The Gee Word

Can you believe in God without being a creationist? It appears that some people imagine you can.

Quotes and comments;

1. In a post on the Nature blog, Henry Gee 'argued that creationists cannot embrace the science that gave us modern health care and cheap travel and abjure other parts like evolution.' (note #1.)

- Really? Sez who? It appears that people do exactly what you say they can't. Hmm... maybe you don't make the rules after all :=)
- well, if one can't ever reject some bit of 'scientific' knowledge, I don't know how that body of knowledge would ever change or grow. Do you?

- I'm still trying to figure out what cheap travel has to do with evolution. Would this involve creatures (or evolution itself) riding (for free) on the back of just so stories? Would this be the free tickets evolutionists use to fly back and forth to conferences attacking creationism? Would this refer to the free use of cars some professors get?

- I'm not sure I know what health care has to do with Darwinism. Ah, I get it, this is the cheap travel Gee is talking about; evolutionists are trying to ride the back of health care to success and fame when they have no right to steal such a ride :=) They're trying to make mileage out of something they had no part in.

2. 'He [Gee] likened creationists to those wanting to return to the Dark Ages and live like Bedouins. Though he claimed to believe in God (as a Jew), Gee ended his tirade against Biblical creationism with...'

- how you can believe in god and not be a creationist I don't know. I can only imagine it involves possessing a talent I don't have.

- one wonders who these people are who want to return to the (so called) Dark Ages. (The only folk I know of are the extreme Greens; who would like to see 90 percent of the human population die out. I wrote a short piece recently on one such fellow; name of Pianka.)

- this is the new/old trick of trying to tie a philosophical world view in with technology. Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with modern technology. (Or ancient technology for that matter; or pyramid technology; or alien technology... if such exists :=) Our level of technology would be the same as it is if no one had ever heard of Darwin, if no one had ever heard of evolution. To conflate evolutionary theory and technology is just more myth making.

- Bedouins?

3. "I object to the cheap, wilful [sic], nasty traduction of my religious faith by a group of people who would pervert it to further their questionable political ideals. I call on all scientists of faith to join me in its damnation, and to educate certain in the evolutionary biology community of the rank and damning illogicality of their position.''

- those are harsh words indeed Mr. Gee. (I think the English call this getting your knickers in a twist.) One wonders if Mr. Gee would like to be spoken to in these terms.

- This is once again the charge the idea of creation and ID has something to do with the Republican party of the United States. It's hard to imagine a more ridiculous charge. In popular terms (in the West at least) the idea of design in nature is associated with William Paley. As far as I know, Paley (an Anglican clergy person) was a Deist and a socialist. (And this in a day when being a socialist in England was a dangerous thing to be.) So the idea that creation doctrine is somehow 'right wing' (do we really need to use these comic book terms?) is just fallacious. (But maybe facts don't matter in 'Nature' magazine.)

- Mr. Gee; one really must watch all those adjectives. As an editor you should know that this is considered a sign of poor writing.

4. "I object to the cheap, wilful [sic], nasty traduction of my religious faith..."

- traduction? huh? Now there's a word you don't here often. The Webster's 1913 says the word is obsolete, but gives the meaning as;
1. Transmission from one to another.
4. The act of transferring; conveyance; transportation. [R.] The traduction of brutes." Sir M. Hale.
(Hmm... I wonder if this has anything to do with the cheap travel he was talking about.)
- but then again, maybe the meaning of the word has evolved in the last few decades. (Transmigration being another cheap form of travel I guess.)

- I think he meant to use the word traduce. (As far as I can tell traduction isn't a form of traduce. But maybe I'm wrong; of course it's usually evolutionists who are wrong, but there are rare cases where creationists have been wrong... so it's possible :=)

- speaking of cheap forms of travel; let's say you're a lizard, and you hang out on this island in the pacific... and you want to hit the mainland for a little R+R, what do you do? You could buy a plane ticket, or you could evolve into a bird and travel for free.

- The word traduction is as obsolete as Darwinism itself. (A foul bird's nest of a theory, fabricated by unconnected bits and bods, twigs and scraps. Any self-respecting intellectual ought to have flown the polluted shell long ago.)

- I assume he means that these creationists (whom he seems to know very well; even the inner motivations of their hearts) have 'changed' his religious faith (i.e. the faith he holds) into something else. I wonder why he doesn't, as far as I can tell, tell us what his 'faith' is. (Is he afraid Richard Dawkins will jump on him?)

- this is a fiery sermon for someone who believes man is just an animal, that has no freedom, and no mind, and is just a robotic gene carrier. Evolutionists when they get angry always seem to forget the implications of the world view they hold. Their world view denies any possibility of truth, yet they give wild sermons damning people for holding 'false' beliefs. This makes no sense that I can see.

- if evolutionary Deism were true this tirade would make no sense. For one thing, the words with which it's composed wouldn't have any necessary connection to reality; they would just be arbitrary sounds... not connected to absolute truth or to Universals. (It's long been my contention that language only makes sense in terms of biblical creation.)

- these are foul and uncivil remarks... and I'm continually surprised at a group of people who pretends to respect all groups and opinions, allows itself to be so uncivil to people it brands as creationists (as if that was all they were) and then denounces them like prigs holding an Inquisition. ("Are we not men? Do we not bleed?")
- damnation Henry? Surely you don't believe in anything as primitive as Hell? (I do wish evolutionists would try to write as evolutionists; surely they have no right to use terms like damnation.)

5. "I call on all scientists of faith to join me in its damnation, and to educate certain in the evolutionary biology community of the rank and damning illogicality of their position.''

- logic henry? Logic makes no sense in terms of evolution. If evolution were true there would be no logic. The fact we have logic is evidence e. isn't true. What is popularly known simply as logic is based on the idea of Universals. But universals are exactly what evolution denies. E. theory paints a picture of a chain of being, of continuity among all things, of ceaseless flux within the world and all its forms. There could be no logic if this were the case. In logic A is A, or non-A. There are no 'A's in the 'world' of evolution. Again; if man's mind were just a series of chemical reactions logic would have no meaning. (As I've said before, 'logic only makes sense in terms of biblical creation.) Language is also based on created universals; e.g. the created 'kinds' of Genesis.

Notes;
1. Reference; Doubters Defy Darwin Dogma 06/29/2006
'Nature decided to join the blogosphere in April as part of its initiative for openness, in the aftermath of recent scientific scandals over peer review (06/13/2006). One of the first experiments was a Nature Blog in April about the fish-o-pod Tiktaalik (04/06/2006). After getting worked up over some creationist responses to the find, Gee [Henry] jumped into the fray. He argued that creationists cannot embrace the science that gave us modern health care and cheap travel and abjure other parts like evolution. He likened creationists to those wanting to return to the Dark Ages and live like Bedouins. Though he claimed to believe in God (as a Jew), Gee ended his tirade against Biblical creationism with...' (Creation/Evolution Headlines)
2. Yes, I know we're all guilty from time to time of this stupid, lazy, nasty, idiotic, juvenile habit of using too many adjectives... throwing them around as profligately as Darwinian just so stories. (I may even have done it myself.)
3. What do you mean there's no such word as bods? Does this mean I've invented a new word?
4. I'm assuming Gee holds the textbook view of evolution. Since he says everyone must accept all of science, I assume this applies to him as well. (Is there then no room for difference of opinion?)