Is ID Unfairly Censored?

Posted 29 December 2004 by Steve Reuland

↗ The current version of this post is on the live site: https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/12/is-id-unfairly-1.html

On the heels of Hugh Hewitt’s foray into the wonderful world of ID, we have the redoubtable Phyllis Schafly, who weighs in with an amusing piece on Townhall.com. Anyone familiar with the evo/cre debate will instantly pick out several egregious errors that are inexcusable for anyone writing a serious piece about evolution. Let’s take a look and see how bad it gets…

Here’s how Schlafly begins…

The most censored speech in the United States today is not flag-burning, pornography or the press. The worst censors are those who prohibit classroom criticism of the theory of evolution.

A lot of people on the far-right fringe have a very difficult time understanding exactly what censorship means. It’s not that difficult really. Censorship means that the government says you can’t purchase or own certain media or that you can’t say certain things in public. It doesn’t mean, for example, that certain ideas are considered inappropriate for public school curricula. Schlafly, in an amazingly unoriginal move, makes the term “censorship” meaningless by applying it to something that it doesn’t apply to at all. No one has said that people are unable to advocate ID/creationism (as they might burn a flag) out in public. No one has denied anyone the right to own and read ID/creationist material in their homes (as they might do with pornography, which Schlafly favors censoring). And no one has banned ID advocates from publishing any dreck they wish, no matter how many blatant falsehoods it contains, including this piece right here written by Phyllis Schlafly. Instead, she’s defining “censorship” as meaning that ID/creationism can’t be taught in public school science classes as being science, or that creationists can’t insert their erroneous “criticisms” into the curriculum. Of course that’s not censorship, and to claim otherwise is not only inaccurate, it’s downright offensive to those who have been victims of real censorship throughout the ages.

Teaching creationism in science class, as everyone should know, was struck down by the Supreme Court because it was ruled to be a religious doctrine in the guise of science. ID, which is basically the same thing but with most of the testable claims stripped out, has yet to meet its day in court, but will likely suffer the same fate. Knowing this, the creationists have once again changed tactics: Claim that instead of trying to teach creationism, or God-free creationism (ID), the goal is to teach the “evidences against evolution”. But this is a dishonest shell game. Those criticisms that they proffer are simply creationist arguments intended to bolster support for creationism. This is an example of what’s called “reframing” the debate — changing around the terminology in order to slant perceptions in your favor. (Referring to censorship as “regulation”, as Schlafly does when she’s in favor of censoring things, is another example of framing.) We should never allow fake “criticisms” that have been rejected by scientists to be taught in science class for religious reasons; if the subject were astrology or Velikovskian catastrophism, Schlafly would presumably agree. But when it comes to creationism… why that’s censorship! By the same logic, opposing the teaching of Holocaust denial, UFOlogy, or whatever nutty nonsense one can come up with would also be censorship. We can reframe Holocaust denial by saying that we want to teach the evidence both for and against the Holocaust. Shouldn’t we teach the controversy about the Holocaust? Surely Schlafly doesn’t think that. Unless she believes that keeping these kinds of things out of school curricula is censorship, and thus wishes to allow proponents to stick them all in, then she’s being dishonest.

But the funniest part of Schlafly’s screed is the “criticisms” she thinks should be taught. We’ll get to those in a minute…

A Chinese scholar observed, “In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin.”

The “Chinese scholar” is unnamed. That’s not so surprising, because no one outside the original source knows his name. That source would happen to be Jonathan Wells, the guy who dedicated his life to “destroying Darwinism” at the behest of the Reverend Sun-Myung Moon, and who also won’t say who this guy was or why he thought it was reasonable to say what he said. Given that Wells is not exactly known for honesty, we’ll put this one in the “probably made up out of thin air” column.

Polls show that the vast majority of Americans reject the theory of evolution, as have great scientists such as William Thomas Kelvin and Louis Pasteur.

Kelvin and Pasteur were indeed great scientists. Over a hundred years ago. The argument from authority is weak to begin with, but goodness, couldn’t we at least find someone who lived after the Modern Synthesis? Maybe Schafly knew them personally, in which case she should have at least told us what they really thought about evolution. But that’s unlikely, because she screwed up William Thomson, Lord Kelvin’s name.

As for the “vast majority” of Americans rejecting evolution, she screwed that one up too. The latest Gallup poll, while not exactly encouraging, shows that about a third of Americans believe that evolution is well-supported, about a third believe that it isn’t, and about a third don’t know. So the people who reject evolution are not vast majority, they’re a minority.

But we’re still not to the good stuff yet…

The Darwinists have propped up their classroom dominance by the persistent use of frauds and flacks. The fraudulent pro-evolution embryo drawings of Ernst Haeckel littered schoolbooks for 100 years, and it took specific action by the Texas Board of Education to keep them out of current textbooks even after the New York Times exposed Haeckel’s deception.

This one is more confusing than wrong. It’s true that Ernst Haeckel’s embryo drawings were fudged and remained in textbooks presented as authoritative long after they should have. But the New York Times was the debunker? Come on. People had written about the problems with Haeckel for a very long time, most notably Stephen J. Gould back in 1977. And the Texas Board of Education was somehow keeping them out of textbooks? Where does she get this one? Maybe she’s thinking about the Discovery Institute’s attempt to amend the textbooks that the Texas Board of Education would adopt. That would make sense, except for the fact that the their attempt failed. The grain of truth here is that there were a couple of textbooks that replaced Haeckel’s drawings with pictures, but this had nothing to do with the Texas BOE. Of course pictures are just as good, because embryology thoroughly supports evolution, but you won’t read about that in Schlafly’s article.

Many textbooks feature pictures of giraffes stretching their necks to feed high off of trees, but genetics and observed feeding habits disprove that as a basis for evolution of their long necks.

Now we’re to the good stuff.

Phyllis Schlafly, who like many ideologues, operates with a pretense of absolute certainty about the correctness of her views, is completely clueless when it comes to the basics of evolutionary theory. Hint to Phyllis: had you actually read the textbooks you’re so sure are horribly flawed, you’d have found out that what you’re describing is Lamarckian evolution, which mainstream scientists have not believed in for a very long time. It is, in fact, completely at odds with the theory of evolution that Darwin came up with. One could forgive Schlafly for being unable to comprehend anything beyond the pictures, but textbooks frequently present the hypothetical giraffe example in order to contrast Lamarckian and Darwinian theories of evolution. Giraffes didn’t get long necks because their ancestors stretched them, they got them because long-necked ancestors were better at feeding, which meant they were better able to survive and reproduce, which meant that over time, the average neck size grew and grew some more. The point being, the Lamarckian version is wrong and fell out of favor a long, long time ago. I’ll bet Schlafly a billion dollars that not one single textbook currently in use actually presents the Lamarckian version as correct.

Moreover, the striking beauty of the colored pattern on the giraffes illustrates that design, not merely usefulness, is what animates our world.

This one’s just bizarre. Giraffes are indeed pretty (at least on the outside). Most living things aren’t. “Design”, according to most IDologists, can only be inferred when something is functional, not when it’s merely pretty according to our own subjective tastes. What the hell was she thinking?

Continued censorship of criticism invites additional fraud, so evolution has suffered more embarrassments than any other scientific theory.

That being the case, it would be trivial for her to make a long list of them. She follows up with one old and tired example (Piltdown man), and one ridiculous nothing, which together equal exactly one. Regardless, Schlafly is in no position to accuse others of making embarrassing mistakes.

The Piltdown man was a lie taught to schoolchildren for decades, even featured in the John Scopes Monkey Trial textbook…

I’m not going to go into details, but Piltdown Man was a hoax that was laid to rest in 1953, debunked not by creationists, but by evolutionary scientists. (Thankfully Lord Kelvin and Pasteur weren’t alive to suffer through it.) Since then, we’ve found an amazing wealth of genuine hominid fossils, which you won’t read about in Phyllis Schlafly’s article.

Oh, there is one minor detail worth mentioning. Piltdown man was not featured in the textbook used by Scopes. Whoops.

…and only five years ago a dinosaur-bird fossil hoax was presented as true on the glossy pages of National Geographic.

It’s true that National Geographic presented a dino-bird fossil, which was “discovered” by a Chinese farmer, that turned out to be fraudulent. National Geographic embarrassed itself largely because its editors were so excited that they didn’t allow for proper peer-review. (Thank God Townhall.com doesn’t have this problem.) The find wasn’t published in any peer-reviewed journal and was very quickly revealed to be a chimera cobbled together from two unrelated (not fake) fossils. More info here. It amounts to a whole lot of nothing. It does turn out though that we’ve discovered a wealth of genuine dino-bird fossils, but you won’t read about them in Phyllis Schlafly’s article.

If Darwinists want to teach that whales, which are mammals, evolved from black bears swimming with their mouths open, we should surely be entitled to criticize that.

And if creationists want to teach that Darwinists believe that whales evolved from bears, they will be teaching an utter falsehood. This is the problem with these so-called criticisms — they’re just plain wrong. No one believes that whales evolved from bears. The original idea came from Charles Darwin in his first edition of the Origin, but he removed it from future editions after receiving some well-deserved criticism. No one has seriously pushed the idea since. It was first suggested about 120 years ago that whales evolved from ancient ungulates, and while various ideas were batted back and forth since then, it was established about 40 years ago that dental morphology supported the ungulate hypothesis. Since then, this hypothesis has been strongly supported by a wealth of fossil and DNA evidence, which you won’t read about in Schlafly’s article. Ancient whales with legs are ironically some of the most spectacular transitional fossils we have.

I think we’re seeing a pattern here. Phyllis Schlafly hasn’t the foggiest notion what biologists actually think; she’s missed out on every meaningful discovery, every advancement in theory, and every important find for more than a century. She’s nearly 150 years behind on her whale evolution, and even further behind than that on her giraffe evolution. She is clearly speaking of things she knows nothing about. Can you imagine how many blog posts would come spewing forth from, oh say, Hugh Hewitt, if something equally as shoddy were published in the much maligned mainstream media?

What we have here is someone who is arguing that it’s “censorship” not to teach criticisms that are laughably wrong while omitting crucial information. Why should we let someone completely ignorant of evolution dictate how we teach it? We wouldn’t let someone who couldn’t count tell us how to teach math. And if such a person screamed censorship, we’d immediately call them an idiot.

The American Civil Liberties Union claims this is unconstitutional and is seeking out supremacist judges to order classroom curricula to continue the censorship and forbid an open mind about evolution.

Supremacist? I’ll leave that one to our resident legal commentators. Schlafly appears to have written a book with that title, basically demonstrating her contempt for our legal system because it dares disagree with her.

If the theory of evolution were well supported, there would be no reason to oppose open debate about scientific claims.

If ID/creationism were well-supported, its proponents would be able to convince actual scientists, and wouldn’t spend all their efforts trying to pitch their ideas to impressionable school children instead. According to scientific expert Phyllis Schlafly, the local gradeschool is apparently the appropriate place for “open debate” on the most advanced and pressing scientific issues of our time. (But the courtroom, of course, is not.) Never mind the debates that scientists have had for generations, and the conclusions they’ve already reached. Heaven forbid we teach school children about that.

Darwinists know they cannot persuade skeptical adults, so they try to capture impressionable schoolchildren.

Oh, the irony…

To typical schoolchildren full of wonder, we live in a world best described as a marvelous work of art. The snowflakes that grace us at Christmastime typify the artistic beauty that bestows joy on all ages but, like an acid, evolution corrodes this inborn appreciation of beauty and falsely trains children to view themselves as mere animals no more worthy than dogs or cats.

This is another one of those bizarre paragraphs that defies belief. Does Schlafly think that each individual snowflake was “designed” by the Intelligent Designer, or does she believe that natural processes were responsible (whether ultimately caused by God or not)? If it’s the latter, then gee, might it be that the natural workings of our world can produce wonder and amazement after all? (Which is, believe it or not, what drives most of us to study science in the first place.)

And who in their right mind would come up with the notion that children are taught to think of themselves as no more worthy than cats or dogs? Despite taking high school classes in biology, four years of an undergraduate biology degree, and lots of graduate level study, I somehow missed that lesson. Who could possibly think up such offensive nonsense? Oh, that’s right, a person who has utter contempt for honest discourse. A person like Phyllis Schlafly.

71 Comments

Nick (Matzke) · 29 December 2004

Epic take-down, Steve!

Timothy Sandefur · 29 December 2004

Wow. That's one of the best posts I think we've ever had. Great job.

Andrew Wyatt · 29 December 2004

Wow. What an ignorant harpy. That article is almost comical. It's like something an fundamentalist Christian elementary student would write. It would be summarily branded with an "F" by any teacher NOT in a fundamentalist Christian elementary school.

Great White Wonder · 29 December 2004

Excellent (if mightily disturbing) post, Steve!

We wouldn't let someone who couldn't count tell us how to teach math. And if such a person screamed censorship, we'd immediately call them an idiot.

You would and I would call them idiots, but I've come to learn that quite a few other people will argue that such persons are only expressing their understanding of the world in the only way that is consistent with that understanding. I am unpersuaded by these arguments, however, and continue to believe that genuine idiots actually exist!

One could forgive Schlafly for being unable to comprehend anything beyond the pictures, but textbooks frequently present the hypothetical giraffe example in order to contrast Lamarckian and Darwinian theories of evolution. Giraffes didn't get long necks because their ancestors stretched them, they got them because long-necked ancestors were better at feeding, which meant they were better able to survive and reproduce, which meant that over time, the average neck size grew and grew some more. The point being, the Lamarckian version is wrong and fell out of favor a long, long time ago.

This actually brings up another potential response to the creationist claims of "teaching the controversy" which is that biology teachers already do that with Lamarck's theory. Like Lamarck's theory, creationist theories to explain life on earth also fell out of favor among scientists a long long time ago. It would be possible, if time allowed, to compare and contrast Lamarck's theory and its fate with a creationist "theory" like "ID" to show how both are useless to scientists and why. Of course, the voodoo aspects of ID theory should be emphasized along with the sleazy means by which attempts were made to peddle the "theory" to the public. That might merit an additional footnote about Lysenkoism and the tragedy of mixing bad science and politics. I'm sure the ID peddlers will approve of this lesson plan. Ha!

Frank J · 29 December 2004

Schlafly has perhaps the silliest anti-evolution arguments among conservative commentators. But I find a bizarre irony in recent years. While science-literate conservatives still mainly accept evolution, the conservative media seems to be getting bolder at making themselves look ignorant of evolution and science. Maybe it's the high-pressure sales tactics of the ID activists. But as the commentators more boldly suggest that radical Islam is the "evil" religion, they conveniently forget that it is the religion that most solidly embraces creationist pseudoscience.

BTW, is there a length limit on comments? I would like to post my reply to an old Schlafly article, but it may be too long.

Steve · 29 December 2004

Global warming, Abortion-Breast-Cancer, evolution, pollution, sex ed--Conservatives are at odds with science. It's no surprise that the of the news channel websites, all have a science section but Fox.

Flint · 29 December 2004

Steve Reuland continues to labor under the delusion that since facts matter to him, facts matter to creationists. Even after he has painstakingly demonstrated exactly the opposite, he concludes that Schafly must be dishonest.

Sorry, but it's just not so. Facts are useful devices for establishing a scientific claim. When the purpose is to reinforce existing preferences, beliefs, and ignorance, facts are a waste of time. Steve probably thinks that cheating matters in war because Steve is honest, so he thinks cheating matters generally. But again, it's just not so. What matters is winning, and Schafly accomplishes this. She does so, because she understands her audience intimately, and Steve Reuland doesn't understand them at all.

Pete · 29 December 2004

If creationism were a movie, the title would be Lie Hard.

Great White Wonder · 29 December 2004

Flint, your attempts to redefine honesty to include willful ignorance are themselves dishonest, in my humble opinion, insofar as they require us to pretend that the term honesty has different meanings for evangelicals versus the rest of the universe. Frankly, your "insights" on creationist double-speak have never interested me much, although your motivations for excusing bad behavior do.

The terms "dishonesty" and "hypocracy" continue to have meaning, in spite of your attempts to "explain" to us why these terms don't apply to evangelicals.

Many months ago I explained to you very carefully why these terms apply to most evangelical creationist apologists with their tidy "worldviews" and I don't recall you refuting arguments then or subsequently.

I believe that Steve Reuland understands his audience at least as intimately as Schafly understands hers. Do you?

Pete · 29 December 2004

GWW, Flint, no use arguing. GWW, you don't understand Flint. Maybe his point has something to do with Demonic possession, maybe not. You & Flint agree that Schafly is playing her audience quite well. That's enough.

Modesitt · 29 December 2004

The Supreme Court insisted that individual Internet users should buy filters to block the vulgarity. Should those who dislike air pollution be told to buy gas masks?"
—

The irony of this statement is overwhelming, considering that elsewhere she's quite critical of Kyoto and other environmental initiatives. That last link is particularily entertaining as she spends about a quarter of that article bemoaning the fact that teachers are "brainwashing" children with environmental politics. But the real winner here is this one, where she declares "The Kyoto Protocol has taught us a new definition of Political Science: the politics of science. Science has been politicized by scientists who distort science for political purposes." She's a fairly radical 'libertarian' of sorts that opposes any government intervention in how she raises her children and what she chooses to teach them except when the government agrees with her. Creationism, no vaccines, etc. Coupled with her strong xenophobic streak and belief that a womans place is in the kitchen, she's practically a living time capsule back to another time and place.

Keanus · 29 December 2004

Steve Reuland mused...

Maybe Schafly knew them [Kelvin and Pasteur] personally, in which case she should have at least told us what they really thought about evolution. But that's unlikely, because she screwed up William Thomson, Lord Kelvin's name... She's nearly 150 years behind on her whale evolution, and even further behind than that on her giraffe evolution.

She is positively antideluvian---if you all will accept such religious description. She may well have known Kelvin and Pasteur personally since she's been around an awful long time. About 1960 Schlafly penned a breezy book, about 150 pages or so, entitled "A Choice not an Echo", promoting Barry Goldwater for president. It was as well written and as factually based as this little essay. She's been preaching to the same choir for close to half a century! Oh, I should add that I take offense at her conflating Lord Kelvin's name and title. You see my given name is Kelvin, chosen by my dad, a low temperature physicist. I don't like to see the name trifled with.

Great White Wonder · 29 December 2004

Continued censorship of criticism invites additional fraud, so evolution has suffered more embarrassments than any other scientific theory.

But science hasn't suffered nearly as many embarassments as religion has from the legions of cross-wielding charlatans who rip people off every day by preying on the willingness of others to believe whatever is fed to them by their "brothers." I'm sure it will take years for Christianity to recover from the discovery that many of their crucial artefacts are fake ... http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/29/israel.antiquities.ap/index.html

Museums warned on Bible-era relics Israel says important artifacts may be forged JERUSALEM (AP) -- Experts advised world museums to re-examine their Bible-era relics after Israel indicted four collectors and dealers on charges of forging some of the most important artifacts of recent decades. The indictments issued Wednesday labeled as fakes perhaps the two biggest biblical discoveries in the Holy Land -- the purported burial box of Jesus' brother James and a stone tablet with written instructions by King Yoash on maintenance work at the Jewish Temple -- and many other "finds." The forgers "were trying to change history," said Shuka Dorfman, head of the Israel Antiquities Authority. The forgery ring has been operating for more than 20 years, Dorfman said.

Flint · 29 December 2004

Pete: Yes, you're very close to what I was trying to say. Unlike GWW, I don't see Schafly as being 'wilfully ignorant', at least not in the same way he does. For Schafly and her audience, what matters is intent and not content. If your heart is in the right place, then God is on your side, and the technical details don't much matter, except insofar as some can be presented (correct or incorrect, who cares?) as sonic reinforcement, soothing phrases, and symbols of the desired reality. What GWW can never really understand is that honesty is a technique, to be applied when and if effective in achieving the goal. And while GWW's goal is an accurate understanding of reality on the part of everyone, Schafly's goal is to save immortal souls by bringing them to Jesus. Both of these goals require persuasion, and for GWW's goal honesty is a necessary persuasive tactic. For Schafly's goal, it is almost surely a tactical blunder in the overall strategy of telling her audience what they want to hear. She doesn't require knowledge, but merely sincerity and clear intent and the 'right' worldview.

But science hasn't suffered nearly as many embarassments as religion has from the legions of cross-wielding charlatans

So what? Schafly's point wasnt that evolution has suffered any embarrassments, it was that her target audience wishes to hear that it has. Evolution has been a 'theory in crisis' for a century and a half not because it has, but because this is what the Schafly types wish to believe. Christianity 'used to mean a moral country' not because it ever did, but because her audience wants to believe this. In the advertising world, this is known as "puffery" (like saying "Our food tastes the very best") and is not considered dishonest or illegal. Again, the goal isn't that Schafly's audience be informed, but rather that it be unified. It is unified by confecting a congenial reality, and then repeating until done.

~DS~ · 29 December 2004

Yeah that was a pretty sweet read Steve. TY.

Jeremy Mohn · 29 December 2004

Giraffes didn't get long necks because their ancestors stretched them, they got them because long-necked ancestors were better at feeding, which meant they were better able to survive and reproduce, which meant that over time, the average neck size grew and grew some more.
— Steve Reuland

Actually, hasn't this explanation been augmented with a sexual selection theory of male "necking" competition? Male giraffes with longer necks are more likely to "win" the competitions and therefore more likely to pass on their long-neck traits to the next generation of giraffes. That's how I understand it. After reading Schlafly's piece, I'm wondering whether she is referring to this change in thinking about giraffe neck evolution, and not Lamarckian theory. If she is, she still failed to explain that there is an alternative evolutionary explanation. Either way, she's totally clueless about evolution. Thanks for the post, Steve.

Rafael · 29 December 2004

Great job, Steve. Ironically, I'm from Brazil, an underdeveloped country where in all but one state these ID claims have been laughed at. Still, at the power core of the friggin' World, people are adressing century-old problems.

It seems as Creationists/ID defenders have a second bible, "How to criticize evolution in ten wrong arguments". Everywhere I go, it's the same load of nonsense, as you perfectly outlined here. Great to see people like you and others at panda's thumb in our frontline!

Bryson Brown · 29 December 2004

This is a nice little evisceration-- but, since that description is metaphorical, it may not really have the intended effect. Part of the strategy with Schafly and Hewitt and quite a healthy number of ID defenders in general is poisoning the well. It's a great rhetorical tactic if you can bring it off-- it both intensifies your own discourse, and it innoculates those who are already inclined to believe you against any arguments on the other side.

The downside is that it galvanizes the other side, and it may drive away potential sympathizers who are repelled by extremism, character assasination, etc. The strategy is clearly working for them with a certain audience-- but I'm feeling pretty galvanized. Perhaps getting it onto a wider stage, together with a vigourous but sober (lo, how am I beset!?) response would help. The Post article Hewitt complains about is a bit of a start-- maybe they just need to be (subtly but thorougly) Menkened again...(And there could be some fun in that!)

Steve Reuland · 29 December 2004

Actually, hasn't this explanation been augmented with a sexual selection theory of male "necking" competition? Male giraffes with longer necks are more likely to "win" the competitions and therefore more likely to pass on their long-neck traits to the next generation of giraffes. That's how I understand it.
— Jeremy Mohn

:Shrug: Could be, for all I know. I do think there's little doubt that reaching a food source that's otherwise unavailable is large part of it, but sexual selection could certainly exaggerate the trait, as it does with lots of things. Either way, the point of illustrating the giraffe's neck in most textbooks is to contrast Darwin's theory of natural selection with Larmarck's theory of aquired characteristics (though Lamarck didn't come up with it, it was widely believe at the time).

After reading Schlafly's piece, I'm wondering whether she is referring to this change in thinking about giraffe neck evolution, and not Lamarckian theory.

I don't think this is the case. She specifically referred to "stretching" the neck as the basis for their evolution. Besides, we can be confident, given what else she wrote, that complexities like sexual selection are far beyond her education on the subject. :) By the way, thanks everyone for the kind words!

Jeremy Mohn · 29 December 2004

Besides, we can be confident, given what else she wrote, that complexities like sexual selection are far beyond her education on the subject. :)
— Steve Reuland

Yeah, you're probably right. I guess I was just trying to give the poor lady the benefit of the doubt, though she obviously doesn't deserve it. :)

Steve Reuland · 29 December 2004

The downside is that it galvanizes the other side, and it may drive away potential sympathizers who are repelled by extremism, character assasination, etc. The strategy is clearly working for them with a certain audience--- but I'm feeling pretty galvanized.
— Bryson Brown

Yeah, that's pretty much the way it was with me. I would have been happy to ignore creationists, but I got sick and angry at the steady stream of vitriol, lies, smears, hypocrisy, demagoguery, etc. I just can't help but respond, even though my time could doubtlessly be better spent doing other things.

Steve Reuland · 29 December 2004

BTW, is there a length limit on comments? I would like to post my reply to an old Schlafly article, but it may be too long.
— Frank J

I don't know. Try posting it and see what happens. If it doesn't work, email it to me and I'll see what I can do.

Steve Reuland · 29 December 2004

Steve Reuland continues to labor under the delusion that since facts matter to him, facts matter to creationists. Even after he has painstakingly demonstrated exactly the opposite, he concludes that Schafly must be dishonest.
— Flint

Call it dishonesty, call it a complete disinterest in the truth, either way, it doesn't matter much to me. I don't know much about the psychological underpinnings of people like Schlafly (though it would be fascinating to learn about). Whether they are consceintiously dishonest, or are simply unable to recognize that facts matter in public discourse, I believe they suffer from a severe moral failing.

Andy · 29 December 2004

If you search http://groups.google.com for Schlafly and evolution, you will get some of her sons' creationist mouth drool. Now I know where they got it from. Sad.

Bucky · 30 December 2004

Flint's the first voice I've heard get past the smug superiority of the science side in this debate. What he says is right and it urgently needs repeating.
The educational system, from before the onset of rational ability in children, reinforces the idea that the wrong answer is always dysfunctional. Just like consensus morality is underpinned by the idea that immorality is dysfunctional. Neither of those truisms hold any water at all as general rules. They're locally accurate, just like having green scales is beneficial, for a reptile that lives where it's green.
Immoral people with their heads up their lower G.I. tracts run this world.
Obviously a dedication to truth and a moral character aren't always guarantors of success, and just as obviously they often decrease the likelihood of survival. Over time they're what makes the human species what it is, and over time they'll make it possible for us to survive, but mutancy can change that. And the mutants won't see it as a loss.
That sense of inevitability is a holdover from the very superstitions most of you deride. Nothing's inevitable, or it all is.
It would be nice if truth, and a dedication to it, gave us an automatic win, but it doesn't. And what Shclafly and so many others are doing is consolidating, gathering up the collective social power of those who would otherwise be marginalized in a more rigorously truthful world.
Evolutionary traits that are superior in every way still don't guarantee survival. And a bunch of dim-witted credulous nasty brutes all ganged up have just as much a shot at being the core of the human race as any other group does. Including rigorously honest, morally upright compassionate men and women with integrity and self-discipline.
It _is_ about winning. That's the very lesson of Darwin in the first place. And you guys run from it as much as the "creationists" do.
Their sense of election comes from spiritual mumbo-jumbo, yours from Cartesian logic and at least a superficial intellectual honesty. Both camps have a sense of entitlement that has no bearing, no foundation in the reality of biological competition.
The Darwinian victory's going to whoever wins the contest for survival, no matter who it is, and no matter how they do it.

Bartholomew · 30 December 2004

Sorry to butt in, but would any of you scientist types like to help a lay-person take on a bunch of Christian Reconstructionists? They're all fawning over Gary North's latest piece on Creationism and elitist-Darwinists over at "Business Reform" (a Christian magazine affiliated with WND). Here's the link to the discussion forum.

Cheers.

Clifford Dubery · 30 December 2004

What an excellent article. I was so critical of Schafly's townhall.com article that I bloged my respose and sent it to talk.origins as well. I was quickly advised about her, having never in the past come across her. Being in Australia, I find this conflict in Dover and elsewhere a concern for such a great nation as the US. I grew up with the US Apollo program, and was awed by the developments and future efforts. To think such nonsense is growing in the US makes me think perhaps the scientific excellence in the US is going to slowly ebb away.

I know of knowhere else in teh world that has this problem.

Keep up the good work

Clifford Dubery · 30 December 2004

I know of knowhere else in the world that has this problem.

Keep up the good work

Craig T · 30 December 2004

It's interesting that if science textbooks don't incorporate fringe science that hasn't gone through peer review it's censorship to conservatives, but if they see any change in how their history book read 50 years ago it's revisionism. We could probably find as many historians willing to say that Lincoln was gay as research scientists that support ID. (And they have better arguments!) I also think Phyllis needs to test her opening proposal. Get a teacher to burn a flag in their classroom and then talk about ID; let's see what gets them into more trouble.

mark · 30 December 2004

This just reinforces my notion that Phyllis Schafly is a fictitous caricature created by left-wing extremists to bring mockery and derision to those on the right. Nobody can possibly be so ignorant, foolish, and mentally incapacitated to really say the crap she does. Well, except maybe my junior Senator.

Dr. Fill of the Phuture · 30 December 2004

Fillus's Clownhall screed phondly reminds me of another one of her phorays into the wild wacky world of genetix. Seems to my trusty dusty memory banks Fillus briefly flirted with homosexuality being inherited after her son was outted back in the 80s or 90s. After all, her parenting techniques couldn't be the blame, could it? That didn't set too well with her Sugar Daddies and Sugar Mamas. Fillus got back on the fundy reservation post haste. Never did hear how she ever rationalized her son's gayness.

Steve · 30 December 2004

Funny idea Craig T, to try to poison the well against them. How about pomo as the 'useful idiot':

"Darwinism as Patriarchal White Eurocentric Power Discourse: Problematizing the Canonical Narratives."

Ed Darrell · 30 December 2004

Gary North is a wacko, which would be comic but for the malevolent bent "reconstructionism" has inherent in its screeds.

We would have called them anarchists in a bygone era. Gary North and the modern anarchists are more dangerous than Sacco and Vanzetti ever could have been, had they been guilty. The modern reconstructionists won't get caught doing murders.

Should we be surprised that Gary North is opposed to evolution and public schooling? Evolution theory, applied, brings medical miracles and makes mock of racism. Public schooling has made this nation the longest-lived republic, the strongest economic power in the world, and the most safe home for any faith. I suspect each of those things is opposed by North, were he to confess.

Has anyone found any certified reconstructionist urging aid to any of the victims of the Indian Ocean tsunamis?

Randy Crum · 30 December 2004

Great post on Phyllis Schafly.

Ironically she has made this comment in various places on the Internet:

'The "No Child Left Behind" bill signed by President Bush on Jan. 8 includes a science requirement that focuses on "the data and testable theories of science."'

Of course Intelligent Design is not testable. Most ID advocates concede that. This quotation thereby endorses the idea that ID should NOT be taught in our science classrooms.

Of course that may be too complex of an idea for Ms. Schafly.

Arne Langsetmo · 30 December 2004

I find it amusing that Schlafly is defending Fred Hoyle from the "censorship" of his work. Does she really want the unfairly maligned theories of Fred Hoyle on directed panspermia taught to the little tykes? Careful what you ask for, Phyllis, you may just get it. LOL. . . .

Cheers,

Steve Reuland · 30 December 2004

Yeah, it's not clear what Schlafly thinks Hoyle should have been awarded a Nobel prize for. Scientifically, he's most well-known for criticizing Big-Bang cosmology (he actually coined the term, intending it to be derrogatory), and preferring steady-state theory instead. That puts his views on cosmology even further away from the cre/ID crowd than mainstream cosmologists.

I was going to slam Phact-Phfree Phyllis for this one too, but there's only so much time in a day...

Steve F · 30 December 2004

I thought no one single column could be so amusing......until I read a few more on Townhall.com!

This classic from Ann Coluter caused most guffaws:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20041230.shtml

I knew she was mad, now it appears she's madly in love! Let the panty wetting commence.......

"Tillman was an American original: virtuous, pure and masculine like only an American male can be."

E. Volved · 30 December 2004

It's always amazed me that people have no problem believing that an infinately intelligent God just happened and created all this stuff out of nothing but can't believe all this stuff just happened and on one of the billions and billions of planets a semi-intellegent beings slowly evolved after millions of years. Maybe humans are not as evolved as we'd like think! How many years did it take for the church to say it was ok to believe the earth wasn't the center of the universe?

Matt Inlay · 30 December 2004

Excellent blog, Steve! That should make the top ten list, if we had one.

Nick (Matzke) · 30 December 2004

By popular acclaim, I have added this post to the recently-neglected Panda's Thumb Hall of Fame on EvoWiki.

Steve · 30 December 2004

Ann Coulter fawning over Pat Tillman? Apparently nobody told her Tillman was an atheist.

Jason Malloy · 31 December 2004

In my opinion, taking down idiots needs to seriously be reconsidered as a form of high art. Someone needs to hang this one up in the louvre. :)

Frank J · 31 December 2004

As promised, here's my reply to Phyllis Schlafly's March 22, 2004 Townhall.com article, entitled: "Ohio Lesson Plan Pleases Conservatives, Irks Apostles of Darwin" The title alone is misleading. The lesson plan does not please most conservatives who are aware of its content. The "apostles of Darwin" in fact includes virtually all scientists, roughly half of whom are politically conservative, as well as the officials of most major religions . The lesson plan will not change that. Nevertheless, it is bad for education, and should be discarded.

"Why is it important for scientists to critically analyze evolution?" That's the first question in the "student reflection" portion of a controversial 22-page section called "Critical Analysis of Evolution," which is now part of Ohio's 547-page public school science curriculum. How could anybody object to such an innocuous question?
— Phyllis Schlafly

Because the Ohio lesson plan is not a critical analysis, but a cleverly disguised misrepresentation that exploits students' prior misunderstandings. Besides, scientists critically analyze evolution every day; evolution could not be validated without it. Students are free to critically analyze evolution too, by observing the results if not by producing them. They are also free to critically analyze cancer research too, but that does not mean that they have a better anti-cancer treatment than experts who have researched it in depth.

Newspapers report a steady stream of news that scientists are questioning such dogmas as good cholesterol vs. bad cholesterol, vaccine links to autism, the causes of breast cancer, even fluoridation for children's teeth. Isn't the nature of science to question assertions and seek the proof from evidence?
— Phyllis Schlafly

Yes, so why are the Ohio activists not addressing these issues, but singling out evolution? And why are they not advocating a "critical analysis" of proposed alternatives to evolution?

On Feb. 10, the Ohio State Board of Education approved the new curriculum by a vote of 13-5 after being persuaded by 22 Ohio scientists that the lesson plan promotes academic freedom and that it is good for students in 10th grade to have an inquiring mind about evolution. "Are we about teaching students how to think, or what to think?" asked one parent supporter of the lesson plan.
— Phyllis Schlafly

How to think, and what to know. Should there be a "critical analysis" of whether George Washington was our first president?

And it's optional; no teacher will be required to teach criticisms of evolution, and no students will be tested on the criticisms. So what's the big deal?
— Phyllis Schlafly

The big deal is that the pseudoscientific misrepresentations in the lesson plan belong in a class other than biology, and they don't belong anywhere without "equal time" for the rebuttals to them. Note that a true critical analysis is appropriate for biology class. Such an analysis does not take things out of context or use nonstandard, misleading terminology as the lesson plan does. A true critical analysis in fact would cause more students to accept evolution, which is why anti-evolution activists want no such thing.

To some people, it's a very big deal. The American Civil Liberties Union is threatening a lawsuit.
— Phyllis Schlafly

And many of us who disagree with the ACLU on virtually everything else have no choice but to support them on this issue.

Case Western Reserve University lecturer Patricia Princehouse - whose academic position is philosophy, not science - led the opposition to the new lesson. "It's sad day for science in Ohio," she said.
— Phyllis Schlafly

Nonscientists who know some science object to the lesson plan, but so does nearly every scientist familiar with it. As Dr. Laura Schlessinger, who has publicly defended evolution, would say, Mrs. Schlafly, "And your point is?"

Another nonscientist, Florida State University law professor Steven Gey, flew in to warn Ohio residents that the lesson is unconstitutional and would almost certainly be struck down if it reached the U.S. Supreme Court. Maybe he is seeking an activist judge to rule that the Constitution prohibits allowing students to question anything in science class.
— Phyllis Schlafly

Your point is that you want the casual reader to think that opponents of the lesson plan are mostly left-wing extremists and nonscientists. I think that you are well aware that even if Gey did seek that absurd outcome, the vast majority of opponents of the lesson plan would not.

Gey's notions of constitutionality are unusual.
— Phyllis Schlafly

Even among opponents of the lesson plan. But you obviously don't want the casual reader to know that.

He thinks that "moral relativism" is a "constitutional command," that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, and that nude sunbathing should be given "constitutional protection."
— Phyllis Schlafly

That pathetic non-sequitur doesn't even deserve a comment.

There is nothing religious about creationism, or even about intelligent design, in the new Ohio standards.
— Phyllis Schlafly

But the mutually contradictory creationisms, the "intelligent design" strategy, and the lesson plan all misrepresent evolution. The problem is not that they promote religion, but that they caricaturize religion as much as they caricaturize science. Which is why religious scientists tend to object to them even more strongly than non-religious ones.

What is controversial is giving students the opportunity to question evolution; it's the inquiry-and-debate aspect that some people find so threatening.
— Phyllis Schlafly

To reiterate, students are already allowed to question evolution, because they all have access, home or school, to the Talk Origins Archive. The TOA is the only website that easily links to all the pseudoscientific arguments against evolution, as well as the healthy scientific debates. And it does not pretend that the two are the same. The sites that promote alternative positions, however, usually ignore contradictory anti-evolution positions, and do not easily link to mainstream science sites. The early draft of the lesson plan that included web links in fact did not include the only one that is both truly critical and free of censorship. Why is that?

The new lesson encourages students to consider both supporting and "challenging" evidence for evolution. The challenges to the theory are understated and are backed up with facts.
— Phyllis Schlafly

But if those "understated and backed up" challenges are examined in context, and the lesson plan takes pains to assure that they are not, they in fact support the general theory of evolution, as well as the fact of common descent. But the fact that the lesson plan doesn't even hint at what potential alternative theory these challenges might support should raise a red flag. The newer generation of professional anti-evolutionists, which promotes the "intelligent design" (ID) strategy, is well aware that all of the mutually contradictory creationist alternatives are scientific failures. Because these alternatives are not identified in the lesson plan, students will not critically analyze them. But by planting unwarranted "doubts about evolution" in student's minds, the lesson plan guarantees that some students will wrongly infer one of the alternatives -- without much chance of a debate between the alternatives, such as the various young-earth and old-earth varieties. This is supposed to be "critical analysis?"

For example, the lesson says that the fossil record supports evolution with its increasing complexity of living forms. But the lesson also observes that "transitional fossils are rare in the fossil record" and "a growing number of scientists now question that ... transitional fossils really are transitional forms."
— Phyllis Schlafly

This long-refuted misrepresentation confuses two senses of the word "transitional," and if unchallenged, would jeopardize the students understanding of evolution. . No scientist denies that the evidence completely supports common descent. You undoubtedly know, but neglect to mention here, that even some of the anti-evolution activists who support the plan have publicly admitted common descent. And who knows how many others accept it in private.

The lesson notes that some changes in species occur quickly in the fossil record relative to longer stretches that manifest no change.
— Phyllis Schlafly

The "punctuated equilibrium," issue has been long resolved in favor of evolution. Some observed morphological changes are 1000s of times faster than need be to appear "instantaneous" in the fossil record. Does the lesson plan address that? If not, one wonders what else it is trying to hide.

The new lesson plan presents the overused English peppered moth story found in most textbooks, which teaches that black moths survived because they rested on trees blackened by soot, while white moths were eaten by the birds. The lesson points out that "peppered moths do not actually rest on tree trunks," and that "no new species emerged" as evolutionists have long implied was the result of the soot.
— Phyllis Schlafly

That is another blatant misrepresentation that has been thoroughly answered. The experiments were not meant to show "species emerging" - other studies do that nicely - but only to demonstrate natural selection, which it does whether or not the moths rest on tree trunks. Many other studies do so too. That scientists sometimes make mistakes and take shortcuts does not weaken the conclusions one bit. But most students have been misled otherwise, and the lesson plan only reinforces this misconception.

The new lesson plan invites students to take a fresh look at evolutionary claims of common ancestry. The lesson observes that different genes and development have created similar anatomical structures, suggesting different ancestries.
— Phyllis Schlafly

But nevertheless ancestries. Besides, the coarse structure of the "tree of life" remains robust even if a few twigs need to be switched now and them. The conclusion that humans are related to other species, however, remains strongly supported by evidence, and would remain so even in the unlikely event that the Cambrian explosion (one of the last remaining attempts to "refute" common ancestry) is better explained by an independent origins model. To misrepresent this and let students infer that scientists doubt common ancestry is unconscionable: As I mentioned, even some anti-evolutionists are publicly conceding common ancestry.

Can it be that this kind of balanced information is so dangerous for high school students to hear that it must be censored from textbooks?
— Phyllis Schlafly

Clearly the lesson plan's information is anything but "balanced." And though it is counterintuitive to most people, it is the plan's advocates, not its critics, who promote censorship. Omitting misrepresentations from textbooks is not censorship, especially since those misrepresentations are already accessible.

Or that it rises to the level of a Supreme Court case where judges might declare it unconstitutional?
— Phyllis Schlafly

If the lesson plan, however indirectly, promotes unscientific alternatives, which were found unconstitutional by Edwards vs. Aguillard, it too will be declared unconstitutional, and rightly so. But even if it doesn't, local laws may be passed to prevent the misrepresentation. And even if some schools do get away with it, the "natural selection" of college admissions and job offers will weed out science majors who are as clueless of evolution as you are (or pretend to be).

Diehard evolutionists have enjoyed censorship of any criticism of their beliefs for 100 years, and they won't willingly give up their academic turf.
— Phyllis Schlafly

The real criticisms are not censored, if anyone bothers to read the technical literature. But students are not likely to do that. What students may see, however, are the well-publicized quotes from scientists that have been "mined" by anti-evolutionists. It should be no surprise that these scientists have severely criticized those who quoted them out of context. . What are the odds that students will hear the scientists' rebuttals. Tell us again, Mrs. Schlafly, who you think is advocating censorship.

Their censorship demands became so irrational that Rich Baker, the Ohio board's vice president, called them "a bunch of paranoid, egotistical scientists afraid of people finding out (they) don't know anything."
— Phyllis Schlafly

That obnoxious quote should make it obvious that the passion of the lesson plan advocates is not motivated by religion, but by rabid anti-science that is typical of political extremists. And that it exploits the public's dislike of science and fascination with pseudoscience and superstition makes it that much worse.

Ohio has become the cutting edge in the long-running evolution debate. Georgia, New Mexico, Minnesota, West Virginia and Kansas have all wrestled with science standards and curricula on evolution in recent years.
— Phyllis Schlafly

And science has triumphed or will triumph in each case.

The Alabama Senate Education Committee last week approved the "Academic Freedom Act," which says that no teacher or professor in public schools or universities may be fired, denied tenure or otherwise discriminated against for presenting "alternative theories" to evolution.
— Phyllis Schlafly

Because there aren't any. None that were proposed has survived a real "critical analysis." BTW, which do you prefer, the Ohio strategy that avoids "alternatives," or the Alabama one that does not? Since you claim to oppose censorship, why are you not objecting to the fact that most anti-evolution legislation conveniently omits critical analysis of the proposed alternatives?

The bill would also prohibit any student from being penalized because he held "a particular position on biological or physical origins" so long as the student demonstrated "acceptable understanding of course materials," which include evolution.
— Phyllis Schlafly

In fact, one of the major organizations that opposes the lesson plan, the National Academy of Sciences, in its publication "Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science" emphasizes that understanding, not belief, is what must be demonstrated. But not only will the casual reader not know that, most will infer exactly the opposite. So much for "balanced and accurate reporting."

Jon H · 31 December 2004

"I'll bet Schlafly a billion dollars that not one single textbook currently in use actually presents the Lamarckian version as correct. "

Careful!

There probably *is* a Creationist textbook that does exactly that...

steve · 31 December 2004

A few hours ago I emailed Schlafly a link to this criticism. Probably nothing will come of it, but it could result in something funny, like when George Gilder showed up on Pharyngula and started ranting and raving.

Steve Reuland · 31 December 2004

"I'll bet Schlafly a billion dollars that not one single textbook currently in use actually presents the Lamarckian version as correct." Careful! There probably *is* a Creationist textbook that does exactly that . . .
— Jon H

I don't think you'll find any creationist text that says Lamarckian evolution is right. Their belief is that no form of evolution is right, and that the "giraffe kind" was created with a long neck so that it could better eat the "tree kind". But even if a creationist textbook were dumb enough to use Larmarck to explain "microevolution", it wouldn't be "currently in use" in public school science classes. (Private creationist schools don't count; Schlafly can dictate to them all she wants.) So my billion dollars is perfectly safe and earning interest.

Steve Reuland · 31 December 2004

"I'll bet Schlafly a billion dollars that not one single textbook currently in use actually presents the Lamarckian version as correct." Careful! There probably *is* a Creationist textbook that does exactly that . . .
— Jon H

Frank J · 31 December 2004

A few hours ago I emailed Schlafly a link to this criticism.
— steve

I have written to her twice, and at least a dozen more times to commentators who wrote anti-evolution articles. She has not yet written back, but about 4-5 of the others have. The best response I got was a promise to read the references. The worst was the "you weren't there" nonsense, but most simply tuned out my main points and tried to sell me on the "bait and switch" sound bites that they probably just learned by rote. My growing suspicion is that Schlafly's creationist son composes her anti-evolution articles.

Alan King · 31 December 2004

A great work, real work of art. Love the comments, it is encouraging to think that after Nov 2nd, maybe I will not have to move to New Zealand afterall (unless you are all posting from New Zealand!). The religous right, alas, WILL pick the next supreme court justice(s) and will reverse Rowe v. Wade, the God Idiots have united and we need to fight back....

Les Lane · 31 December 2004

In science we avoid expounding at length on topics on which we are incompetent. Apparently not all see this as a virtue.

Alan King · 31 December 2004

Wesley R. Elsberry · 2 January 2005

A couple of quibbles...

And if creationists want to teach that Darwinists believe that whales evolved from bears, they will be teaching an utter falsehood. This is the problem with these so-called criticisms --- they're just plain wrong. No one believes that whales evolved from bears. The original idea came from Charles Darwin in his first edition of the Origin, but he removed it from future editions after receiving some well-deserved criticism.
— Steve Reuland

Darwin did not propose that bears were the ancestors of whales at any time whatsoever. The much-maligned passage simply stated that Darwin would not see a problem with some lineage of bears evolving into a large aquatic form as "monstrous as a whale". It was a comparison, not a statement of lineage. Piltdown man was mentioned in the Scopes trial, since it was in a couple of the statements from experts that were read into the record. However, it was treated as a relatively minor bit of evidence, with some misgivings indicative of its anomalous character. Not bad, overall, for what was known in 1925. http://www.antievolution.org/topics/law/scopes/scopes.html

Steve Reuland · 2 January 2005

Darwin did not propose that bears were the ancestors of whales at any time whatsoever. The much-maligned passage simply stated that Darwin would not see a problem with some lineage of bears evolving into a large aquatic form as "monstrous as a whale". It was a comparison, not a statement of lineage.
— Wesley Elsberry

Thanks for the clarification. I was basing this on Raymond Sutera's article on whale evolution, in which he states that Darwin did indeed suggest that whales evolved from bears, and then later retracted it. You might want to let Sutera know that this is techincally incorrect. Of course it also means that Sclafly's article is even more incorrect.

Piltdown man was mentioned in the Scopes trial, since it was in a couple of the statements from experts that were read into the record. However, it was treated as a relatively minor bit of evidence, with some misgivings indicative of its anomalous character. Not bad, overall, for what was known in 1925.

Right, but Schlafly specifically says the Scopes textbook, which I take to mean the textbook that John Scopes taught out of. Assumng the online scans of the book are not incomplete, there was no mention of Piltdown in the textbook. It's possible that Schlafly is referring to something else, but that would make her a terrible writer.

Engineer-Poet · 3 January 2005

Coming to this a bit late, but I had to comment on this:

Whether they are consceintiously dishonest, or are simply unable to recognize that facts matter in public discourse, I believe they suffer from a severe moral failing.
— Steve Reuland

There's a good angle to use against the IDers: nail them for the inherent immorality of lying, thus discrediting them with the "moral values" crowd from which they draw much support. (Is it too much trouble to ask Moveable Type to STOP censoring yahoo email addresses for their own sake? I mean, really. This has gone on long enough.)

Great White Wonder · 3 January 2005

Here's a snippet from a recent article about a group of egregious Liars for Jesus. I've posted about this matter before but the "efficacy of anonymous third party prayer" garbage is right up there with creationism in all its guises. WAKE UP SCIENTISTS. It's time to clean house. https://registration.mercurynews.com/reg/login.do?url=http://www.mercurynews.com%2Fmld%2Fmercurynews%2Fliving%2Fhealth%2F10553703.htm requires subscription ...

Skeptics have called it the "Miracle Study" -- findings by scientists that simple prayers could dramatically boost fertility in women. Published in a respected medical journal by a Capitola researcher, a department head at Columbia University and a Korean scientist also based at Columbia, it immediately attracted the attention of the news media, religious groups and couples desperately trying to conceive. "Women who were prayed for became pregnant twice as often as those who did not have people praying for them," trumpeted the New York Times in 2001. Other media, including the Mercury News, picked up the story. But now, three years after the study first suggested that a higher power could influence pregnancy rates, critics are calling it all a sham, a black eye to the research community and proof that medical studies aren't always what they appear to be. Many in the medical field are saying that the only miracle about the study is that it was published to begin with. They wonder if the research was ever conducted at all. As the controversy rages, the Bay Area researcher is en route to a California prison camp on an unrelated fraud conviction. The second scientist recently took his name off the study. The third quietly left Columbia. The government conducted its own investigation and determined the study violated federal research guidelines.

DaveScot · 3 January 2005

A word to the wise...

Calling people like Schafly ignorant and proving it in excruciating detail is not a good way to make friends and influence people. Given that approximately 80% of the U.S. professes a belief in the God of Abraham you aren't going to win by insulting their intelligence, even if the insults are true. It just makes the targets of ridicule tune you out except to vote against you in revenge whenever they have the opportunity.

That tactic cost the political left the presidency, both houses of congress, and (likely) the superior court. I suggest getting a new schtick because although I'm on the political right I don't relish the thought of having a one-party system, which is where we're headed if y'all keep on dissing religious folks.

Great White Wonder · 3 January 2005

Little David Scot Towellette writes

That tactic cost the political left the presidency, both houses of congress, and (likely) the superior court. I suggest getting a new schtick because although I'm on the political right I don't relish the thought of having a one-party system, which is where we're headed if y'all keep on dissing religious folks.

Um, sadly you are mistaken. It's the pathetic FAILURE of our media and the self-appointed representatives of non-fundy political groups (i.e., "liberal pundits") to relentlessly, loudly and publicly criticize so-called "religious folks" (by which I mean bigoted igorant conservative fundamentalist types) and point out the hypocricy and idiocy of their sick propoganda that has allowed fundies to maintain traction in this country. Pay attention, Dave, and you'll begin to see how it's done. For example, read my post from 1:35 today so you can get a whiff of the sort of the chicanery that wafts above the heads of the sort of anti-science crap peddlers around whom we should tread so carefully, according to you. It'll all come unglued soon enough. Remember the golden age of Jimmy "just the tip" Swaggart and Jim Bakker back in the 80s? When Pat Roberston ran for President??? The fundie rubes will learn the hard way.

gaebolga · 3 January 2005

A word to the wise from an idiot is irony. If the stupid wish to punish the intelligent, well, that's their problem. Go ahead, blame the messenger for telling "y'all" the truth; let's see how long America can keep its technological advantages when the foreign intellects decide to stay away and the home-grown ones think that "God did it" is a useful scientific explanation for physical phenomena. Going down that road should leave America a third-world nation by about 2050 or so, just in time for the Social Security "meltdown."

Why do the religious conservatives hate America so?

Frank J · 3 January 2005

Calling people like Schafly ignorant and proving it in excruciating detail is not a good way to make friends and influence people.
— DaveScot

If it makes you feel better, I am a conservative theist who thinks that Schlafly is very intelligent. She's just very wrong about evolution.

JohnK · 4 January 2005

By popular acclaim, I have added this post to the recently-neglected Panda's Thumb Hall of Fame on EvoWiki.
— Nick

In that case, the principal's name in the first paragraph and in the paragraph about Kelvin/Pasteur should be correctly spelled, as it is in the rest of the piece. " Schlafly " BTW, reading her three sons, Andy, Roger and (¿)John(?), is truly an out-of-body experience.

Calling people ignorant and proving it in excruciating detail is not a good way to make friends and influence people. ...you aren't going to win by insulting their intelligence
— DaveScot

Demonstrating ignorance is not insulting intelligence. OTOH, one's reaction to having one's ignorance revealed may demonstrate something about an aspect of their intelligence.

frank schmidt · 4 January 2005

I heard Simon Conway Morris speak last Spring. It was about the implications of convergence, and not all that convincing to my mind. Afterward, an elderly lady asked him with great sincerity about ID. His reply was that it was a God of the Gaps argument. No surprise there, but the way he delivered it was telling. His demeanor indicated that he was sympathetic, but that sadly, the idea wouldn't fly.

It was more effective than if he'd bashed her. Bashing is lots of fun but I hope we keep it to ourselves. Schlafly is a devious old (insert epithet here) and deserves what she gets. Many people, however, are genuinely afraid that accepting biological evolution will leave them alone in the universe. They will support ID wholeheartedly out of that fear. Take care not to put them in that box.

Wesley R. Elsberry · 5 January 2005

Thanks, Steve, for the pointer to the Sutera article. It looks like we've got the origin of a modern myth here (that Darwin intended a statement about phylogeny). It apparently started with Gould's "Hooking Leviathan by its Past" article and propagated via Sutera's article that relied on Gould as a source.

I'll be writing this up anon. Once I've done that, maybe it can be appended to the Sutera article.

Jon Fleming · 5 January 2005

reading her three sons, Andy, Roger and (¿)John(?), is truly an out-of-body experience.

Andy's Devil's Tower thread being, IMO, the best example of the genre.

Enigma · 6 January 2005

Absolutly wonderful writing, my hat is off to you for demolishing that article that was never structurally sound to begin with. I have just a tiny issue with a point you made in passing:

if the subject were astrology or Velikovskian catastrophism, Schlafly would presumably agree.

I don't think Velikovsky belongs in quite the same category. His ideas were rebuffed by mainstream science primarily because of the outlandish nature of them. There is actually evidence to support his claims, unlike creationism. I'm not an expert, but James Hogan gives the material a thorough treatment in "Kicking the Sacred Cow" http://www.baen.com

Steve Reuland · 6 January 2005

I'm not an expert on Velikovsky, but my understanding is that his ideas never had any credibility with scientists, although, as with creationism, he has a devoted fan base. (Who, predictably, accuses scientists of censorship, dogmatism, etc.)

James Hogan, unfortunately, is not a credible source. If you look through his webpage, you'll see he supports just about every pseudoscience there is. That includes not only Velikovskianism, but also relativity denial, HIV denial, and yes, ID. I guess he's an ultra-contrarian who's convinced himself that the scientific community is a bunch of rotten liars, so he readily buys into any fringe notion which fits with this thesis.

Descent & Dissent · 12 January 2005

I don't think Velikovsky belongs in quite the same category. His ideas were rebuffed by mainstream science primarily because of the outlandish nature of them. There is actually evidence to support his claims, unlike creationism. I'm not an expert, but James Hogan gives the material a thorough treatment in "Kicking the Sacred Cow" http://www.baen.com . . .
— Enigma

Carl Sagan also did a thorough takedown of Velikovsky in Broca's Brain.

Ian Gibson · 25 January 2005

I don't want to depress anyone too much, but in the latest polls 55% of Americans believe 'God created human beings in their present form', 27% believe 'humans evolved from less advanced life but God guided the process', and only 13% believe 'humans evolved without God'. So when given the choice of fudging, many do. This poll is consistent with another in which 15% believe evolution is correct but 26% believe creationism and evolution are 'both true'..
See http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm#Origin%20of%20Human%20Life

Frank J · 26 January 2005

I don't want to depress anyone too much, but in the latest polls 55% of Americans believe 'God created human beings in their present form', 27% believe 'humans evolved from less advanced life but God guided the process', and only 13% believe 'humans evolved without God'. So when given the choice of fudging, many do. This poll is consistent with another in which 15% believe evolution is correct but 26% believe creationism and evolution are 'both true'.. See http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm#Origin%20of%20Human . . .
— Ian Gibson

I have seen lots of polls like that, and the numbers have not changed significantly over the years, despite the new ID strategy to get people to deny evolution without necessarily accepting any of the mutually contradictory creationisms. The main problem is that >90% who answer those questions do not understand evolution or "creationism." Actually the poll question states that 26% believe that evolution and the "Biblical account" (without specifying which of the mutually contradictory "literal" interpretations, e.g. YEC, day-age, gap, etc.) are both true. Since all of the interpretations deny evolution, >26% do not understand the question, let alone creationism or evolution. Note that most religions have endorsed evolution and concede that the "Biblical account" should not be taken literally. But really, can we expect any better numbers from a population in which ~50% believe in astrology and >90% cannot describe a molecule? A much more informative statistic is that, among those who understand evolution as science defines it (vice the common false caricature), >99% accept it, and the

Lij · 1 February 2005

To simplify, Phyllis Schlafly has laid an egg!

aaron pacy · 10 February 2005

Wow! This is spectacular evidence of the ignorance of Creationists. I'm gonna print this out, fold it up, and put it in my wallet!

Karl King · 23 May 2005

Most of Lamarck's critics haven't bothered to read what he actually wrote. The bit about the giraffe, for example, was not a theory -- just an off-hand comment. Lamarck devoted only two sentences to the giraffe. Darwin spent a good deal more time discussing how bears that swim around with their mouths open, catching water bugs, might eventually evolve into filter-feeding beasts like whales. At least he had a circle of friends who advised him not to present such a suggestion to the public. If he had, folks would focus their criticisms on that apparent absurdity just as they did with Lamarck's giraffe.

And by the way, Lamarck did not believe in direct inheritance of acquired changes as the Creationists and Darwinists have claimed. He thought that evolutionary change was imperceptibly gradual -- as Darwin did some decades later.