What an absolute scientific outrage and disgrace to science that someone has affirmed the law of non-contradiction in an article by saying that a wonderfully graceful, supple and miraculously intelligently designed hand, with specified complexity, contingency planning and all of the rest of it, was therefore designed by a creator.
Whatever will they tell us next in science articles, that a beautifully baked cake was created by a cake-baker, or that a wonderfully imaginative painting was painted by an imaginative painter?
What a disgrace, that they suggest to us that we should heed the law of non-contradiction in this way when the publishers have brainwashed me into believing for so long that I am both Mike, AND not Mike.
To suggest brilliant design is designed is just the height of pseudo-science and I am outraged, for if there was a creator God we would not expect evidence of design we would expect evidence of, "not design", just like we would expect that if you are a qualified scientist you should have no scientific credentials and if you are a human male you should have female genitalia.
"Khan.....I'm LAUGHING at the superior evo-intellect." - Captain Kirk, The wrath of Khan.
Maybe I shouldn't comment further since I know no Chinese, but looking again at those sentences containing the word "Creator" it is hard to believe it's a translation problem
I know the feeling, but then why don't you just blindly believe by faith that it was just a translation error, like you blindly would believe that when you look at a hand, it's design is only an illusion despite how it seems. Come now Percy, we both know that a hand doesn't have a use, any more than a carburetor. That would be silly.
What you need to do to get back your ability to fool yourself is to perhaps read origin-of-species a few times. Then you will feel as right as rain again.
Hand coordination should indicate the mystery of Nature's invention." Not making sense to me.
So you think that nature inventing something would make no sense to say? But I have read that many times in scientific literature, they often say things like the, "genius of evolution" or "evolutionary genius". Or, "nature's cleverness". These are all superb oxymorons, akin to saying, "fugacious pine trees".
If he meant to say "nature's invention", that would be the mistake of anthropomorphism, because it would be to endow nature with creative abilities of intelligent design as though it is a thoughtful, omnipotent, omniscient, person. Personifying nature is actually quite common in scientific articles, I think one scientific magazine banned the use of such terminology because they didn't want people to think that scientists were alluding to God being the creator when in fact what they were actually doing was TACITLY admitting to design in nature and then giving the kudos to evolution.
The author appeared to be claiming that by "Creator" he only meant the design or invention of nature resulting from evolution, but if that were true he wouldn't have used the word "mystery."
Hmmm. I'm not saying you're wrong but then I have heard evolutionary scientists use superlatives pertaining to the mysteries of science, when they didn't really mean anything that alludes to a supernatural God.
I would say your reductio-ad-absurdum was valid but the rule is with a conditional implication, that the consequent must CERTAINLY follow.
"If you are a human therefore you are a female."
The problem is, if you have a human you may well have a female, but technically speaking it is a false implication because it doesn't follow 100% of the time. (non-sequitur)
Now if he used in the article, a word that certainly IMPLIES some kind of religious statement, then you would have a stronger case that he was saying something none-evolution.
The point to be careful of though, is that even if he did MEAN an intelligent designer, (creator) this doesn't mean that he said something pseudo-scientific, because he could be an agnostic.
I know agnostics, (though I admit they are a minority), that accept that there is an intelligent designer of organisms but this doesn't mean that they believe that the intelligent designer is a supernatural designer. Therefore when people say that it would be a "pseudo-scientific" statement, they are using that phrase as a question-begging-epithet, because they are not clever enough to delineate the difference between arguing a supernatural designer, and merely arguing an intelligent designer, whomever or whatever that designer might be. So their argument might not include a specific designer, but only the conclusion that it was intelligently designed by an intelligence.
Strictly speaking, I myself would not make a religious syllogism for my intelligent design argument. Usually I use the law-of-identity, and the final conclusion of my argument, which does not involve God, is that, "therefore there is an intelligent designer".
When I speak outspokenly about God being that designer, obviously I would admit that I do that by faith, I do that through personal conviction.
So it could be a religious-arguer. But if he doesn't mention who the creator is, then technically speaking the only problem evolutionists have with this paper is their prejudice against something that would only POSSIBLY SUPPORT theism.
That is the key with these types of public outcries, if this matter did not allude to God existing, I doubt you guys would be talking about peer reviews failing. In my experience evolutionists use peer-review as something to proverbially CLOUT creationists over the head with, I strongly suspect they would only detract from the peer-review epithet, IF and only IF something theistically flavoured worked it's way in there.
This is the first time I have ever known evolutionists to complain about peer review.