rejected do know how to do some stuff that you don't know how to do. And the people who rejected their paper know how to do stuff that you don't know how to do. If you don't really understand what these people are doing, and how their system works, your comments are empty. You can't conclude a creator god from studying biology any more soundly than you can by reading tea leaves. You can pull the assertion out of your ass. You don't need to do a lot of science to conclude the existence of a creator god. You can conclude a creator god just as easily as anyone else can, and this is the problem with it. It's too easy. If you don't understand what I mean by this, then you are trying to ignore where the leap of faith is.

If the biological complexity we see was built in, what, 6000 years or so, then yeah, a creator god might be necessary. You don't believe it all happened in 6000 years or so. The fact is that the people who wrote down the idea of a creator god that you are trying to re-use here actually had no idea how old the universe is.

Wortfish wrote:But if you're going to pull papers for daring to conclude that a biological feature was created by a Creator, you have to pull all the pantheistic assertions that "Mother Nature" has created life.


Your problem is that you're too literal-minded. If that isn't actually your problem, and you think you have a way to win this argument, first stop treating metaphorical language as literal language. People who know how to do stuff you do not know how to do get away with metaphorical language. You don't even use it, and appear to be roundly disoriented in its presence, but if you want to win an argument, sometimes you have to be able to use it, because metaphors are more compelling, sometimes, than whatever it is you think you're using. If we could really win arguments by editing out the metaphors, this would be a more interesting argument.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29554
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: The creationist mind at work

#54  Postby Animavore » Oct 30, 2017 10:19 am

Wortfish wrote:
Animavore wrote:
What I mean to say is is there anywhere in any papers it is ambiguously stated "Mother Nature did it." without mechanism, without any further explanation or description, leaving it to the reader to guess what they are talking about?


It also refers to Mother Nature doing "magic". That seems to be their explanation.

"Works its/his/her magic" is an expression. Do you think that when a commentator talks about Michael Jordan or Katie Taylor working their magic on the court/in the ring they are claiming something beyond explanation is happening?

I'm not rephrasing the question in an attempt to try make you understand because I think you do understand and are being deliberately obtuse. So just answer the question.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44747
Age: 42
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: The creationist mind at work

#55  Postby Shrunk » Oct 30, 2017 11:20 am

I must say, Wortfish, I'm not sure if I'm clear on the position you're taking here.

Are you saying the paper that used the term "Creator" did so metaphorically, and therefore should not have been retracted?

Or that the papers that used the term "Mother Nature" did so literally, and therefore should have been retracted?

Whichever position you take, you cannot remain consistent while also saying that the 1st paper used "Creator" literally yet should not have been retracted. Yet you seem to be saying that as well. So please clarify.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The creationist mind at work

#56  Postby Cito di Pense » Oct 30, 2017 11:59 am

Shrunk wrote:I must say, Wortfish, I'm not sure if I'm clear on the position you're taking here.

Are you saying the paper that used the term "Creator" did so metaphorically, and therefore should not have been retracted?

Or that the papers that used the term "Mother Nature" did so literally, and therefore should have been retracted?

Whichever position you take, you cannot remain consistent while also saying that the 1st paper used "Creator" literally yet should not have been retracted. Yet you seem to be saying that as well. So please clarify.


I don't think Wortfish is really concerned with the distinction between literal and metaphorical. I think we're still down at the level of the words that people are or are not permitted to speak or write, as if they were evil words. This is the sort of attitude held by people who believe there are magic words, or that Somebody is listening/reading.

This attitude is so ignorant that it need not be addressed. The alternative is treating it as how people are allowed to express their fee-feces.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29554
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: The creationist mind at work

#57  Postby Wortfish » Oct 30, 2017 12:09 pm

Shrunk wrote:I must say, Wortfish, I'm not sure if I'm clear on the position you're taking here.

Are you saying the paper that used the term "Creator" did so metaphorically, and therefore should not have been retracted?

Or that the papers that used the term "Mother Nature" did so literally, and therefore should have been retracted?

Whichever position you take, you cannot remain consistent while also saying that the 1st paper used "Creator" literally yet should not have been retracted. Yet you seem to be saying that as well. So please clarify.


I don't know what the authors meant by "Creator". It could have meant "Evolution" for all I know. But the use of the word "Creator" nonetheless caused outrage among scientists: http://uk.businessinsider.com/retracted ... tor-2016-3

Twitter exploded today with the news that a peer-reviewed scientific paper about the human hand credits its design to "the Creator," and scientists around the world are so furious, they called for an official retraction.


The term "Mother Nature" was probably used to refer just to "Nature" (i.e. natural processes), but personifying Nature as a "mother" is effectively endorsing pantheism/paganism, and has no place in a scientific journal.

I don't think any article should be retracted because the referees didn't notice something objectionable. But I do think the authors should issue a corrigendum or clarification that they were, or were not, making a theological or metaphysical claim.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The creationist mind at work

#58  Postby Cito di Pense » Oct 30, 2017 12:28 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Shrunk wrote:I must say, Wortfish, I'm not sure if I'm clear on the position you're taking here.

Are you saying the paper that used the term "Creator" did so metaphorically, and therefore should not have been retracted?

Or that the papers that used the term "Mother Nature" did so literally, and therefore should have been retracted?

Whichever position you take, you cannot remain consistent while also saying that the 1st paper used "Creator" literally yet should not have been retracted. Yet you seem to be saying that as well. So please clarify.


I don't know what the authors meant by "Creator". It could have meant "Evolution" for all I know. But the use of the word "Creator" nonetheless caused outrage among scientists: http://uk.businessinsider.com/retracted ... tor-2016-3


Yes, I suppose there will be some scientists who can't publish anything anywhere but in PLOS ONE who will be outraged at having their favorite lamppost labeled a 'joke'. I've never regarded PLOS ONE as anything but, so this isn't news to me.

PLOS ONE is claimed to be both peer reviewed and open access, so it's not unexpected that somebody's paper might be rejected there at the same time somebody else calls the journal a 'joke'.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Oct 30, 2017 12:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29554
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: The creationist mind at work

#59  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Oct 30, 2017 12:29 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Shrunk wrote:I must say, Wortfish, I'm not sure if I'm clear on the position you're taking here.

Are you saying the paper that used the term "Creator" did so metaphorically, and therefore should not have been retracted?

Or that the papers that used the term "Mother Nature" did so literally, and therefore should have been retracted?

Whichever position you take, you cannot remain consistent while also saying that the 1st paper used "Creator" literally yet should not have been retracted. Yet you seem to be saying that as well. So please clarify.


I don't know what the authors meant by "Creator". It could have meant "Evolution" for all I know. But the use of the word "Creator" nonetheless caused outrage among scientists: http://uk.businessinsider.com/retracted ... tor-2016-3

What a piece of hyperbolic crap. :nono:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The creationist mind at work

#60  Postby Wortfish » Oct 30, 2017 12:42 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
Shrunk wrote:I must say, Wortfish, I'm not sure if I'm clear on the position you're taking here.

Are you saying the paper that used the term "Creator" did so metaphorically, and therefore should not have been retracted?

Or that the papers that used the term "Mother Nature" did so literally, and therefore should have been retracted?

Whichever position you take, you cannot remain consistent while also saying that the 1st paper used "Creator" literally yet should not have been retracted. Yet you seem to be saying that as well. So please clarify.


I don't know what the authors meant by "Creator". It could have meant "Evolution" for all I know. But the use of the word "Creator" nonetheless caused outrage among scientists: http://uk.businessinsider.com/retracted ... tor-2016-3

What a piece of hyperbolic crap. :nono:



"Our study has no relationship with creationism. English is not our native language. Our understanding of the word Creator was not actually as a native English speaker expected. Now we realised that we had misunderstood the word Creator. What we would like to express is that the biomechanical characteristic of tendious connective architecture between muscles and articulations is a proper design by the NATURE (result of evolution) to perform a multitude of daily grasping tasks."


Even so, atheist scientists have zero tolerance for anything that indicates even a whiff of design by a Creator deity.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest