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

No.

Scientists have zero tolerance for unsupported assertions, such as asserting the existence of a creator deity.

Do you savvy?

Wortfish wrote:...
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

...

It would be highly unusual to use the word, "Creator" to refer to natural evolution, so I suspect that PLOS ONE (previously a highly respected science journal, in my experience) is/was being deliberately provocative with its choice of words. Perhaps circulation is down, and needs a nice bit of controversy to boost sales?

DavidMcC wrote:

Wortfish wrote:...
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

...

It would be highly unusual to use the word, "Creator" to refer to natural evolution, so I suspect that PLOS ONE (previously a highly respected science journal, in my experience) is/was being deliberately provocative with its choice of words. Perhaps circulation is down, and needs a nice bit of controversy to boost sales?

What a great solution to the problem of boosting sales. Everybody has to make a living, I guess.

... Of course, this trick can only be used very occasionally, otherwise the journal's scientific reputation is irreparably damaged. Years ago, I suspected the Journal Nature of using a similar trick, but again, only the once.

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Are you saying the paper that used the term "Creator" did so metaphorically, and therefore should not have been retracted?

Or that the papers that used the term "Mother Nature" did so literally, and therefore should have been retracted?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take, you cannot remain consistent while also saying that the 1st paper used "Creator" literally yet should not have been retracted.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

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.

So you seem to be agreeing with those scientists who you say were "outraged" at the use of the word "Creator." You just reserve you outrage for the term "Mother Nature." Are you not equally outraged by "Creator"?

DavidMcC wrote:this trick can only be used very occasionally

Like so many tricks, unfortunately. My response is, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

Free will can also only be used occasionally (or so I've been told), or else you could test for it. I'm sick and fucking tired of tricks that are excused because they're not in constant use.

Wortfish wrote:

"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.

And the authors may well have made an honest mistake. However, the fact remains that the term "Creator" carries obvious associations with a political movement that seeks to subsume science within a particular theological viewpoint, and render science subservient to it. As such, once the authors were made aware of this connotation, they seem to have agreed that their usage of the word was inappropriate and misleading.

The term "Mother Nature", OTOH, has no such connotations. Unless you would care to link to the pantheistic equivalent of the "Wedge" document.

Regardless, if your concern is simply regarding the use of the term "Creator", then you should send a memo to your creationist buddies and let them know they're messing things up for people who innocently want to use the term as an anthropomorphized metaphor in scientific writings.

Shrunk wrote:

Wortfish wrote:

"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.

And the authors may well have made an honest mistake. However, the fact remains that the term "Creator" carries obvious associations with a political movement that seeks to subsume science within a particular theological viewpoint, and render science subservient to it. ...

The use of a capital C in "Creator" surely implies that it was not merely "an honest mistake", but was calculated to cause controversy.

DavidMcC wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

Wortfish wrote:

"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.

And the authors may well have made an honest mistake. However, the fact remains that the term "Creator" carries obvious associations with a political movement that seeks to subsume science within a particular theological viewpoint, and render science subservient to it. ...

The use of a capital C in "Creator" surely implies that it was not merely "an honest mistake", but was calculated to cause controversy.

I'm not convinced.

Shrunk wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

Wortfish wrote:

Even so, atheist scientists have zero tolerance for anything that indicates even a whiff of design by a Creator deity.

And the authors may well have made an honest mistake. However, the fact remains that the term "Creator" carries obvious associations with a political movement that seeks to subsume science within a particular theological viewpoint, and render science subservient to it. ...

The use of a capital C in "Creator" surely implies that it was not merely "an honest mistake", but was calculated to cause controversy.

I'm not convinced.

Why else would one spell it with a capital C, just like the faithful would.

DavidMcC wrote: Why else would one spell it with a capital C, just like the faithful would.

Because that's how it's usually spelled. Like when I write "Oh my God!", I'm just following convention. It doesn't mean I've become a Bible thumper.

Anyway, the main point I am skeptical about is the claim that this was a conspiracy cooked up by PLOS ONE in cahoots with the writers to boost readership.

Shrunk wrote:

DavidMcC wrote: Why else would one spell it with a capital C, just like the faithful would.

Because that's how it's usually spelled. Like when I write "Oh my God!", I'm just following convention. It doesn't mean I've become a Bible thumper.

...

Usually?? Really?
How many atheists would give it a capital C, or even use that word in the first place, for that matter?
BTW, FYI, the wording of article titles in Nature are determined by the journal's editorial staff, not by the contributing authors, so no "collusion conspiracy" is required.

Also, I think you are very naïve if you really think they wouldn't want to boost sales in a financial crisis.

DavidMcC wrote:Usually?? Really?
How many atheists would give it a capital C, or even use that word in the first place, for that matter?

I agree that atheists are not likely to use the word very often. If they did use it in this context, though, it would be confusing not to capitalize it. You'd be left wondering which human inventor they believed came up with the hand.

Anyway, who says these authors are atheists?

BTW, FYI, the wording of article titles in Nature are determined by the journal's editorial staff, not by the contributing authors, so no "collusion conspiracy" is required.

I don't believe the editorial staff micromanage down to the capitalization of each word in each article, though, do they?

Also, I think you are very naïve if you really think they wouldn't want to boost sales in a financial crisis.

Of course they'd want to boost sales. Great, so we now have a possible motivaton for this grand conspiracy. Beyond that, however, we'd have to peer into the minds and souls of the people involved to discern their true motivations. Either that, or we can speculate pointlessly. I'm not much interested in either.

Shrunk wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:Usually?? Really?
How many atheists would give it a capital C, or even use that word in the first place, for that matter?

I agree that atheists are not likely to use the word very often. If they did use it in this context, though, it would be confusing not to capitalize it. You'd be left wondering which human inventor they believed came up with the hand.

I agree that the word, "creator" (with or withut a capital C, is a bad choice of words, UNLESS the authors are covert creationists.

Anyway, who says these authors are atheists?

...

That was my point: maybe they aren't, and they are slipping in a bit of creationism in by stealth.

DavidMcC wrote:That was my point: maybe they aren't, and they are slipping in a bit of creationism in by stealth.

Yeah, I misspoke in my post. I should have written "Even if they aren't atheists, that does not mean they are creationists."

But, sure, it's also possible that they are creationists. Which would kind of put the kibosh on your other conspiracy theory that PLOS ONE just cooked this all up to boost readership. And then there's also the option of taking the authors at their word when they say they did not realize the full implications of that term in the English language and in a society where creationism has some political influence. Parsimony inclines me to the latter explanation. But who knows for sure?

Shrunk wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:That was my point: maybe they aren't, and they are slipping in a bit of creationism in by stealth.

Yeah, I misspoke in my post. I should have written "Even if they aren't atheists, that does not mean they are creationists."

But, sure, it's also possible that they are creationists. Which would kind of put the kibosh on your other conspiracy theory that PLOS ONE just cooked this all up to boost readership. And then there's also the option of taking the authors at their word when they say they did not realize the full implications of that term in the English language and in a society where creationism has some political influence. Parsimony inclines me to the latter explanation. But who knows for sure?

Please stop trying to label me as a "conspiracy theorist". Also, your implication that PLOS ONE cannot possibly be acting to boost its readership with sensationalist articles of the kind that New Scientist is notorious for does not become you. It's so poor as to be almost like a wind-up.

DavidMcC wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:That was my point: maybe they aren't, and they are slipping in a bit of creationism in by stealth.

Yeah, I misspoke in my post. I should have written "Even if they aren't atheists, that does not mean they are creationists."

But, sure, it's also possible that they are creationists. Which would kind of put the kibosh on your other conspiracy theory that PLOS ONE just cooked this all up to boost readership. ...

Please withdraw your absurd claim that I am some kind of conspiracy theorist, just because I realise that even science journals occasionally indulge in sensationalism, perhaps to boost flagging sales.

Shrunk wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:That was my point: maybe they aren't, and they are slipping in a bit of creationism in by stealth.

Yeah, I misspoke in my post. I should have written "Even if they aren't atheists, that does not mean they are creationists."

But, sure, it's also possible that they are creationists. Which would kind of put the kibosh on your other conspiracy theory that PLOS ONE just cooked this all up to boost readership. And then there's also the option of taking the authors at their word when they say they did not realize the full implications of that term in the English language and in a society where creationism has some political influence. Parsimony inclines me to the latter explanation. But who knows for sure?

Now we are getting close to some sort of agreement. But before now, your tone seemed rather aggressive, almost as if you were on the editoral board of PLOS ONE (in which case I would have been unwittingly getting your back up!).

Also, you seem to be drawing a fine line between "religious" and "creationist", because, if you add YEC-ers to OEC-ers, it doesn't leave many believers, does it? After all, it is fundamental to religious belief that "God made the world". They are only divided over how long ago "He" did it, are they not?

DavidMcC wrote: But who knows for sure?

Now we are getting close to some sort of agreement. But before now, your tone seemed rather aggressive, almost as if you were on the editoral board of PLOS ONE (in which case I would have been unwittingly getting your back up!).[/quote]

Seriously David, could please stop with this sort of pointless speculation about your interlocutors emotions. Such comments are irrelevant to the discussion and you shouldn't try to put people in the position of trying to defend themselves against your imaginings vis their emotional state.

DavidMcC wrote: Also, you seem to be drawing a fine line between "religious" and "creationist", because, if you add YEC-ers to OEC-ers, it doesn't leave many believers, does it? After all, it is fundamental to religious belief that "God made the world". They are only divided over how long ago "He" did it, are they not?

Not really. Plenty of believers fit neither into YEC or OEC catergories, as they can believe without subscribing to the literal creationist mindset.

Sendraks wrote:

DavidMcC wrote: But who knows for sure?

Now we are getting close to some sort of agreement. But before now, your tone seemed rather aggressive, almost as if you were on the editoral board of PLOS ONE (in which case I would have been unwittingly getting your back up!).

Seriously David, could please stop with this sort of pointless speculation about your interlocutors emotions. Such comments are irrelevant to the discussion and you shouldn't try to put people in the position of trying to defend themselves against your imaginings vis their emotional state.

...[/quote]
I do not deal in "pointless speculation", and I'm not really interested in anyones's emotional state. All I am interested in is why PLOS ONE has been publishing crap about creators.
Seriously, you should stop trying to make so much of your misunderstanding of my posts. Are you having difficulty finding someone to wind up about some irrelevant side issue like their state of mind?