Evolution Deniers and Holocaust Deniers in a locked step.

As a humanist working in the early modern period, I have often been struck by the parallels between evolution deniers, holocaust deniers, and Shakespeare deniers. The movement espousing the theory that Shakespeare's plays were really written by the earl of Oxford has the same traits of paranoia, assertions of an academic conspiracy, overemphasis on debates, and heavy overrepresentation of lawyers as opposed to qualified scholars. Fortunately, they're not trying to take over the educational system!

I think that Ruse's position is that creationism/intelligent design have got so many flaws that they will wither in the light of academic debate with well-informed philosophers/scientists. Which is an eminently reasonable position. And ID certainly does not fare well in the Cambridge volume "Debating Design."

MHO is that there are two basic audiences that are potentially influenced by something like a Cambridge University Press volume. First, there is the very large portion of the public that isn't paying close attention. The Discovery Institute folks may well get some tiny bit of "bump" out of being able to name-drop "Hey, we wrote essays for this Cambridge University Press" volume. Basically, the opinion of these folks isn't going to change over the short-term unless something truly drastic happens (on the level of the Civil Rights movement).

But there is a second audience, people who are paying fairly close attention. This group is much smaller, but I think much more fluid and critical-thinking. It is basically people who are interested in the controversy for some reason -- e.g., a school board battle, a court case, a journalist covering one of the former, or someone with academic interest in science/religion. These groups will, I think, by-and-large see right through the DI ploy claiming that an anthology of opposing views represents academic acceptance of ID. And furthermore if they read the book they will learn the problems with ID (since there are some very capable scientific and philosophical critiques of ID in Debating Design, such as "The Flagellum Unspun" by Ken Miller; this is much less true of the "Rhetoric and Public Affairs" anthology Darwin, Design, and Public Education edited completely by DI folks). I think that it's at least arguable that the cumulative negative impact on ID within this secondary group (which then goes and writes its own essays, articles, school board decisions, etc., which the public at large will read) outweighs the superficial PR tricks the DI plays at. It's not accidental that ID has repeatedly lost popular support when the issue is pushed e.g. on a school board, such as in Darby, MT or Roseville, CA. Once the media, the science teachers, the local religious and scientific community, etc. take a good close look at ID, they figure out what's up pretty quick. To borrow a sports analogy, the fundamentals are much more important in the long run than the superficial stuff.

To sum up, on this question I don't think we should Ruse to conclusions.
;-)

And, I'd like to express my gratitude to Reed or whoever installed the much-needed spamblocker for PT. It did mean that I had to change the word "t e e n s y" to "tiny," because apparently PT now doesn't like the word "t e e n s", but this is a t e e n s y price to pay for destroying the dastardly demons of spam.

Nick

Your point is well-taken (and well presented). Unfortunately, my optimism about how the minds of most Americans work was destroyed sometime between January and November of 2000 and nothing since then has happened to restore it.

I don't know what will happen in the "long run" but I do know that there are a bunch of things that I would rather not live to see.

I am surprised the the number of British subjects knowing about Auschwitz is as high as 45%. The teaching of History in the UK is very poor. For the past 30 years we have subjected children to touchy-feely new age methods with the result the employers have to run remedial classes for significant numbers of employees. Even fewer people in th UK will be aware of the millions and millions of Soviet citizens who were done to death in the name of Marxist theories of equality. Probably twice as many as the victims of Nazi policies.

The killing of millions of Chinese by their own Government in the name of Communism is conveniently ignored by apologists. Pol Pot ordered the killing of 33% of the population of Cambodia. Remind me!! Wasn't he a Communist?

July 2004: Rwanda holds ceremonies to honour the 800,000 people butchered in 1994, amid criticism of the West's stance. The number of British who even know where to find Rwanda on an atlas? You tell me---5% perhaps?

Pericles

Living in a community of Christian evolution deniers, and having been good friends with Muslims as well, I feel that the influence of anti-evolutionism runs deeper than other historical conspiracy theories, at least in Christian and Muslim circiles. I know many thoughtful, perfectly sane, and well-meaning Christians who got caught because it has been touted to them that evolution is wrong from childhood, from the people they most respected, their pastors, parents, and in some private schools, their teachers. (And now apparently, in public schools as well!)

There is a difference when a child grows up with anti-evolution, as opposed to a mentally disturbed person (or group of persons) deciding to take up a historical event and distort it for whatever reason.

Christians tend to band together and trust each other. They believe in following a leader. So they won't investigate that closely what DI says, on principle.

As for the leading people for ID, they are the paranoid, twisted people who take advantage of good folks who trust them. (Yes Pericles and Greg, I am determined to stick with a positive view of Christians. Or would you rather scare them all away from this informative site?)

In my view, the best way to deal with them is to expose their lack of integrity on a popular TV news show, which their followers will be likely to watch. TV is the way to reach them, and once they start having doubts about Dembski, Johnson, Wells, etc., the ball will be rolling and they'll be willing to listen a little closer, i.e., read a book.

The PBS series did OK, but I think they were too kind, politically. A popular investigative journalist would be better.

I think Nick's point is a fair one to Ruse: Intelligent Design is making no headway at all among people who know biology, and Ruse is ably playing to the informed scientific audience. However, this is something else that is making the creationists happy: it is widening the divide between the scientific 'elite' and the average guy on the street. There's nothing like being able to point to those smug eggheads in their ivory tower and tell the lay people, "They're laughing at you, Joe. They think they're better than you."

What we really need is more outreach and education. Knowledge is the enemy of ignorance, after all. We need a new Sagan or Bronowski, someone who enlightens Joe by telling him about the great stuff in science.

Some of you actually sound like you're serious about trying to establish a parallel between macro/prebiotic evolution critics and Holocaust deniers.

No wonder some of you are scared to do public debates.
You ~need~ to be scared, imo, if you're going to insist on bizarro comparisons like this.

But hey, please don't take my word for it. The next one of you gets signed up to a PBS, NPR, or University matchup with Dembski, Behe, Meyer, or one of the other top names, just introduce this new line of argument during the debate. Maybe read a few paragraphs of GH's post out loud just to see what happens next. Then report back on the (doubtless interesting) results....

FL

My original essay merely pointed out the danger of debating or collaborating with evolution deniers. I did not mean to draw an explicit parallel between evolution and Holocaust deniers. But I daresay that Dr. GH is correct and that they are like peas in a pod - cranks who deny known fact for one irrational reason or another.

I am leery, however, of calling those who disagree with me nuts. Here I side with Ms. Aram. While I have no religious belief, I am active in a religious organization and have mild sympathy for people who hypothesize a God because they cannot accept that they are here reasonlessly. Their religious belief is nonrational, but that does not necessarily mean irrational.

Knowledgeable people who deny known scientific or historical fact to support their religious or other beliefs are another matter. The key word is knowledgeable. The people Ms. Aram describes are not at fault. They have, however, been taken in by people who know better or ought to know better.

Actually, FL, I've gotten a lot of milage by directing ID apologists to Johnson's HIV denial theories, and noting how, in an entirely different forum, he makes exactly the same conspiracy therorist arguments in HIV denial as he does in denying evolution. I then ask ID apologists if they want to be part of that.

Their typical response is a slow silence folowed by a disclaimer of Johnson's HIV views, and arguing that his HIV vieew doesn't impact whether or not ID is correct. That is true but there is a silent recognition that his method of argument is deeply flawed and does in fact bear a lot of resemblance to holocaust denial and other kook theories. Once they see the flawed methods used by Johnson, they become a little more critical of the flawed methods of Dembski and the others as well. DI press releases are no longer cited as evidence, for example.

I'd personally be delighted to discuss this on any PBS special linking the *method* of attack against evolution with the *method* employed in HIV denial, holocaust denial, ESP and alien abduction, because, in fact, they are all the same.

Actually the "fear" that FL is describing seems to me to be a pragmatic rule-of-thumb for scientists. Perhaps FL would like to explain why he thinks evolution-deniers are any more meritorious than Holocaust-deniers to monopolize the attention of scientists. After all, it is people like FL who have given scientists billions of dollars in government funds. I would be surprised to learn that the citizens of this country expects that money to be spent so that scientists can take time to entertain cranks at their every whim?

"If I am to criticize anyone it would be the eminent evolutionists who were asked to contribute but who were too damn busy doing their research while Rome burns around them -- when their kids or grandkids are taught Creationism in the classroom (and with Bush stacking the Supreme Court, don't think it won't happen) don't blame me -- although come to me for help, because these issues are bigger than my frustration or their selfishness." M. Ruse

"I am sure that this new work will inform and stimulate many people. Even when they disagree, as I sometimes I do, the book will help to further the cause of future progress and reconciliation."

"All sides now realize that Johnson was, from the start, deadly earnest, not content merely to tweak Darwin's nose but intent, rather, on knocking him down for the ten-count. Johnson is, after all, a lawyer, and lawyers think contests are not simply to be enjoyed but also to be won." And Dembski goes on to explain in the clearest language why collaborators such as Ruse are so helpful, "In line with our there-might-be-something-to-it-after-all policy, it's usually enough to indicate that there's more to the story than the other side lets on. John Angus Campbell puts it this way: A draw is a win! The other side wants to obliterate intelligent design. Yet to persuade the undecided middle, we just have to show that intelligent design has something going for it." (William A. Dembski 2004 "DEALING WITH THE BACKLASH AGAINST INTELLIGENT DESIGN" version 1.1, April 14, )

I'd personally be delighted to discuss this on any PBS special linking the *method* of attack against evolution with the *method* employed in HIV denial, holocaust denial, ESP and alien abduction, because, in fact, they are all the same.

It is widely believed by the general public that a retrovirus called HIV causes the group diseases called AIDS. Many biochemical scientists now question this hypothesis. We propose that a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis be conducted by a suitable independent group. We further propose that critical epidemiological studies be devised and undertaken.

I'm not sure that a lack of British knowledge of the specific atrocities of Auschwitz is necessarily symptomatic of an overall ignorance of the general atrocities of the Holocaust. I've always understood that, in the British mind, the camp most synonymous with the Holocaust was Bergen-Belsen, which was liberated by the British Army on April 15, 1945. Auschwitz, by contrast, was liberated by the Red Army nearly two weeks after Bergen-Belsen.

The fact is, however, that [Wells'] church preference, though I personally strongly disagree with it, did not impact his book Icons of Evolution in the slightest.

I would think there's room for a reasonable layperson to at least read what the scientific dissenters are saying, what the majority view has responded and is responding, and again what the minority has recently rejoindered. Clearly there is a scientific dissenting view there to at least consider, even if it never pans out.

I never saw any "conspiracy theory" talk nor any Johnson statements even remotely reminiscent or parallel of "holocaust denial", "ESP", "Alien Abduction",

Although the scientific evidence is overwhelming and compelling that HIV is the cause of AIDS, the disease process is not yet completely understood" That does leave the door open for dissension

Well, Joe, I strongly suspect that if you substitute the phrase "Holocaust denial" instead of the phrase "HIV denial" and then did some more field-testing, you'd find yourself getting far less mileage.

I'm reminded of one of my earliest meetings with a creationist--I thought they, like water witches, had long passed from the scene (wrong on both counts). Back in 1974, a fellow worker in the automobile factory started talking to me after learning that I studied geology. Not only was he a creationist, but he was also the leader of the local branch of the John Birch Society. It seemed like his wacky ideas in one area were quite harmonious with his wacky ideas in the other area. Underlying both was a religious fundamentalism that prevented any philosophical or cognitive evolution on his part.

For the issue of Holcaust denial, one needs to know and remember the story of Mel Mermelstein.

Here's the sequence of events regarding Mermelstein, a Los Angeles businessman and survivor of Auschwitz, and Willis Carto's wacky "Institute for Historical Revision," which wishes to deny the Holocaust (from the Shamash website): Here is a short history of the court proceedings . . . :

1) Mr. Mermelstein wrote a letter to the Jerusalem Post;
2) the IHR wrote him a letter offering him $50,000 for proof "that Jews were gassed in gas-chambers at Auschwitz";
3) he provided proof;
4) the IHR refused to pay;
5) he sued them;
6) the court said that he had provided proof;
7) the IHR et al paid him $90,000 and apologized.

Actually, IHR had offered the prize to anyone who could prove the Holocaust. Typically someone would show up with documents, photos, or whatever constitutes solid evidence, and the IHR folks would feign laughter and claim it wasn't good enough evidence. Then they'd claim yet another hoaxer was debunked.

Mermelstein recognized that what the IHR had offered was a sweepstakes; and he understood that such an offer is enforceable in contract, if it is bona fide. So he provided his evidence, IHR laughed, and Mermelstein sued.

The California courts determined that the evidence for the Holocaust was so powerful that the judge could take "judicial notice" that the holocaust occurred. That means that the holocaust is a fact that doesn't need to be proven any longer, because it's so well proven already. "The cognizance of certain facts which judges and jurors may properly take and act upon without proof, because they already know them," as the Federal Rules of Civil Evidence used to say.

It's important that you know that, legally, there is no doubt of the Holocaust. Legally, the Holocaust deniers have no leg to stand on.

Someone could sue Kent Hovind to make him pay, similarly, were his offer not so nutty that any sane person would immediately see it's not bona fide.

Phillip Johnson probably read the Mermelstein case and saw the writing on the wall. He hopes to create doubt in evolution while keeping the issue out of court. In a fair tribunal, evolution is the sort of evidence that courts take on judicial notice.

FL,

You said, "On one thread, I was recently asked about what I thought of the group called the Unification Church (Rev. Sun Young Moon) and its claims, seeing as Jonathan Wells belongs to that group."

A clarification - I believe you're referring to me, and whatI asked you for was your assesment of Wells' motivation, and I subsequently pointed out that Wells had gotten his PhD at the direction of "Father" Moon, for the express purpose of destroying Darwinism.

As to HIV and Aids, I have been told that 1 in 100 white Europeans have a mutation that renders them immune to HIV/AIDS.

FL, you're missing the point about Johnson. The reason why I get so much mileage is because intellectually honest people see the problem with Johnson, once it's demonstrated.

Here's Johnson's basic "argument"---his M.O.:

1. The scientific/medical establishment has made a fundamental error about (insert issue here).
2. The vast majority of scientists have all independently made this same error and "confirmed" each other's research so that a prevailing dogma is the paradigm.
3. It is necessary to continue the prevailing dogma at the expense of truth, usually for financial or political reasons.
4. There is a small band of truthseekers (Johnson is one of them) seeking to tell the American public the truth about (insert issue here).
5. The evidence in support of the prevailing dogma is incomplete, inaccurate or forged. Sine it's dogma, no contrary evidence will be received.
6. The establishment controls the means of communicating the truth to the American public including peer reviewed journals, the mass media and education system and will publish nothing that contradicts the prevailing dogma.
7. The battle against this conspiracy continues as the truthseekers fight the good fight against overwhelming odds.

Of course it could be that just possibly thousands of scientists, engineers, healthcare professionals and educators all with their own interests, might not be able to keep a secret and someone would eventually spill the beans. It also seems more than likely that not that the prevailing dogma is actually the truth. But neither of these occurs to Johnson. He makes the same argument about evolution that he makes about HIV---essentially a grand conspiracy is concealing the truth. That's the conspiracy theory.

It is exactly the same conspiracy theory used by alien abduction apologists, ESP advocates, holocaust deniers, and obviously both ID advocates and HIV conspiracy theorists. People of good will run from conspiracy theorists. People who sincerely believe that ID has potential begin to re-evaluate the evidence when they realize Johnson's M.O.

Now I don't know whether you misunderstood what I meant by this, but you cannot possibly make a statement like "I've read those books, re-read them and re-read them in fact, and I never saw any "conspiracy theory" talk" with a straight face. Most poeple here have actaully read Johnson. Your statement is means only one of three things: (1) you didn't know what I meant by conspiracy theory; (2) you can't read; or (3) you are a liar.

I randomly opened my paperback version of Defeating Darwinism to page 35 (as it turns out) and found two references to " dogmatic Darwinian" and the "official story" on that page alone. I could repeat the test some more but there's no need. Now, Dembski would infer that it was not chance that there are two conspiracy theory references on one random page. It's there by design. And he would be right, for once. So take this opportunity to retract that statement. It's wrong.

It appears you agree in any event that Johnson is using this M.O. but even if he is, he might be right, not once, but twice (Darwinism and HIV). You might as well tell us how you distinguish his logic from that of the holocaust deniers and alien abductees because I for one would like to know.

One of my concerns is the failure of evolution deniers to rightly understand evolution and evolutionists. I would not call the misconceptions glaring nor, of course, am I making a blanket criticism of all evolution deniers. But the misconceptions can be important. There is no doubt it has weakened their criticism of evolution.

What was surprising to me was the extent to which evolutionists return the favor. In fact, what is surprising is the gross magnitude of misconceptions evolutionists have of creationists. They are far greater than their counterparts in the creationist camp.

And they don't merely weaken your criticism of creationists -- they render it absurd. This thread is a prime example. The sentiment expressed here reads more like a caricature. If I showed this to a creationist (one not intimate with the evolution -- creation debate, and forums like this) I think they would wonder if I was joking.

I am by no means suggesting evolution deniers are without fault. There certainly are problems to which one can point. But, frankly, I could not have written a better parody of the evolution position vis a vis creationism. Unfortunately, the sentiment here was written in all seriousness.

Below is a sampling of quotes from this thread.

----------------------
Creationists' goal to eliminate scientific and academic freedom is immediate and real. The stakes should be clear from the beginning. We are never more than a single generation away from total savagery.

When I read Prof. Young's piece, I was immediately taken with the social and intellectual parallels between Holocaust deniers and evolution deniers.

The professional creationists' denial of data from every science and ability to distort what facts they are forced to admit far outshine any paranoiac I have encountered. It is futile looking to professional creationists for either the intellectual honesty or mental health necessary to change their opinion.

I have often been struck by the parallels between evolution deniers, holocaust deniers, and Shakespeare deniers.

the DI ploy

ID has repeatedly lost popular support when the issue is pushed e.g. on a school board, such as in Darby, MT or Roseville, CA.

the influence of anti-evolutionism runs deeper than other historical conspiracy theories, at least in Christian and Muslim circiles.

There is a difference when a child grows up with anti-evolution, as opposed to a mentally disturbed person (or group of persons) deciding to take up a historical event and distort it for whatever reason.

As for the leading people for ID, they are the paranoid, twisted people who take advantage of good folks who trust them.

Dr. GH is correct and that they are like peas in a pod - cranks who deny known fact for one irrational reason or another.

Knowledgeable people who deny known scientific or historical fact to support their religious or other beliefs are another matter.

the creationist movement is not one based on rational discourse, it is entirely political and emotional.

Not only was he a creationist, but he was also the leader of the local branch of the John Birch Society.
----------------------

MI,

Well done. Point taken.

Nice try, MI.

I disagree entirely with Katarina. You post is not "well done". Rather, it's half-baked.

A lot of those quotes are reasonable personal opinions based on widely available facts. Hyperbole? Maybe some. In any event, they are all taken out of context. I don't have the time to defend each of them, but I could do so soberly if I was so inclined.

Please acknowledge, MI, that the "teach creationism" movement is a political movement funded and driven, for the msot part, by conservative evangelical religio-political think tanks and related evangelical organizations. To the extent some poor saps (like William Buckingham) are merely inspired by what the claptrap produced by the Discovery Institute and its peons, there may be some "independent" thought. But for the most part it's the same script.

If you can't acknowledge this fact, MI, then show us the evidence to the contrary. Go ahead and rebut Joe McFaul's post.

I agree that the world isn't going to end if creationism is taught in public schools, MI, and it is a mistake to argue that it will. I haven't seen anyone seriously make that argument, have you?

On the other hand, the world won't end if we teach kids that there is as much scientific proof for God as there is for the Easter Bunny. But try proposing teaching that fact to your local school board. After you read your hate mail, you'll know why you're dead wrong when you claim that we "sound just like the creationists" in this thread.

Great White writes.: Please acknowledge, MI, that the "teach creationism" movement is a political movement funded and driven, for the msot part, by conservative evangelical religio-political think tanks and related evangelical organizations. To the extent some poor saps (like William Buckingham) are merely inspired by what the claptrap produced by the Discovery Institute and its peons, there may be some "independent" thought. But for the most part it's the same script. If you can't acknowledge this fact, MI, then show us the evidence to the contrary.

Me: You are continuing to make my case. The "teach creationism" movement is not a unified, monolithic, well funded, political movement that you make it out to be. Many of these recent stories we hear about are grass roots movements (I don't know the details of all of them, so I won't make a sweepting statement, but all the cases that I have knowledge of are grass roots movements). Drop your conspiracy theory, they are not feeding off some secret "evangelical" funding source. In fact, the ones I am most familiar with were not interested in teaching creationism or design in our public schools. What they wanted is biology taught not from an evolution-is-true perspective, but from a neutral perspective.

You are continuing to make my case.

The "teach creationism" movement is not a unified, monolithic, well funded, political movement that you make it out to be.

Many of these recent stories we hear about are grass roots movements (I don't know the details of all of them, so I won't make a sweepting statement, but all the cases that I have knowledge of are grass roots movements).

Drop your conspiracy theory, they are not feeding off some secret "evangelical" funding source."

In fact, the ones I am most familiar with were not interested in teaching creationism or design in our public schools. What they wanted is biology taught not from an evolution-is-true perspective, but from a neutral perspective.

ID has repeatedly lost popular support when the issue is pushed e.g. on a school board, such as in Darby, MT or Roseville, CA. Knowledgeable people who deny known scientific or historical fact to support their religious or other beliefs are another matter. the creationist movement is not one based on rational discourse, it is entirely political and emotional.

It is widely believed by the general public that a retrovirus called HIV causes the group diseases called AIDS. Many biochemical scientists now question this hypothesis. We propose that a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis be conducted by a suitable independent group. We further propose that critical epidemiological studies be devised and undertaken.

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

Nick -

This is a reasonably rundown on the Shakespeare authorship "controversy". There's no real compelling evidence to suggest that anyone other than William Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him.

Though the theory that Francis Bacon not only wrote all of Shakesepeare's works but supervised the construction of an enormously elaborate hiding place for the manuscripts is at least kind of funny.

First, Holocaust denial is associated with a repugnant form of antisemitism that is unfair and insulting to associate with IDists.

Is the purpose of this thread to help us to better understand our opponent by comparison to another group?

MI brought up a very important point: anti-evolutionists are as diverse a group of people as we are. It is not fair to charactarize them as such and such, only for the purpose of venting our anger. If the purpose is not that, but to gain tools for defeating their propaganda, then the thread makes sense.

Let's get to the point: will this comparison help indirectly, but helping us understand our opponent, or directly, by bringing up the point on a talk show? And if indirectly, then what are we to learn from it?

(PS. Great White: Commies fought Nazis, and very bravely at that)

anti-evolutionists are as diverse a group of people as we are.

It is not fair to charactarize them as such and such, only for the purpose of venting our anger.

Great White.

Intelligent Design is strong politically, not scientifically. That much is obvious. Political strength means the support of the average joe, in addition to some wealthy people with agendas. If the average joe withdrew his political support, ID would have little left.

I am not sure if this means we need to target the average joe in public debates, but I don't think it would hurt. I am not saying to leave out the science, but as things stand at the moment, It doesn't seem we are getting through to the average joe.

I don't pretend to know the solution. But it may be more constructive to refrain from discussions that tend to alienate the other side.

But it may be more constructive to refrain from discussions that tend to alienate the other side.

Believe it or not Nick, scoring points is not my goal. I actually was hoping we could create some light rather than heat. So what's wrong with:

1) ID has repeatedly lost popular support when the issue is pushed e.g. on a school board, such as in Darby, MT or Roseville, CA.

2) Knowledgeable people who deny known scientific or historical fact to support their religious or other beliefs are another matter.

3) the creationist movement is not one based on rational discourse, it is entirely political and emotional.

One way to gather support, solidify your base, and generally win your case is to villify the opposition. Do not admit to any rational position within your opposition. Hitler was good at this. But the risk you run is losing credibility. You can't paint the guy next door, who is a pretty sharp guy, as a raving lunatic and maintain credibility. This sentiment you guys are espousing can thrive only in isolated discussions where you all are talking to each other.

So, for #1 above, could it be that there are parents who think that biology teaching is inaccurate due to undue acceptance and emphasis on evolution? Could it be that they simply want the problems with evolution to be acknowledged? No, that would admit to a rational position. Better to paint them as backwater illiterates, driven by religious fundamentalism, whose goal is the teaching of creationism or ID and banishing evolution. Aside from the Dover case, I don't know of a case that is asking for ID to be taught. #1 is simply factually wrong, but this serves to propagate the stereotype.

#2 and #3 are more obvious, and the fact that the ostensible middle position here would ask what is wrong with these, again, is telling. "Deny known scientific . . . fact to support their religious or other beliefs" and "the creationist movement is not one based on rational discourse, it is entirely political and emotional" ? What scientific facts are being denied? Why is creationism not rational? You see, these charges expose you. One can argue for evolution and against creation, but to paint creationists in this way is simply not credible. The only people you are going to convince are yourselves. Again, I'm not saying there are not problematic elements within the creationist movement.

GWW writes: Could you describe some trivial detail relating to say, TWO of these "many" "recent stories" about a creationism controversy in a public school?

MI: Dover is the only case I know of advocating ID. Non are advocating teaching creation. Cobb County, Kansas, Roseville were all advocating the teaching of problems with evolution as well as the positives. Actually, Cobb did not even go that far, they only wanted a "theory" disclaimer. Because evolutionists maintain evolution is a fact, they opposed the disclaimer.

GWW: Oh, is that all? They just want all of the most useful and universally accepted scientific theories to be taught from a "neutral" perspective.

GI: Yes, isn't that terrible! Think of it, teaching the negatives of theory.

GWW: You're continuing to deny reality . . . Btw, you are driving on bald tires. Are you one of those folks that can admit being wrong or do you just keep dissembling when people take time out of their day to discuss your errors with you?

GI: Unfortunately, GWW is not really an outlier. This simplistic, black/white reductionism (anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot, regardless of what they actually say) is not that unusual.

MI wrote:

"...could it be that there are parents who think that biology teaching is inaccurate due to undue acceptance."

The acceptance and emphasis on evolution is perfectly justified. If parents think otherwise, why is that

"Could it be that they simply want the problems with evolution to be acknowledged?"

Acknowledged where, in high school biology? First the "problems" have to be acknowledged using the peer review process, then if they pass that test, maybe a few college courses, then if it becomes really well established, finally it can trickle down into high school biology.

MI, you are no longer making sense.

Katarina writes: The acceptance and emphasis on evolution is perfectly justified.

MI: Not to the extent that the science is not taught accurately. We don't brush problems under the rug.

Katarina: Acknowledged where, in high school biology? First the "problems" have to be acknowledged using the peer review process, then if they pass that test, maybe a few college courses, then if it becomes really well established, finally it can trickle down into high school biology.

MI: Agreed (and done). The problems are well understood.

Damn, MI, your last post was too short!

I was really interested in where your conversation with me was going.

"MI: Agreed (and done). The problems are well understood."

Do you mean problems WITH or problems WITHIN the theory?

Sorry I don't remember who said this, but in a comment a while back someone compared the theory of evolution to Swiss cheeze: there may be holes, but it's still Swiss cheeze.

High school is for basics, for presenting the overall picture. Not promoting a religious agenda. So far, it is the religious that find problems WITH the theory.

Add to my last sentance, as a result of their religious beliefs.

I wrote a similar article using the holocaust deniers as an analogy to creationists. Kinda weird it keeps coming up like that.

No, Karatina, I'm talking about problems WITH the theory. This has nothing to do with religious beliefs. This is the "Inherit the Wind" stereotype that is simply not credible. Let me give you a very simple example. Homologies very often arise from non homologous development processes. This is, and has been for a long time, been well known. Yet the going high school text book says the exact opposite (in an uncategorical statement).

William Dembski has reminded us that the emerging Intelligent Design movement has a four pronged approach to defeating naturalism: (1) A scientific/philosophical critique of naturalism; (2) a positive scientific research program (Intelligent Design) for investigating the effects of intelligent causes; (3) rethinking every field of inquiry infected with naturalism and reconceptualizing it in terms of design; (4) development of a theology of nature by relating the intelligence inferred by intelligent design to the God of Scripture (Moreland 1999 citing Dembski 1998).

In response to MI, I have no problem dealing with people who are casual ID adherents. These poeple are sincere, and usually have just read Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" and not much else in depth. There is an initial appeal to ID. That's where the educational process comes in.

And I'm more than willing to participate in the educational process, since I can always learn something, too. Generally, I find this educational process to be fruitful. Of course the educational process cannot work with Johnson, Dembski and others because I truly believe these poeple think it is OK to "lie for God." They will lie and twist the truth becaue they are on the side of "right." These "leading lights of ID" are not interested in a good faith discussion, which is why the debates won't work with them.

You're right generally that those who initially favor ID are from a wide range of philosophical backgrounds and have a wide range of concerns. Generally, they are leery of evolution not because of what it represents, but what they have been told (untruthfully) what it represents--the end of civliztion as we know it. They are understandably concerned about those kinds of issues for their children.

I try to be polite when talking with these "grass roots" people and address their concerns. Frankly, many of these people are my friends relaives and fellow churchgoers. I don't believe these people are the equivalent of holocaust deniers or HIV deniers, but some of the leading lights of the ID moevement clearly are. Casual ID adherents begin to have a more sceptical prspective of ID when informed (truthfully) that the ID leading lights are charlatans on the level of holocaust denial.

However, even some of these people like FL above, will make an objectively false statement. When they do, I will present the truth and allow them an opportunity to retract the false statement, as I did with FL. If they don't I consider them "liars for God" just like their leaders.

People of common sense, even if disposed towards ID, will observe these interactions and conclude that a pattern of deception would not be necessary if ID had any merit. They eventually see that ID is simply an empty promise--it's pseudoscience, poor theology, poor philosphy.

Hey MI.

I really think you are a dishonest rube but here's a shot at redemption.

Provide proof which supports your claims that

(1) Homologies very often arise from non homologous development processes.

NOTE: please define what you mean by "very often" in this context.

(2) This is, and has been for a long time, been well known.

(3) Yet the going high school text book says the exact opposite (in an uncategorical statement).

I'm especially interested in (3) but really you should provide answers to all three questions if you expect to be taken any more seriously than the typical creationist apologist (a group which includes you, as far as I'm concerned)

In general I think that the HIV deniers are a much better comparison to ID than the Holocaust Deniers.

there is a silent recognition that his method of argument is deeply flawed and does in fact bear a lot of resemblance to holocaust denial and other kook theories

I have never heard a creationist say that fossils, as a matter of course, are fake. I'm not doubting your experience, just pointing out that this is not a general position within creation. In fact, I don't know of any creationist "thinker" who holds such a position. Again, no doubt there are problems within the creation spectrum. So too, for evolution. I have heard lay evolutionists say some pretty absurd things too. Gary, I wonder if you hold evolution to the same level of scrutiny that you do creation. Your use of the word "antiscience" as a synonym for creation suggests to me that you do not acknowledge a middle position for creation.

Gary writes: I have held in my hands the bits and pieces of murdered men women, and children shot, stabbed and clubbed to death. (This includes one religiously motivated ritual murder of a child, by the way). So I lack the cheery outlook that allows "MI" to think that I presented a "parody" with mistaken earnestness. Some say that ignorance is bliss- and I say it is dangerous.

Wow, this speaks volumes. You've been on the witnessing end of some religiously motivated murders, so now you know the truth about those evil religious people. Creationism must be full of lies, and liars. Yes, I agree that ignorance is dangerous. Unfortunately those evil religious folks don't seem to have a monopoly on it.

Gary writes:
**********************
First, "MI" perhaps you are ignoring the professional creationists and attributing complete innocence to their dupes. Again, the Nazi slaughter serves as a potential model. The actual Nazi party members were few compared to the happy participants in the mass murder. Because I hope you will never learn from personal experience, I recommend two books as essential in understanding the capacity of ordinary people to become ravening mass-murders, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, 1997 Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust (New York:Alfred A. Knoph), and Jan T. Gross, 2001 Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland (Princeton University Press). The years I worked as a professor of medicine (psychiatry) taught me that people drawn to clinical professions sincerely like to help other people. They truly enjoy caring for others. A brilliant book by Robert N. Proctor, Racial Hygene: Medicine Under the Nazis (1988, Boston: Harvard University Press) will teach you how in just a small number of years the "caring professions" can become the very engine of slaughter.

And have I exaggerated the goals of the professional creationists? Not at all. I merely take them at their word. For example, do the creationists intend to cast aside scientific method for supernaturalism? Consider, "J. P. Moreland, Professor at the Talbot School of Theology at Biola University (the Bible Institute of Los Angeles), offers this summary of Dembski's program:

William Dembski has reminded us that the emerging Intelligent Design movement has a four pronged approach to defeating naturalism: (1) A scientific/philosophical critique of naturalism; (2) a positive scientific research program (Intelligent Design) for investigating the effects of intelligent causes; (3) rethinking every field of inquiry infected with naturalism and reconceptualizing it in terms of design; (4) development of a theology of nature by relating the intelligence inferred by intelligent design to the God of Scripture (Moreland 1999 citing Dembski 1998).

"MI" seems also to not see the denial of academic freedom in the "Statements of Faith" that are demanded of these creationist "institutes" and even so-called "universities." These are the identical strictures that the creationists will, if given power, enforce on all academics.
*********************

Gary, this is going from bad to worse. I included all four paragraphs above so as not to lose the effect. Yes, Gary, I know something about evil too (I have distant relatives who were prisoners in the holocaust). But I always hate it when the prosecutor dwells on the horrificness of the deed to prove the defendant guilty. Doesn't seem right does it? Your quote from Moreland and your comment on it reveal show how far this has gone. Let's see, Moreland (and Dembski) want to criticize naturalism using science and philosophy. How terrible, actually using science and philosophy. Next they want to develop a scientific positive research program. Again, unthinkable. Just think of those murder victims, and you can see how evil this all is.

But what about Biola's Statement of Faith? Isn't this a "denial of academic freedom"? I could tell you stories about denial of academic freedom. Unfortunately, they have nothing to do with Christian institutions which are up front with their presuppositions.

Dr. Hurd,

Your narrative is disturbing. I don't think many of us have the experience with creationists to equal yours, which has given you such dark insights.

I plead with everyone to please try and see the bigger question in all this: how to bridge the gap between ordinary folks whose mentality it is to give each point of view a fair shot, and the academia who see right through the maneuvering of leading creationists?

I can't see myself standing up in front of a class full of students and talking about Holocoust denial equaling what their parents have told them. I am sure they would be insulted. I am sure that is not what Dr. Hurd meant to suggest.

If the purpose of the comparison is to enhance our own understanding of leading ID/creationists, then I can at least say that it adds to my motivation to oppose anti-science, and I leave it at that.

GWW writes:
****************
I really think you are a dishonest rube but here's a shot at redemption.

Provide proof which supports your claims that

(1) Homologies very often arise from non homologous development processes.

NOTE: please define what you mean by "very often" in this context.

(2) This is, and has been for a long time, been well known.

(3) Yet the going high school text book says the exact opposite (in an uncategorical statement).

I'm especially interested in (3) but really you should provide answers to all three questions if you expect to be taken any more seriously than the typical creationist apologist (a group which includes you, as far as I'm concerned)
*******************

Great White, what will you do if I'm right?

the point remains that Johnson's views on the cause of HIV, just like Well's views regarding Rev. Moon's identity, is a ~separate~ issue that so far has not impacted or intermingled with his works.

Denver high school student Danny Phillips, who responded to a dogmatic Darwinist "official story" spoonfeeding (a NOVA video the class had to watch) with a carefully-homeworked request for officials to drop the video. Ultimately, his request caught people's attention

there IS a reason why his book(s) like Darwin on Trial have scored with people, visibily challenged the dominion of dogmatic darwinism at the national level

There is a visible difference between Johnson's argumentation and what you read in a UFO magazine.

Johnson is into specifics, thoroughness and examples,

Great White, what will you do if I'm right?

I thought you'd hit rock bottom, FL. But like the Holocaust deniers, that doesn't stop you from licking the scum off the floor and wagging your tongue at us.

GWW writes: Admit I'm wrong and apologize.

You were supposed to say that you would admit that there are evidences against evolution. I don't need an apology, I need people to be, as Huxley, urged, open to revising their positions based on evidence rather than dogma.

For #1 and #2 you need to study embryology and development. This is utterly non controversial and your skepticism and labeling me dishonest is simply another example of the problem we're talking about on this thread. In the 1930s Sir Gavin de Beer (later to be Director of the British Museum of National History) first began finding examples of homologous structures developing from non homologous development patterns and genes. Completely contradictory of what evolution would predict. This "research problem" has continued up to today. Pere Alberch described this (homologous structures developing from non homologous development patterns) as the "rule rather than the exception." This what I mean by "very often." Good enough? He concluded that ontogeny is not conserved. [Systematic Zoology, 34:46-58, 1985]

For #3, a recent addition to high school biology textbooks is Holt's *Biology* written by Johnson and Raven. In its chapter on evolution, it has a section entitled "Evidence of Evolution." In that section it discusses evidence from embryonic development. It gives the classic pentadactyl pattern example, and it says "The forelimbs of vertebrates contain the kinds of bones, which form in the same way during embryological development." [p. 286]. Not only is this not right, more importantly, it is a misleading statement since it is not generally the case. In fact, the embryological development patterns are *NOT* generally the same for homologies.

I have never heard a creationist say that fossils, as a matter of course, are fake. I'm not doubting your experience, just pointing out that this is not a general position within creation. In fact, I don't know of any creationist "thinker" who holds such a position.

"My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call upon us to occupy the land until Jesus Returns." --James Watt to the Wall Street Journal as quoted in "James Watt & the Puritan Ethic." By Colman McCarthy. Washington Post, May 24, 1981. PAGE L5

Let's see, Moreland (and Dembski) want to criticize naturalism using science and philosophy.

How terrible, actually using science and philosophy. Next they want to develop a scientific positive research program. Again, unthinkable.

I went to an evolution talk today actually, and have got it all fresh in my memory. I dont have the bets memory...oops. Anyway, he was talking about how ridiculous evolution is. The topiuc came up of rock formations and time...then the Grand Canyon came up. Evolutionists came to the conclution that the river next to it over a long amont of time has eroded it slowly to form the cliffs and magnificent looks of the GC. But creationists (those who beleive oin creation) have seen "little grand canyon" and that was created in 2 days becasue of a mud slide and a LOT of water, only in 2 days...or hours! And it has similar features as...you guessed it-the grand canyon. So more then likely, the grand canyon didnt take THOUSANDS of years to develop into waht they are now. Also...you know the land reptile that can also swim..? Anyway-they saw it evolved to swim...this whale like thing with arms! And all they found of it was a few teeth, and a few bits of its jaws...none of its body-so how can they say it had arms and looked like a whale without more bones...and they weren't there. Evolutionsists just consatntly role themselves. But God's Word remains solid...funny huh. You find out the truth quicky! They just dont want to accept it!? Why... I want all people to be saved!

homologous structures developing from non homologous development patterns and genes. Completely contradictory of what evolution would predict.

I need people to be, as Huxley, urged, open to revising their positions based on evidence rather than dogma.

Gary: Where have you been hiding? Pull your head out (from under the covers, naturally) and look around. This is of course the classic "NO TRUE SCOTSMAN" defense. Denial of the entirety of geology and paleontology is the oldest and most common creationist ploys to deny the reality of the physical universe. It is simple and to the point: fossils are fakes, there is no geological column, there are no "evidences" for evilution or an ancient universe, the Bible is (in KJV English translation or other flavor of the moment) therefore literally true

Me: All this in response to my statements that I have never heard a creationist say that fossils, as a matter of course, are fake, and that I don't know of any creationist "thinker" who holds such a position. A classic "NO TRUE SCOTSMAN" defense? Where did this come from? My point was that there is middle position that you seem to be ignoring, not that there is no extreme position. I said nothing about where the majority lies, and I agreed that there are no doubt there are problems within the creation spectrum. I hold no brief for fossil deniers, and if there is a majority in that extreme position, then that is too bad. But no amount of your shouting can prove there is not a middle position. I have not studied creationism in detail, but I do know plenty of creationists, none of whom deny the fossils.

Gary: S/He has hidden their entire program behind the "fig leaf" statement of point #1, a "scientific/philosophical critique." We have seen that this "scientific/philosophical critique" is bankrupt and has at best regurgitated some anti-evolution propaganda. There is no science as we have shown in Matt Young, Tanner Edis (Editors), 2004 Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism Rutgers University Press.

Me: Translation -- "we wrote a book criticizing ID, so from here on out no one has the right to pursue anything but naturalism." Let's see now, where is the "denial of academic freedom"?

Gary: Errrr, Aww? Think again, "Gawd-did-it" isn't a "positive research program." It is the path to the new inquisition.

Me: Oh, I see. Gary thinks that "Gawd-did-it" isn't legitimate science, so from here on out no one has the right to pursue it (I guess Newton didn't get Gary's memo). Oh, and by the way, if you try you'll be labelled as a part of the new inquisition. I feel like I've stepped into the Twilight Zone.

MI, You've crossed the credibility line quite awhile ago. Maybe you didn't get Gary Hurd's "no true Scotsman" reference, which comes from the argument, "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. Ah, but my friend Angus Campbell puts sugar on *his* porridge. Well, then no *TRUE* Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

That's the fallacy and you've committed it, when you said, "I have never heard a creationist say that fossils are fake." MI, I'd like to introduce you to "Angus," actually, Answers in Genesis, a creationist site posting a list of frequently used arguments that creationists use but shouldn't becasue they are flawed.

Guess what one of those is?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

But no TRUE creationist would make that argument.

"MI" Take some time and try for something substantive. You now admit you have " not studied creationism in detail" and yet you have merrily pontificated about the topic for a day or so now. You have solemnly pronounced about many topics that to even a junior student you are at best ill informed. Stop it. You are embarrassing your cause.

Gary thinks that "Gawd-did-it" isn't legitimate science, so from here on out no one has the right to pursue it

Joe, I guess you didn't read what I wrote very carefully. I'm afraid you can't pigeon-hole me into the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. And again, this points up the problem here. You folks, it seems, are unable to perceive the nuances of the movement you love to hate. I made no mention of "true" creationists vs imposters. I merely made the point that there is a middle position that Gary was ignoring. Your pointing to the AiG site simply makes my point. There is no "no true Scotsman" argument in my statement that "I have never heard a creationist say that fossils are fake." In fact, I did not even imply that. You read that into my statement.

Now you know why I asked GWW what he would do if I gave the supporting evidence. Because there is no evidence that can harm evolution. Think of it, a phenomenon that is not controversial, that goes against evolution's predictions, and what do we get out of GWW? Just more abuse and confused statements.

Here's the story: Very similar species, have very similar designs that arise from different development pathways (different embryonic development or genes). This is the rule, not the exception. Evolution predicted that these homologies would come from homologous development pathways. Pretty straightforward. This is a problem for evolution. But the going high school textbook, in the section giving *evidences* for evolution, discusses development pathways yet gives *no* mention of this problem, and instead makes the erroneous statement that the pentadactyl pattern is an example of how development pathways are homologous. The text gives the student not so much of an inkling that there is an issue here.

Somehow, GWW decides that this really is not a prediction of evolution after all. In fact, it is me who must not understand evolution, how I am "quite obviously among the worst of all people to lead by example in this regard." You see, this is all my fault. Gee, I must be lying about all this. I've obviously fabricated the whole thing because, after all, anyone who doubts evolution and naturalism, as Gary has explained, is one step away for all manner of insidious evil.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave you all to your own devices. I feel like I'm stepping out of a mad-house.

Because there is no evidence that can harm evolution.

Very similar species, have very similar designs that arise from different development pathways (different embryonic development or genes). This is the rule, not the exception.

"I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave you all to your own devices. I feel like I'm stepping out of a mad-house.

Poor MI. You guys should really be more friendly.

Sorry if this has been mentioned on this blog before -- I'm new here, and I'm enjoying reading -- but have you all seen the new Newsweek poll of Americans showing:

-- 79 percent believe in the Virgin birth of Jesus

-- 55 percent believe every word of the Bible is literally accurate

-- 62 percent say they favor teaching creation science in addition to evolution in public schools

-- 43 percent favor teaching creation science instead of evolution in public schools

I accept what my open eyes tell me, and I don't believe much of anything in books written by those who lived when most people thought the earth was flat and the wheel was a really cool new invention. So, you needn't convince me about the truth of evolution. But when I see figures like these, I wonder if our species has evolved intellectually very much at all. Seems we've regressed in many ways since the Enlightenment at least. Why are the forces of irrationality still so strong? Maybe those who deny evolution are right: maybe we're all still just a bunch of dumb monkeys. Or at least 79 percent of us.

Yes F M Ral, there is progress. It's slow, at times it reverses for a bit, but the the trend over the last 500 years is very clear. We are moving away from the old cultures which relied on churches/religions for explanations of the natural world and to cultures which employ science and rationale. Present circumstances in the US excepted of course ;)

Dr GH wrote of Matt Young: He concluded that it is wiser to follow the example of Deborah Lipstadt in her refusal to share the public stage with Holocaust deniers. He then mildly criticized Michael Ruse for his frequent collaborations with evolution deniers.

Mr. Cordova,

Your jabs might sting if you were not so lowly regarded.

GH

The Pandas had a monopoly and led the debate early on in the first 100 posts, but the IDists now command the high ground in that discussion at post 186 after 2 weeks.

Mr. Cordova, Your jabs might sting if you were not so lowly regarded. GH

Yawn, Sal, your comments become boring as they do not even show that this was the omst central definition of CSI or that ignoring this definition was inexusable
Don't embarass yourself any further please. I know you believe you have nothing to lose in these debates but please everyone has some sense of self respect. Even those who delete threads when they become too hot for comfort :-)
Is ID that desperate I wonder? If anything ARN people have demonstrated nicely why ID is without much scientific merrit. And we have you among many to thank for that.

Salvador,

Pursuing probabalistic evidence for the existance of an "intelligent designer" is a waste of time. Therefore, gaining a solid understanding in the methods by which to attain that goal is also nothing but a waste of time. Why should anyone be bothered with the sheer stupidity of it?

If you believe in God, then BELIEVE. It's part of the equation.

From the ARN thread that Salvdor is winning:

Salvador writes,
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hate to rub it in, but I have a stronger background in information theory and ID literature than all the ID critics on this thread combined with the possible exception of RBH, and they still tried to take me on.
----------------------------------------------------------------

I know it's just a saying. but no, you don't "hate to rub it in." You love gloating.

You're also delusional about the quality of your knowledge, your arguments, your ability to present those arguments clearly, and your belief that you "win" all these "debates."

Hate to rub it in, but I have a stronger background in information theory and ID literature than all the ID critics on this thread combined with the possible exception of RBH, and they still tried to take me on.

— Sal

Katarina,

ID is supported by physics. Quantum Mechanics strongly suggest the existence of God. That's not a religious position, but a scientific one, a straight foward deduction as a matter fact.

If God exists, and He is intellgence, we have hope that we can detect ID artifcats which He made.

God's existence is no longer a matter of faith, it's written into the equations of physics.

Salvador

Quantum Mechanics strongly suggest the existence of God.

God's existence is no longer a matter of faith, it's written into the equations of physics.

So THAT's what that 5th Maxwell's Equation is.

div E = p/epsilon
div B = 0
curl E = -dPhi/dt
curl B = mu i
Laplacian J = God/42

I wondered what that was.

All right fellow kids, this has wandered off into the ditch. I am going to leave comments open for 8 hours to see if there is any aditional comments that are relevant.

I suppose Mr. Cordova should be allowed one freebee parting shot.

"It is always difficult for the non-historian to remember that there is nothing absolute about historical truth. What we consider as such is only an estimation, based on what the best available evidence tells us. It must constantly be tested against new information and new interpretations that appear, however implausible they may be, or it will lose its vitality and degenerate into dogma or shibboleth. Such people as David Irving, then, have an indispensable part in the historical enterprise, and we dare not disregard their views." (Emphasis added, all quotes from Evans 2001:9)

"I disagree strongly with the position taken by William Dembski. But I do think that he argues strongly and that those of us who do not accept his conclusions should read his book and form our opinions and counterarguments. He should not be ignored."

Laplacian J = God/42

This is my first post, folks, so please forgive any newby technical blunders.

Johnson, as an evolution/HIV denier, and the Holocaust deniers, obviously (and objectively) have something in common. The question is whether it is valid to link these behaviours, which from a psychological perspective means, is there a common causal explanation? Johnson himself has related how he turned against evolution in the aftermath of a divorce and subsequent 're-birth' into Christianity. I don't know the details of his divorce circumstances, but it occurs to me that it is common for men, expecially those with a controlling personality, to 'go into denial' and then on the attack (sometimes physically) in response to rejection by their partner. In Johnson, I think we have a personality type that, when combined with a keen intellect, is set up for delusional behaviour, and if you can lie to yourself, it's not a long step to lying to others. In adopting the ID cause, he is able to regain some of the sense of control that he lost when his marriage disintegrated.

It's just a theory (grin).

Katarina, ID is supported by physics. Quantum Mechanics strongly suggest the existence of God. That's not a religious position, but a scientific one, a straight foward deduction as a matter fact. If God exists, and He is intellgence, we have hope that we can detect ID artifcats which He made. God's existence is no longer a matter of faith, it's written into the equations of physics. Salvador

Hello, Erasmus.

You do shed some light on Johnson, but to be fair, those kinds of things are very personal and anything of that nature has wabbly legs in a debate setting. Using personal attacks only makes a debator seem like he/she has already lost the case so needs to resort to something else.

My mother-in-law with whom I've been gently discussing this for a while, actually sees Johnson's re-birth to Christ as an excellent thing, she is aware of his problems, but because he is a Christian he is now on the "right" side and to be trusted.

This site is dedicated to ripping ID apart scientifically, that is the most important, and that has been successfully done. ID keeps regurgitating and rebutting, but it is only for the purpose of keeping reputable scientists engaged in an endless debate with them, which lends them credibility with the public. This was brought up in an earlier post, and I am beginning to see the point.

Unfortunately, to most people willing to believe Johnson, Dembski, and the rest, the science is a secondary question. I hope more Christians will do what Richard Collin has done in writing his book (on a more recent post on this site), revealing how theologically empty the search for scientific proof of God is.

What happened to faith?

Just as an aside, could anyone explain to me exactly what divorce has to do with evolution? Inquiring minds might like some illumination here.

Salvador, where are you when we need you?

LOL

f(x) = 0, therefore God exists?

Bob Maurus,

I do sympathise with religious people who resist evolutionary explanations for human relationships. May I answer your question in a not-so-serious way to demonstrate the point?

Could I hazard a guess that more mates = more offspring?

And it doesn't hurt to diversify the gene pool, either.

On the other hand, mates sticking together ensures that the offspring are well cared for, especially if there is no longer a village to offer additional parenting. We lived as tribesmen for much longer than we have in civilized isolation in a high-density human population, as we do now.

But it must be that the beginning of matrimony lies somewhere deep in our ancestoral past when the males demonstrated dominance by having monopoly over the females. It must have been in the interest of the female too, to have some protection from an all out gang-rape.

How much better it seems to say that God created man and woman and it is sin that tears them apart. My marriage seems much more dear when I think about it in religious ways, even though I do not deny the work of anthropologists.

'Course, some people do.

Katrina said:

This site is dedicated to ripping ID apart scientifically, that is the most important, and that has been successfully done. ID keeps regurgitating and rebutting, but it is only for the purpose of keeping reputable scientists engaged in an endless debate with them, which lends them credibility with the public. This was brought up in an earlier post, and I am beginning to see the point.

...oh my...not sure you understand the full scope of the debate, or the "motives" of those who might be in favor of ID. As a scientist, I see no reason to disregard such a theory, despite the best intentions of the "reputable" scientists who run this site.

BTW, speaking of the material on this site...where's the quality educational info on evolution?...where's the balanced debate on ID vs. evolution that almost all the threads are devoted to - or do threads like this pass for a good overview on why one might adopt a belief system that accepts the notion of Intelligent Design?

Hi Dr GH!!!

Why do you care so much about the thoughts of IDers and what they spend their time debating about? Why do you care so much how about how they may choose to educate their children?

If you are on the side of the the minority on certain educational issues, I guess you feel your opinions trump those of 10 or 100 "ignorant" citizens who don't subscribe to your way of thinking.

Why don't you ship your kids off to a private school so they'll be shielded from the masses? I'm sure they'll be much happier as a result.

I do question your motives for contibuting to this site, and find your thread to be rather ironic. Who's leading the debate Dr. GH? Maybe it's you and your kind who needs the forum to give meaning to your hard earned thoughts.

I accept your analogy, but (as long as we're making coyly normative comparisons) it would seem to me that people who believe in "God", the bodily resurrection/deity of Jesus, and "life after death" scenarios are certainly also a lot like Holocaust Deniers. All the parties seem to be able to latch on to some pretty wicked BS with acrobatic disregard for the scientific method and objectivity. Theists and Holocaust Deniers are also in a locked step.

Theists and Holocaust Deniers are also in a locked step.

So THAT's what that 5th Maxwell's Equation is. div E = p/epsilon div B = 0 curl E = -dPhi/dt curl B = mu i Laplacian J = God/42

— Steve

Hi Katarina,

My question was prompted by this (to me) amusing reference in Erasmus'post: "Johnson himself has related how he turned against evolution in the aftermath of a divorce and subsequent 're-birth' into Christianity."

I would agree that marriage can be seen as a form of property control and male domination. I think, as a formal institution, it's probably a result of unfortunate appearance of patriarchal gods, and also observe that it's not at all a necessary ingredient for well cared for children. I've seen studies that claim to show that humans are not a naturally monogamous species. Actually, very few species are.
More female mates would mean more offspring for a male - not the other way around though.

Johnson's divorce must have been a doozy!

As bizarre as it may seem, I find myself in agreement with FL. At least to the extent that Jason Malloy's comment is unsupported, and indeed insupportable. I urge that he retract it.

By positing the existence of a deity which by supernatural powers is able to commit miracles, the believer has placed the examination of their belief outside the realm of science. Which is fine with me with the only reservation that this belief can not be thought of as a 'science.' This removes religion from the identification made by Jason Malloy. Twenty-five years ago I argued at an AAAS annual meeting that we can not deny the validity of supernatural belief as such, but as scientists and educators we were obligated to oppose efforts to insert supernatural accounts into science. (The resolution was amended from the floor reflecting this concern).

This is totally different, however, from those who deny that they are making a special appeal to the supernatural, and that they employ the methodology of science to recover the supernatural. This is parallel to those who have claimed to use objective means of historic and scientific examination of evidence to deny the Nazi Holocaust.

The founding principle of religious freedom in America also demands that publicly (tax) supported institutions can not use the coercive power of the government to dictate (or even favor) one religious faction over another. This is what excluded the teaching of 'creation science' for public schools. Intelligent Design Creationism is the current attempt to avoid the Constitution by claiming that Judeo Christian creationism can be reworked to allow it to be considered a valid "alternative" scientific hypothesis and neither religious nor favoring a particular deity/designer.

This leads directly to the purpose of Panda's Thumb, and the TalkDesign Archive, which is to challenge that Intelligent Design Creationism can meet the claim that it is a valid hypothesis when judged on its scientific merits, and to expose the religious and political nature of IDC as opposed to its so-called science. This latter goal is a partial motivation for my original post.

The comments have come back toward the opening topic, and I would like to leave this open for at least another day.

I may be too late to spark an interesting discussion, but if so, that's what I get for lurking for so long.

As an attorney, this discussion calls to mind a more apt comparison that happens to resonate in legal circles: ID advocates are very similar to "tax protesters," or individuals who maintain that the federal government does not have the power to levy income taxes.

Both groups operate in the face of overwhelming evidence against their positions. They are each comprised of somewhat diverse elements - from simply confused or ignorant cheerleaders to outrageously dishonest ringleaders - bound together by obvious ulterior motives.

The tactics employed by the groups are also similar. Each places enormous reliance on quote-mining, out of context citations, muddying the definition of key words and concepts (cf. IDists' take on "theory" or even "evolution" with tax protesters' myopic take on "includes," "income," and "person"). Both groups rely on ignorance and both active and passive dishonesty to propagate their messages.

Well, I could go on. I'm struck by how analogous the two movements are. If you're interested, I recommend a FAQ I found recently that, like some of the resources I've found through this site, exhaustively summarizes and refutes the arguments of tax protesters:

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

Finally, there are some obvious flaws in the analogy. The most interesting is the profound difference between scientific evidence and legal authority. I think a good argument could be made that they are similar enough in this context that the analogy stands.

I think, in the end, that this is a much better analogy than comparing creationists to Holocaust deniers. That analogy will often turn off people who don't feel strongly about promoting honest science, and casts creationists as the victims of extreme rhetoric (whether or not that rhetoric is accurate). For the purposes of arguing against creationist tactics, especially in a legal context, this is a better comparison.

Colin

Good point. Your analogy also has the advantage of superior evidence -- as I recall, one particularly big-mouthed creationist is in fact a tax protester.

http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/housechu/hovind.htm

I don't know if he is a Holocaust denier as well. But it wouldn't surprise me.

johnsmith wrote:

" . . . oh my . . . not sure you understand the full scope of the debate, or the "motives" of those who might be in favor of ID. As a scientist, I see no reason to disregard such a theory, despite the best intentions of the "reputable" scientists who run this site."

I would like very much if you could enhance my understanding of this debate. Since you see no reason to disregard ID, how would you evaluate it?

Following on the comment by Colin, I get the feeling that there is a more general observation to be made about psycho fringe social movements. The Tax Protesters, the Shakespear deniers, the Holocaust deniers, evolution deniers, and AIDS deniers all have overlaping MOs and even personel. For example, the Islamic Young Earth Creationist Harun Yahya, in a book called "Holocaust Revisionism", gives a direct link between evolution denial and Holocaust denial (see also Harun Yahya and Holocaust Revisionism. Kent "Dr.Dino" Hovind, YEC evolution denier and Tax Protester, Phil Johnson & Jonathan Wells, IDC evolution denial and AIDS denial round out the set.

Don't forget Marshall Hall at fixedearth.com -> evolution denial + rotating/orbiting earth denial.

apparently he's got a time machine too, because at the very bottom it says
"©1997-2005 Marshall Hall"

At least to the extent that Jason Malloy's comment is unsupported, and indeed insupportable. I urge that he retract it.

Sorry Dr. Hurd I won't retract the statement because my statement is fully supportable. If it's fair to compare those that ignore and pervert the methods of science and close their eyes to scientific objectivity with those that support and apologize for murderous regimes than it is more than fair to compare Theists to them both. Incidentally, those that support the bible as divine manual do both: they accept divine revelation as epistemologically sound, accept historical/scientific conclusions that the evidence does not support, and white-wash the biblical crimes done in the name of the genocidal God-concept they worship.

I know you desperately want to join doctor, but if you want to truly be in the Club of Science (TM), then declare yourself, at the very least, an Agnostic, not a Theist or a Christian. Declaring the existence of something without evidence for it is not science. If you want to be in the Club of Science (TM) then admit that science does not support "life after death" or the ability of a historical figure to walk on water or raise the dead anymore than it supports a 6000 year old creation. Making conclusions that the evidence strongly contradicts is not science . . . in fact this is the exact same problem committed by historical Holocaust revisionism and "scientific" Creationism (and, no, that you can invent childish miracle stories to fill in all the holes* does not exonerate you - "positing the existence" of something is not outside the realm of science as science must logically precede the positing).

*"By positing the existence of a deity which by supernatural powers is able to commit miracles, the believer has placed the examination of their belief outside the realm of science."

So Jason your view is to be a good scientist you must be an Athiest?

There maybe many things that we will never be able to explain with science. Does this mean that we can not hold personal ideas and beliefs at all?

Even as an Athiest/Agnostic I find this position very offensive. You are unexcepting of others beliefs that don't even need to conflict with science. You are creating a conflict where their doesn't need to be one just like the creationist do.

Supernatural and Natural don't have to intersect. Unless you can prove scientifically that there is no supernatural then why force others to release their belief in the supernatural. While we are finding out more and more about the universe it doesn't answer the question why? where from? There will always be questions science can't ask. That is the realm of religion.

My earlier reply to Jason Malloy seems to have been ignored beyond the first sentences.

Theists of any type who posit that all things are miraculous are quite plainly free from the criticism that they are distorting science, or history: they are excluding science and history. I have had good friends who worshipped gods few people reading this have ever heard of, and I found them quite honest, sincere, and sane. Their particular religious tradition had in the past included human sacrifice and ritual cannibalism. This didn't make them any particular threat, but one hopes that there is no revivalist movement on the horizon. My personal sense that evolution deniers are in fact a danger is their insistent effort to inject supernaturalism into science at a time when greater clarity than ever before is needed. Questions about the environment and new agricultural and medical technologies can not be competently answered by muddled pseudoscience.

The objections that Jason Malloy is upset by concern vices he seems to attach to particular theologies. Not only are they historically unsound (for example there has been non-religious genocide: Rwanda is a current example), but are irrelevant to the comparison we have been discussing.

The "club of science" gibes are merely childish, I have been "in the club" for 30 years, but they accidentally touched on our actual topic. That is the social and intellectual devices used by "deniers" to generate support for their endeavors.

Further comments that are relevant are welcome, but this is neither the time nor place for further atheist rants which I will simply delete.

Students at one of the area's largest Christian schools are reading a controversial booklet that critics say whitewashes Southern slavery with its view that slaves lived "a life of plenty, of simple pleasures." Leaders at Cary Christian School say they are not condoning slavery by using "Southern Slavery, As It Was," a booklet that attempts to provide a biblical justification for slavery and asserts that slaves weren't treated as badly as people think. Principal Larry Stephenson said the school is only exposing students to different ideas, such as how the South justified slavery. He said the booklet is used because it is hard to find writings that are both sympathetic to the South and explore what the Bible says about slavery. "You can have two different sides, a Northern perspective and a Southern perspective," he said. 'SOUTHERN SLAVERY, AS IT WAS' Here are some excerpts from the booklet: * "To say the least, it is strange that the thing the Bible condemns (slave-trading) brings very little opprobrium upon the North, yet that which the Bible allows (slave-ownership) has brought down all manner of condemnation upon the South." (page 22) * "As we have already mentioned, the 'peculiar institution' of slavery was not perfect or sinless, but the reality was a far cry from the horrific descriptions given to us in modern histories." (page 22) * "Slavery as it existed in the South was not an adversarial relationship with pervasive racial animosity. Because of its dominantly patriarchal character, it was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence." (page 24) * "There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world." (page 24) * "Slave life was to them a life of plenty, of simple pleasures, of food, clothes, and good medical care." (page 25) * "But many Southern blacks supported the South because of long established bonds of affection and trust that had been forged over generations with their white masters and friends." (page 27) * "Nearly every slave in the South enjoyed a higher standard of living than the poor whites of the South -- and had a much easier existence." (page 30)

Angela Kennedy, whose daughters have attended Cary Christian since 1996, said all the booklet does is help students learn about both sides so that they have a basis to form their own opinions. She pointed out that the students also read Abraham Lincoln's speeches. "They really do get both sides of the story," Kennedy said. "In public schools, all they get is one side of the story. That's not education. That's indoctrination."

Dec. 9, 2004 As you may be aware, today the News and Observer published a rather negative article about Cary Christian School and our use of a small booklet supplement entitled, "Southern Slavery, As It Was". Within the article it stated, "the booklet has received criticism from a number of historians and that it has been pulled from publication because of faulty footnotes and citation errors." We were unaware of these findings and as a result have already pulled this booklet from our curriculum. Let us reiterate that it is always our goal in the secondary grades to present two sides of an argument. At no time has slavery ever been condoned in our curriculum. As Mr. Stephenson stated within the article, "Slavery is wrong, that's not debatable. The South was wrong about the slave trade." We apologize for this oversight and covet your prayers for our school.

The booklet's other author, Steve Wilkins, is a member of the board of directors of the Alabama-based League of the South. That is classified as a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based civil rights group. "Doug Wilson and Steve Wilkins have essentially constructed the ruling theology of the neo-Confederate movement," said Mark Potok, editor of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report. Potok said people who argue that the South should secede again have latched onto the writings of Wilson and Wilkins, which portray the Confederacy as the last true Christian civilization.

Perhaps this comment will be deleted, I don't know, but I don't see why it should. To me it seems a reasonable claim that Creationism is simply a logical extension of religious epistemology itself. Examining Creationism free from its context as a logical consequence of religious faith epistemology is like understanding Holocaust denial free from its context as a logical consequence of racism. The responses to my post were heavy on criticism but free of content, completely by-passing my salient points:

So Jason your view is to be a good scientist you must be an Atheist? There maybe many things that we will never be able to explain with science. Does this mean that we can not hold personal ideas and beliefs at all?

Actually what I said is that a real scientist or science devoted person can't claim there is a "God" or "life after death" without evidence or against evidence (and don't tell me that belief in "life after death" isn't going against clear evidence to the contrary) any more than you can claim that Moses parted the Red Sea with his magic staff or Job rode on the back of a dinosaur. This analogy is no less logical or inflammatory than this Creationism=Holocaust Denial post, and those that have their finger on the delete button have no reasonable excuse to to claim otherwise. So you and any other scientist can hold all the "personal ideas and beliefs" you want, Wayne, just don't present them in any other form, be it to yourself or others, but as your arbitrary, untested or disproved speculations. As to your first sentence, my exact words were: "If you want to truly be in the Club of Science (TM), then declare yourself, at the very least, an Agnostic, not a Theist or a Christian", how you transformed that into "So Jason your view is to be a good scientist you must be an Atheist?" is a mystery and was mighty shifty of you (Though Agnosticism inherently does grant some sort of internal meaning to the God concept, another issue but one I'll reserve my thoughts on for the purposes of this discussion).

You are unexcepting [sic] of others beliefs that don't even need to conflict with science. You are creating a conflict where their doesn't need to be one just like the creationist do.

Heh. Please take any one of those specific beliefs that I have named, and demonstrate for me how it "doesn't conflict with science". Assertions of "life after death" don't conflict with science?? And please spare me your nonsense about me being like a creationist - Apparently anyone who points out that people who believe in fairies and dragons can reasonably be compared to creationists are themselves creationists - now I've heard everything.

Unless you can prove scientifically that there is no supernatural then why force others to release their belief in the supernatural.

Can they prove that there is a "supernatural" scientifically? No. Then maybe they should stop their "belief" in it, and be agnostic. By the way, what's the coherent definition of "supernatural" again?

There will always be questions science can't ask. That is the realm of religion.

Wow, what a marvelous role making absurd nonsense up and pimping it off as fact plays in the human condition. Can we please stop pretending religious lies are a noble thing. Lies are bad, Wayne.

Dr. Hurd,

"My earlier reply to Jason Malloy seems to have been ignored beyond the first sentences.

Please point to a substantive point in your post that my last reply did not cover.

"Theists of any type who posit that all things are miraculous are quite plainly free from the criticism that they are distorting science, or history: they are excluding science and history."

Theists who "posit that all things are miraculous" of course are making an appeal to knowledge - they are saying something is true which they have no way of demonstrating. Other times they say things are true which are disproved. Also science shows that all things aren't "miraculous" (whatever that means), that seems like a pretty clear infringement on science to me, while claiming that all things unknown are "miraculous" is, in fact, the tactic of Intelligent Design Creationists. It certainly seems like an infringement on science when they do it, right? I'm just trying to wrap my mind around the exact point something steps on science in your mind: is it infringing on science and/or history when I tell my child that there is a powerful being "beyond time" who sent himself to ancient Palestine in the form of a man that raised people from the dead and walked on water? Or is it only infringing on science when I suggest that this needs to be taught in school, or simply when I suggest it should be called "science"?

"The objections that Jason Malloy is upset by concern vices he seems to attach to particular theologies. Not only are they historically unsound (for example there has been non-religious genocide: Rwanda is a current example), but are irrelevant to the comparison we have been discussing."

Dr. Hurd, that's outrageous. Please try to read my comments - what I claimed wasn't that religion leads to genocide any more than non-religion, but that the constraints of "revelatory epistemology" (i.e. divine revelation, faith, "posit-ing") causes Christian Theists to white-wash the god-serving genocides of the bible in the same hilarious manner that the faith-driven biases of Holocaust Deniers drives them to white-wash the crimes of their racist gods. That analogy seems to me to be just as poignant, if not more, as the comparison of Creationists and Holocaust Deniers. But I suppose it needs to be deleted because we're only allowed to offend AIDs deniers, Jingoistic Southerners, and Creationists here on PT, only by casually lumping them in with the most universally and profoundly hated mass murderers in history, but never should we offend those obviously blameless decent Americans and "scientists" who just want to believe in Santa Claus and teach him as fact to their children and to the poor people in their community ... that would be extremist or something.

"Further comments that are relevant are welcome, but this is neither the time nor place for further atheist rants which I will simply delete."

Right. Point to this "Atheist rant" again?

The Cary Christian thing, which is happening in my backyard, has gotten a lot of coverage in the News and Observer. Best I can tell, their intent seems to have been to show the kids what the southern whites were thinking at the time. And they appear to have quickly understood that they picked the wrong material to show that. True, some of the parents are unreconstructed assfaces who want to believe that slaves were happy assistants to benevolent plantation owners. No argument there. But the school seems to have had reasonable motives, just flubbed the execution.

There will always be questions science can't ask. That is the realm of religion.

never should we offend those obviously blameless decent Americans and "scientists" who just want to believe in Santa Claus and teach him as fact to their children and to the poor people in their community . . . that would be extremist or something.

Declaring the existence of something without evidence for it is not science.

So what's the algebraic proof for "God", Salvador? Please show all workings. Please include (if relevant) proof that your God is the same God that smoted Sodom & Gomorrah, etc.

Sal, may I point out that you began the argumentative phase of the discussion with a number of rude, sexist remarks? You probably don't remember them, because you edit your posts.

But my points still stand: you have not demonstrated that this simplistic rewording of the Kalaam Cosmological Argument is valid.

If you actually wish to discuss this, we could go have a mediated debate at IIDB. Or are you chicken? (Sorry, blog owners, couldn't resist).

But this board and this topic does not appear to be the place for unsupported statements about cosmology and God.

Salvador, if you would, in fact, like to discuss this "demonstration" (it appears inappropriate on this particular thread), I invite you to IIDB.

You have expressed considerable interest in the past in one on one debates untroubled by detractors; IIDB appears to offer an ideal mechanism for this, with strong moderation and no 'trolls.'

You probably don't remember them, because you edit your posts.

Science can't tell us whether a particular law is a good law or a bad one, whether a government policy or program is worth starting/maintaining/eliminating, etc. But religion surely informs any answer to all these questions, directly or indirectly

Do an Internet search for Jared Diamond's review of David Sloan Wilson in the NYRB - religion before agricultural consolidation in fact had nothing to do with morality, which was solely determined by kinship. Religion increased its role as a source of tribal mythology into a regulatory force once populations grew to the point where the traditional moral controls of tribal society were no longer feasible. Real morality needs to come from rational considerations (cost/benefit analysis) filtered through personal predispositions, and not tied into arbitrary superstitions or revealed commandments: which actually hurt ethics, because they replace reason with rules.

OK. It seems time to wrap this up. I waited for Salvador Cordova to make some last comment, and he did.

In the interim, there were some interesting and relevant comments from GWW regarding slavery apologists.

Thanks to all who contributed.