Andrew Gumbel, a correspondent for the London-based Independent, attended the recent intelligent design show trial in Topeka. His write-up at LA City Beat is recommended reading. Although he develops several good themes in his essay, there is one point in particular I would like to highlight.
Another manifestation of the misdirection of the ID movement is the ludicrous notion that high schools are the appropriate venue for intricate debate about the finer points of evolutionary science. Any public school science teacher will tell you it’s already a minor miracle if a 16-year-old can accurately summarize The Origin of Species, or pinpoint the Galapagos Islands on an atlas. Raising questions about the cellular structure of the flagellum is unlikely to exercise most students until grad school.
The only reason for raising such questions before state education authorities is not to deepen the scientific understanding of teenagers but rather to sow deliberate confusion. It is about denigrating mainstream science as biased against religion — which it is not; it merely regards questions of the supernatural to be outside the realm of scientific inquiry — and by extension bringing God and open avowals of faith into the public school system. (Emphasis mine.)
Many authors have correctly explained that the testimony of ID proponents in Topeka only criticized evolution. Indeed, in an effort to allay concerns that the rejected proposals were written to mandate the teaching of creationism, John Calvert articulated this point numerous times directly. Until Gumbel’s article, though, media coverage has failed to identify the desire by ID creationists to confuse the public. In other words, Gumbel is one of the first journalists to point out that, to an intelligent design creationist, the whole point of criticizing evolutionary theory is to criticize evolutionary theory.
It is important for advocates of science to recognize this strategy because there is a clear link between the beliefs creationists hold, the threats to those beliefs that they perceive from verified science, the fear they have from those threats, and the reactions to those threats that they make. Several points and implications about this understanding of creationist strategy merit mention and they will be developed below the fold.
Creationists Aren’t Stupid
When the transcriptions from the Topeka hearings are made public, the sheer volume of logical inconsistencies in the testimony between ID creationists and even in their own statements will strain credibility. For example, Charles Thaxton and many other creationists testified under cross examination that science should not be restricted to natural explanations, even while they refused to admit that they wanted (or in some cases saying that they didn't want) supernatural explanations included in science classes.It is tempting to ridicule these creationists, dismissing them as hayseeds and not giving them a second thought. But this dismissive attitude overlooks the motivations that drive them and prevents genuine understanding of the issues creationists consider pivotal regarding evolution and the methods of science. Obviously, something is influencing their decisions and it isn’t a lack of intellectual stature. John Calvert was a successful oil and gas trial lawyer. William Harris is a successful nutritional biochemist. Charles Thaxton retired from a career as a chemist. These are not careers that tolerate problems with cognition.
An optimal strategy for science advocates must presuppose nonscientific motivations in creationists, motivations that deserve more strategic consideration than simply being dismissed as the result of stupidity.
Creationists Are in Fear
To understand why creationists fear evolution, it is necessary to consider three things. First, many creationists believe that the Bible must be taken literally, though this literalism is typically ad hoc. (They interpret literally when literalism serves their purposes and they interpret metaphorically or symbolically when it does not.) Second, one must consider the concept of salvation, specifically Christian salvation. (No other religious belief will do.) According to the fundamentalism that gives rise to creationism, all morals, values, ethics, and behaviors in which Christians should engage are derived from these two beliefs.The final key to understanding creationist fear is to know that they engage in absolutism. In other words, to not believe in the account of the creation in the Bible is to not believe in talking snakes, to not believe in worldwide floods, to not believe in the geocentric model of the solar system, to not believe that rabbits chew their cud, etc. (Note that this is not to imply all modern creationists hold all these beliefs as absolutes; for example, creationists today have found ways to overlook the geocentrism that a truly literalist approach would necessitate.) By way of their absolutism, if they can’t trust the Bible with regards to (insert issue of concern here), then there is no reason or justification for their religious values whatsoever.
Naturally, these arguments sound absurd to anyone who recognizes the parallels between the arguments supporting Middle-age geocentrism and the arguments supporting intelligent design, especially anyone who recognizes that Christianity did not end with Galileo’s research. Nevertheless, this absolutism leads to fear and this fear leads to irrationality and unconventional behaviors.
Or, as reporters were asking KCFS members by the second day of testimony, ‘Why are these creationists saying the things they do? I thought they were Christians.’
ID Avoids Tough Questions
Yet more needs to be elucidated about creationist fears before the implications of this model can be discussed. Consider the following true story. A few months ago, I attended a Sunday-school course on creationist responses to evolutionary statements, which was being put on by the Creation Science Association of Mid-America. (This is the group that wrote the now infamous standards from the 1999 fiasco, for which Steve Abrams told Steve Case he was the sole author.)One thing that was interesting about the creationist’s arguments was the certainty with which he held his YEC positions. As anyone who has read Robert Pennock’s book Tower of Babel knows, there is a great diversity of creationist thought in the US. So, I asked the obvious question:
‘Sir, there are forms of creationism other than YEC, such as OEC and ID creationism. How can you be so certain about the age of the earth when it appears to be a legitimate controversy within the creationist community?’
His answer was, ‘All those other forms of creationism allow for the possibility of an old earth. If death entered the world before the fall, then there is no need for Christian salvation. That is why YEC is true.’
While religiously arrogant, this creationist was also refreshingly direct about his motivations. He was explaining that the threat he perceived to his beliefs was not just from evolution, but also from any of the sciences that require (or even accommodate) an old earth. And although this creationist was rebelling against the fact of the 4.5 billion-year-old earth, his argument prototypes many of the claims made by those whose beliefs contradict the findings of verified science: creationism is an obvious area of conflict, but there have been others. Galileo’s heliocentrism and whether rabbits chewed their cud were both, in their day, equally controversial due to contemporary Biblical literalists. Regardless of the controversy, efforts to suppress scientific investigations at best delay the inevitable enlightenment. Eventually, believers have to rethink their theology in the light of new scientific understanding.
What does it mean to be made in God’s own image if humans evolved from ape-like ancestors? If organisms, species, and indeed entire phyla died and went extinct before humans appeared, what need have we for a salvation based on the idea that human sin gave rise to death? Why can some Christians decide what women should do with their own bodies when the God of the Bible chooses to let people make their own decisions? Why are abortion and stem-cell research, but not in-vitro fertilization, forms of murder? And if common sense and research both demonstrate that no one — no one — chooses their own sexuality, what are we to make of religiously-fueled homophobia?
Now consider intelligent design in the light of these questions and in the light of the point Gumbel was making: even though there is no scientific evidence for intelligent design, nor is there any forthcoming, the purpose of intelligent design creationism arguments is to give certain believers a plausible reason to not ask the ‘tough questions.’ Yet these creationists know that science is an amazingly successful method of finding things out about the world. So, to provide believers a crutch for their faith, they seek to gain the legitimacy of science to support their beliefs. They believe in intelligent design and, for it to be legitimate, call ID creationism science. Odd as it may sound, for a creationist, for something to be nonscientific is for it to be irrelevant or unimportant.
Consider, when sympathetic, non-scientific journals publish what little passes for faux empiricism — itself riddled with secondary source citations passing for proof, quote-mining, and distortions of elementary physical and biological understandings — these articles are celebrated as groundbreaking and revolutionary. Without exception, there is a shortage of peer-reviewed studies supporting intelligent design creationism, though there is a wealth of promises that such will be forthcoming. The arguments from the creationists themselves are no better. If viewed as an attempt to generate an alternative scientific framework, the intelligent design arguments are incoherent at best and lies at worst. There is no, nor will there ever be, any theory of intelligent design.
But viewed in the theological model of evolution fear I am proposing, these arguments become purposeful. The ID creationists aren’t trying to advance science or educate kids about a legitimate controversy in science or subject their ideas to peer review. The reason intelligent design creationists criticize evolution is to criticize evolution. To those creationists who are in fear of evolution, this pseudoscience provides them a surrogate for faith — they can believe in a God that science has, through its purported failures, confirmed. As the testimony in Topeka demonstrated, examples of creationist duplicity in the service of simply criticizing evolution abound.
Forrest and Gross, in their book Creationism’s Trojan Horse, make the argument that intelligent design creationism is an attempt to change the fundamental belief systems of our society. This understanding is not inconsistent with the fear of evolution model I am proposing.
ID as Political Opportunism
The ID creationists engage the psychology of fear described above, convincing themselves that their faith is not simply misplaced but that they are an embattled minority. Thus, the faith that creationists place in their theology becomes the delusion that evolution is supported only by a worldwide conspiracy of scientists and liberal media. This delusion leads creationists to claim that intelligent design, which has no testable model -- the sine qua non of a useful scientific theory -- proposed, cannot get published due to this worldwide conspiracy.Even pastors fall victim to (or utilize, as the case may be) this fear. Consider Jerry Johnston who, in his 13 April 2005 sermon on intelligent design, told his congregation that Genesis was a book under attack that need to be defended by the faithful. Notably, in the same sermon, he openly admitted that the people who trained him in divinity school advised not to teach from Genesis literally. The possibility that Pastor Johnston’s faith might have been misplaced and that there was not a worldwide conspiracy of scientists and theologians whom he must have respected was not discussed.
That the creationists are in fear, that this fear leads to absolutism, and that absolutism leads to irrationality about belief, has been previously described. One creationist, testifying at the standards committee meeting in Derby, exemplified this irrationality terribly:
if we cannot as a state even put a sticker on a book that says macroevolution at least is not a fact, it is just a theory, then that is — then you are telling my, my children that everything that we have taught them as a family is wrong.
The political implications are intuitively obvious. Politicians know that fear is a powerful motivator, far more so than reason. Politicians, and others who fail to place sufficient priority on science education, may find this population of people who are in fear due to a lack of scientific understanding tantalizing. They recognize that, for example, it is far easier to marginalize those who have abortions than it is to marginalize scientists than it is to marginalize couples who cannot have babies on their own. To marginalize abortion and stem-cell research, not in-vitro fertilization, as forms of murder gains them favor with their uninformed constituency, even while it leaves that constituency ignorant of embryonic biology.
But why stop at just embryos? In for a penny, in for a pound: those same politicians also tell that constituency about the worldwide conspiracies against intelligent design, the evils of evolution, how it is impossible to be a legitimate Christian and to be pro-choice or pro-science, that God calls them to be absolutist in their dealings with those who hold differing views about murky ethical issues like Terry Schiavo, etc. When things are good for politicians who do not care about science education, things are good for religious leaders who propagate ancient and wrong understandings of the observable world, and vice-versa. Thus, religious leaders make pacts with those politicians to continue to market these incoherent theologies in exchange for political favors.
For these lies, for the crime of abandoning their charge to lead responsibly, indeed for failing to even read the proposed standards over which creationists held hearings in Topeka in the first place, the voters who lack scientific understanding reward these politicians with continued terms in office and political approval. Needless to say, it is unlikely that politicians like these will be enthusiastic about taking steps to improve the understandings of science in their constituency. To do so would be to remove the fear of the scientific issues involved.
So, what science-advocacy strategies does this fear-based model of intelligent design suggest?
Deny Creationists Martyrdom
In order to be a martyr, there must be a general recognition that the cause for which one suffers is a cause worth suffering for. Absent that recognition, the toil is wasted and unworthy.Attempting to achieve martyrdom, ‘expert witness’ Roger DeHart openly admitted — indeed, seemed rather proud of — being reassigned for teaching non-science while he was a science teacher charged to teach science. Similarly, Nancy Bryson let it be known that she was appearing as an ‘expert witness’ at the risk of her science career. William Dembski said that his career was in ruins due to his advocacy of intelligent design. He made this claim when even a cursory review of the facts will demonstrate that he failed to address the claims of those who took the time to review his work critically and that his problems are perfectly explained by his lack of collegiality in this and other regards. In other words, none of the hardships these creationists describe as due to their beliefs are worthy toil.
Someone can leap into the path of an oncoming train, somehow defending their belief that things fall up when dropped, and die for those beliefs. While such commitment may be deserving of respect, it does not make that death any more than a senseless waste. Similarly, that creationists have endured hardship may be reason for those of goodwill to respect those creationists. Nevertheless, the violation of their charge to educate students in science or teach people about actual philosophy when hired as philosophy instructors or help a congregation to make sense of God in a world with a dizzying pace of scientific progress remains nothing more than a violation of their respective charges. Specifically, the cause of denying verified science is not and cannot be worthy toil, especially when those creationists choose — despite the evidence — to believe that one cannot be a Christian and endorse verified science.
Respect those who hold these beliefs, possibly, but do not excuse them. They are not martyrs. They are in fear and they have misplaced their faith. They tilt at windmills and the hardships they endure are nothing more than the fruits of their own self-deceit.
Don’t Confuse the Public
Gumbel's article made the point that it was ludicrous to present highly technical arguments to high schoolers under the assumption that it would stimulate their interest in science. The same is true for the public at large. Michael Behe cites the absence of a described evolutionary ascent of the blood-clotting cascade as evidence of design in debates. Only a small percentage of Americans would be convinced of evolution by reviewing the clotting cascade's technical details that refute Behe. Similarly, Jonathan Wells offers the phylogeny produced by a limited dataset as evidence that molecular phylogenies are unreliable. Only a small percentage of Americans would be able to understand the technical arguments involved, process what the literature really says and how Wells misrepresented it, and recognize Jonathan Wells for the liar that he is.Arguing pseudoscience with science in an audience comprised of those unfamiliar with the science involved will lead to confusion. Gumbel’s article cited prestigious journalists who found the claims of the creationists convincing. (In their defense, they only found them reasonable on day one of the trials. After they heard what science actually had to say that first day, their questions to scientists became on days two and three, ‘Okay, how is what this creationist said (bullcrap).’)
Or consider letters to the editor. David Berlinski wrote to the Wichita Eagle itemizing nine ‘controversies’ about evolution, the gist of which was to convince the reader that doubting evolution was justifiable academically. In point of fact, the answers to those questions were shockingly simple: a freshman biology major could have answered them. Unfortunately, the response that was printed in the Eagle rebutted Berlinski point-by-point, only describing in the final sentence the violation of the accepted process whereby scientific conclusions are legitimately overturned that was implicit in Berlinski’s letter. Most of the people who don’t know the science involved probably read Berlinski’s points and thought them logical and valid.
In each of these cases, the average citizen is implicitly told that the process the creationists use to argue their case is a valid one. In other words, by participating in these forums of equal-time (or equal-space, in the case of letters to the editor) as creationists, we do exactly what the CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science said it would be doing if one of its members agreed to participate in the recent circus in Topeka, ‘Rather than contribute to science education, [our participation] will most likely serve to confuse the public about the nature of the scientific enterprise.”
True understanding of science, to a level sufficient to judge ID creationism arguments in an equal or truly balanced format, takes time and effort. While it is important to let citizens know that the scientific community has engaged the arguments of creationists on their (absent) merits, it is inappropriate to legitimize the Hardball-style debate or point-counterpoint letters to the editor that the creationists desire above all else.
Remember, the creationists aren’t trying to advance a scientific case. The creationists aren’t trying to educate the public. As Gumbel has pointed out, the creationists are trying to confuse the public for non-scientific reasons. They argue against evolution for the sake of arguing against evolution. When Berlinski asked his questions, he succeeded in making evolution seem less well-verified than it actually was. When Jonathan Wells lies in front of audiences, he succeeds in making evolution seem less well-verified than it actually is. Being accurate, representing science, and educating the public is just not what these guys have in mind. That’s why Wells lies and that’s why Berlinski asked freshman biology questions.
This is also why the Kansas boycott was a resounding success. We denied them the opportunity to confuse the public about the nature of actual scientific revolutions. In this, we denied them legitimacy in the eyes of the public, fighting non-science arguments with non-science (but science-supported) strategies. Importantly, we engaged the public, even while we boycotted the proceedings. Indeed, we staffed a media-relations table one floor below the trial and most journalists took advantage of the opportunity to hear from scientists what science really had to say on the issues.
KCFS recommends similar strategies whenever creationists try to confuse the public. Don’t answer non-science with science. However convincing your argument might be to someone fully trained in your field, you won’t win with a general audience. Instead, have scientific support ready, but use process-oriented rather than outcomes-oriented approaches in fighting creationism. This has worked very well in Kansas and we recommend it to other states.
Develop Alliances
This essay has attempted to describe the irrational fears that lead creationists to disregard the evidence, be deceived by corrupt politicians, engage in unconventional behaviors, and confuse the public. In this strange milieu of scientific, religious, and political concerns, science advocacy that uses only science arguments simply will not be successful. Not, that is, without a unified, multifaceted front in which educators, scientists, politicians, and theologians who can stand together and make sense to people who may not know the science involved but can understand arguments based in intellect, reason, and well-placed faith.Real evolution advocacy happens in day-to-day life. It happens when doctors explain to their patients that since the 1930s, animal research has been required to bring drugs to the market and that such research makes no sense without evolution. It happens in political discussions, as citizens learn the actual science that underpins the contentious issues being debated or supports sound policies. It happens when theologians remind creationists that God calls them to take responsibility for their beliefs and that well-meaning believers have had to reexamine their theology in the light of verified science many times throughout history. It happens when those who understand evolution advocate for it daily without embarrassment, recognizing it for the non-controversial component of essential biology education that it is.
All this is to say, intelligent design creationism has received the broad creationist support that it has — despite the unrecoverable conflicts between forms of creationism — precisely because they have a big tent strategy. To successfully advocate for science, Christians who desire strong science education should not make concessions to creationists that non-theists or those of other religions would find objectionable. Similarly, when a feature of the creationist testimony in Topeka was that evolution and modern science is incompatible with any form of legitimate Christian faith, it is politically unastute for non-theist advocates of strong science to make that very point themselves, at least without regard for creationist fears this essay has described.
Rather, to alleviate the creationist fears, all advocates of science should work together to establish mutually acceptable terms for science education. The cause of science advocacy is a big-tent issue, one which citizens of any creed or religion can endorse.
This essay has attempted to describe a new way of looking at creationism — as a fear of evolution and its perceived impact on beliefs. To the end of ameliorating creationist fears, advocates of science will hopefully undermine the strategies of the creationists better, inaugurating another era of American scientific success and returning America to her rightful place as a world leader in science.
Bio and Grateful Thanks
Burt Humburg is a graduate of and lab assistant at the University of Kansas School of Medicine. He will begin a residency in internal medicine at Penn State University -- Hershey Medical Center this summer. He is a former board member with Kansas Citizens for Science and he attended all three days of Topeka creationist testimony.This is his first submission to the Panda’s Thumb and he wishes to thank those in Kansas Citizens for Science, Pennsylvania, and who author the Panda’s Thumb who contributed to the development of this essay.
EDIT: Included Johnston link above that I originally forgot to include. 2nd graf of “ID as Political Opportunism”
204 Comments
Reed A. Cartwright · 20 May 2005
What a debut!
Steven Laskoske · 20 May 2005
Mr. Humburg,
After reading all that you had written here, I can only say that you have posted a truly wonderful article. As your maiden voyage onto PT, I can honestly say that I look forward to more from you in the future. Congratulations.
Boyce Williams · 20 May 2005
JRQ · 20 May 2005
Wow.
A most outstanding piece, Mr. Humburg.
jeffw · 20 May 2005
Kenneth Fair · 20 May 2005
Thank you very much, Mr. Humburg. I'm very glad that we've been able to get so much informed commentary on this entire episode by people like you who've attended the hearings in Kansas. For make no mistake: ID proponents are motivated, well-funded, and coordinated, and they revise their message and political strategy based on events such as these. Because this is a national fight -- today Kansas, tomorrow Pennsylvania -- it's crucial that those of us interested in maintaining good science standards learn about and disseminate their message and strategy as widely as possible, the better to counter it with the truth.
Burt Humburg · 20 May 2005
I think the evidence would suggest that most people come to their faiths through their families and through their upbringing. For example, I was born into my faith and I haven't left it, though it's demonstrably changed as I've learned.
I disagree that Christianity represents selfishness or whatever, but I'm running a test right now and I don't have time to support my argument.
More later, maybe.
BCH
Russell · 20 May 2005
tytlal · 20 May 2005
After the Kansas fiasco, do we have any "new" thoughts from the Dover school board?
Kevin Nyberg · 20 May 2005
Thumbs up, Burt.
kdn
Ken Shackleton · 20 May 2005
Steven Laskoske · 20 May 2005
Russell · 20 May 2005
Here's the latest update. Interestingly, it's falling out along strictly party lines. All the republican nominees favor "intelligent design"; all the democrats oppose it.
Sir_Toejam · 20 May 2005
interesting, maybe, but certainly not surprising.
ID is, after all, a political movement, supported by republicans mostly just to increase their power base.
Longhorm · 20 May 2005
I don't restrict myself to so-called "natural explanations." I don't even know what that means. I'm open to anything. But many of the events that people claim occurred did not occur. A deity did not turn dust -- poof! -- directly into two elephants (one male and one female). The first two organisms to live on earth that were fairly similar to today's elephants were born by their mothers in much the same way I was born by mine.
Methusehah didn't live to be 969 years old. Whether we call the claim "science" or "non-science" isn't important to me. In fact, I think we should avoid that distinction in most contexts. But Methuselah didn't live to be that old.
A lot of people think they have been abducted by aliens. But they are mistaken.
A lot of people think that the space, matter and time that we associate with the known universe is about 6,000 years old. But it's not.
Some people think Elvis is still alive and doing stuff. But he is probably not.
I don't know the series of events that resulted in the first self-replicators being on earth. But a really smart extraterrestrial probably did not use a high-tech device to turn dust directy into those things. It is logically possible that an extraterrestrial did that. And I'm going to keep my eyes and ears open. But for reasons I don't want to get into now, it probably wasn't an extraterrestrial who did that.
Longhorm · 20 May 2005
When someone says that he or she favors "intelligent design," my response is always the same: "Which event(s) on earth did the designer(s) cause? For example, did a designer turn dust directly into two elephants (one male and one female)? And what evidence, if any, suggests that a designer did what you think it did?"
Some people say: "Cells are too complicated to have come about with the special intervention of a divine being."
Well, I'm more complex than any cell. And I was born by my mother. So, apparently fairly complex things come into being without a designer turning dust (or "nothingness") -- poof! -- directly into those things.
Barron · 20 May 2005
Excellent essay! I have thought for a while that the fear aspect of the debate is pivotal and too often overlooked. I said before (http://chugg.net/rants/rant.shtml?rant_ce.shtml) that the Creationism debate is three pronged, Scientific, Political and Emotional. The scientific part is settled, but the other two remain fruitful for the creatioists. And the emotional is really the most important, IMHO. Political plays on emotional and may apply to conservative opportunists, but the debate boils down to emotion (note, I'm not denigrating emotion as an issue, I'm just pointing out it's role).
I also think that if creationism is to be put to rest or at least re-marginalized the key is the emotional aspect. If someone feels that they have to choose between their faith and science, faith will always win. The goal I think is to find a way to defuse the emotional mine field around evolution (and science in general). Until then there will be a ready market for what the professional creatioinsts are selling.
Sir_Toejam · 20 May 2005
"(note, I'm not denigrating emotion as an issue, I'm just pointing out it's role)."
well, let me be the devil's advocate then (pun intended), and say that I want it on record that I AM denigrating emotion as an issue in this. It's become abundantly clear that the debate is about nothing other than subjective interpretation on the part of the religious right. In fact, i think we have spent considerable time here on PT pointing out that ID has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with "emotion".
so yeah, I degigrate emotion as an issue... so much so one could consider me to be emotional about it.
"they have to choose between their faith and science, faith will always win."
science never forced anyone to choose. it was their own interpretations that are forcing them to choose, nothing less, nothing more.
They are selfish because they don't WANT to make that choice, but instead would rather maintain their erroneous interpretations and force the rest of us to accept them.
Mainstream christianity accepted evolutionary theory decades ago. Shall we change the rules to accomodate those that chose to be left behind?
Is this the true meaning of "no child left behind?"
FL · 20 May 2005
Steve U. · 20 May 2005
Sir_Toejam · 20 May 2005
but the problem, FL, is that there has never been anything objective about this debate presented from your side.
the wedge document clearly states the legal and political strategy behind changing creationism to ID...
you have just been duped into believing that there is any real substance behind that.
Just like Ruse noted about Dembski.
You "true believers" in ID are just dupes, that the rest of us would just laugh at if there weren't politicians involved in using you as well.
oh, and i'd love to hear your own "armchair pyschoanalysis"... not.
Andrea Bottaro · 20 May 2005
RBH · 20 May 2005
Burt Humburg · 20 May 2005
I'm familiar with Mike Gene and I've heard the argument that ID != IDC before. I reject that bit of rhetorical legerdemain for the following reason:
Creationism is any sort of God-did-it explanation of origins. IDC, OEC, YEC, flat-earth, and theistic evolution are all forms of creationism. In this sense, I am myself a creationist, though I am not an anti-evolutionary creationist.
It is true that science can detect intelligent agency, but to do so presupposes either such a familiarity with the designer's methods that the diagnosis of design is clear (c.f., 9/11) or that the diagnosis of design is confirmed by asking questions of the designer that go on to explain and predict other findings (c.f., archaeology).
The blood clotting cascade sure looks like it evolved. And whether it did or not, it obviously is not one of those former cases of design, where to question the reliability of the design diagnosis is foolish. Thus, to confirm design scientifically, one must do what scientists do when they confirm design scientifically: they ask questions about the designer.
Such as:
* Who was the designer?
* Why did the designer design?
* How can we determine other instances of design?
* How many design interventions have there been?
etc.
ID creationists defer answering those questions to "theology." The failure to answer these questions 1) seriously detracts from the credibility of the design diagnosis and 2) firmly plants ID into the realm of IDC.
BCH
Steve U. · 20 May 2005
Burt Humburg · 20 May 2005
Incidentally, can you really consider me to be "armchair psychoanalyzing" when I've been trained to psychoanalyze?
Granted, it's not my area of expertise, but it's not like I flunked my psych rotation.
BCH, MD
Sir_Toejam · 20 May 2005
Pay no attention to FL, Burt, unless you have spent some time checking out his ramblings for the last few weeks or so.
He makes even less sense if you don't.
Barron · 20 May 2005
Toejam, "science never forced anyone to choose. it was their own interpretations that are forcing them to choose, nothing less, nothing more." Agreed on both counts, my point is that telling them they are just wrong is not likely to change many minds. Recognizing that people hold these (misguided) beliefs for real, personal reasons gives a much better chance. Afterall, the more "elitest scientists" scorn these guys the more it plays into their persecuted mindset.
SteveU, agreed also and well put. Frankly I think that a lot of literalism builds a sort of house of cards where everything works as long as none of the beliefs are questioned. But, when one belief is questioned, the whole sense of self is threatened. And people can get pretty wacky in defending that sense of self. So while the chioce is completely false, I think we have a better chance getting people to see that if we approach them respectfully. Note, this DOES NOT apply to the minelayers! They deserve all the derision and ruthless debunking in the world.
Longhorm · 20 May 2005
Russell · 20 May 2005
Now I'm a little confused. Phil Johnson proudly claims the creationist label, but Mike Gene says we can dismiss, out of hand, the arguments of anyone using the term ID creationist.
And from various posts, I had formed the impression that FL himself was a biblical literalist, i.e. an unapologetic creationist, valiantly carrying the ID banner here at Panda's Thumb.
Perhaps he'll clear it up for me.
tom_kbel · 20 May 2005
tom_kbel · 20 May 2005
I wish to join in congratulating Burt Humburg for his excellent essay. However, I also wish to disagree with his policy recommendation.
Boycotting the Kansas hearings may have worked well, but in as much as they did, it was because the Kansas hearings were clearly a show trial. All three panel members already supported the ID cause before the hearing. They were not open to the evidence for evolution from the start, as clearly indicated by their failure to fully read the originally proposed science standards. Further, while it is perfectly reasonable to present all the evidence favourable to ID in the space of three days (or indeed, just one), a similar presentation of the evidence for evolution would, in three days, have not begun to scratch the surface.
Despite this, the DI is spinning the failure of scientists to appear as being based on fear, on an inability to openly confront ID arguments. Extending the Kansas strategy to other forum where the ID proponents are not clearly biassing the forum in their favour will lend support to this claim, and make it believable to much of the public.
May I suggest that a better strategy would be to engage in scientific detail in open ended fora, and to clearly draw attention to the fact that creationists of all stripes refuse to follow arguments through in their proper detail.
If, for example, a creationist raises the topic of "no transitional fossils", attention could be drawn Kathleen Hunt's of Clifford Cuffey's excellent articles; and to the continuing failure of any creationist to meet Wesley Ellsberry's challenge to go through some examples of transitional sequences.
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_00.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/evobio/evc/argresp/tranform.html
The strategy is to always make it clear that, where the topic can be explored in proper detail, creationists flee the field - and to provide resources for those who wish to follow up on the actual evidence.
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 20 May 2005
Burt Humburg · 20 May 2005
Yes, that's probably a better way of phrasing it. The idea I was getting at was to make an assessment about the ways the ideas were going to be settled. If it was going to be a non-scientific format, then don't use science arguements. If it is going to be a scientific format in which the ideas are explored fully, then it's much easier to use science arguments as scientists use them.
I'm always open to hearing better ways of putting things, but we don't disagree on this point.
BCH
Burt Humburg · 20 May 2005
BTW, tell your birdie that KCFS was there, along with scientists, philosophers, journalism professors, theologians, and other pro-science types. We definitely did not ignore the creationists and I hope your birdie will pass that statement of fact along to anyone who thinks scientists were absent from Topeka.
The scientists were there. We just refused to testify. Science was well represented.
BCH
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 20 May 2005
I have found that to back ID/creationists into an inescapable corner, thoroughly, fully and simply, requires only one of two simple questions, repeated as often as necessary until they either answer or leave the field with their tail tucked between their gonads.
The first question is posed to any ID/creationist who wants to yammer that his crap is "science". That question is: What is the scientific theory of ID, and how do we test it using the scientific method?
The second question goes to those marginally-more-honest IDers who admit that ID is religious apologetics. That question is: Why should your religious opinions have any more authority or legal backing than mine, my next door neighbor's, my car mechanic's, or the kid who delivers my pizzas?
Both of those questions are lethal to IDers, and they know it (which is why they always bend over backwards to avoid answering them). If ID is science, it is incumbent upon them to produce their science and show it to us. Until they do that, they, quite literally, have nothing to argue over. And if ID is religion, they need to demonstrate why their religious opinions are better than anyone else's and deserve to be enshrined into law.
They can do neither of these things. They have NO scientific theory of ID to offer, and they have NO reason why their religious opinions are any better than anyone else's (other than their say-so). Anything else is nothing but a side issue (or a deliberate misdirection on their part). Either they have a scientific theory to offer, or they don't. Either they are more holy and godlike than every other mere mortal, or they're not.
I say, force them to either put up or shut up. Force them to either fish or cut bait. Force them to either shit or get off the damn toilet.
For too long, we've been letting THEM set the agenda, and flood it with irrelevantia. It's time we take the fight straight to them, and force them to answer those two simple questions.
It will kill them. Dead. And they know it.
maureen_l · 20 May 2005
In this discussion, I'm seeing one thing left out, which frustrates me.
Arguing pseudoscience with science in an audience comprised of those unfamiliar with the science involved will lead to confusion. . . . Instead, have scientific support ready, but use process-oriented rather than outcomes-oriented approaches in fighting creationism.
I wish I could see more examples of such approaches. As a non-scientist, just to begin with, I'm not even certain of the definitions of "process-oriented" and "outcomes-oriented".
Sir_Toejam · 20 May 2005
"It will kill them. Dead. And they know it."
I think I'm gonna start calling Lenny "Dr. Raid".
;)
FL · 20 May 2005
Sir_Toejam · 20 May 2005
"All I know is, when it came time to show up for the bell this time around, the non-Darwinists demonstrated the courage to face a Darwinist attorney's cross-ex grilling in public, but the Darwinists failed to similarly demonstrate their courage by likewise sitting down for a non-Darwinist lawyer's cross-examination grilling of their positions. "
that is because, as has been pointed out countless times now, IT WASN'T A COURT OF LAW!
In any case where a real court of law was involved, we showed up and *ahem* kicked your *ss.
as to your critique of Burt's armchair philosophy (which really isn't, since he has direct training in what he is speaking of as an MD).
He wasn't speaking of folks like Thaxton... he was speaking of folks like.. you.
perhaps you should re-read your freshman texts on how fear manifests itself, as you are a textbook case of denial induced by fear.
Russell · 20 May 2005
FL: I see you're back. Are you going to clear up my confusion?
Pierce R. Butler · 20 May 2005
afarensis · 20 May 2005
Excellent post. One of the few I have read about creationists where I didn't come away thinking the writer just did not understand fundamentalists.
I think Burt is right about strategy. In Kansas the school board displayed their bias loud and clear so science did not loose anything by not participating (which is quite a bit different from not showing up). The tool should be appropriate to the job being performed and in this case it was a PR battle. Rather than being sucked into a fake trial and wasting a lot of energy on that, the battle was fought where it really counted. Looking at what is currently happening around the country (Dover, Cobb County) creationists tactics seem to be driven more by the type of strategy we saw in Kansas - none of which are legitimate formats conducive to a full exploration of the issues. Which is not to say that we should endlessly mimic the tactics in Kansas. I think part of the success there was the creative way scientists responded to the challange. The media expected a replay of Scopes or McLean v Arkansas and got something completely different.
Again, great post!
DonM · 20 May 2005
I agree wholeheartedly with "Dr.Raid", but unfortunately the only place where you can pin them down and force them to answer those questions is in a court of law.
I understand that the "Topeka 23" didn't have to swear an oath before testifying. I'm sure that the utterances of all those god-fearing folk would have been quite different if they had been under oath.
DrJohn · 20 May 2005
FL · 20 May 2005
Sir_Toejam · 20 May 2005
" Great opportunities for exploration, for discovery, imo."
well, good luck with that. do let us know if you ever manage to accomplish any actual science with it.
at least you have now admitted, which was obvious anyway, that ID is nothing more than religious apologetics.
"the very hearts and minds and worldviews of science-loving people, young and old. One heart, one mind, one person at a time."
the words science and loving juxtaposed coming out of your mouth just shows your ignorance. You have not enough comprehension of what science is or does to claim a love for it. Especially since your goal is to replace it with religious philosophy.
However, having now admited that... can you admit your fear in the face of the evidence against YEC?
blind faith is not honest faith, FL.
Moreover, you still have not answered my question...
Of what practical value is ID? Can you predict how it will help us solve any practical problem?
since i have asked you multiple times, and you haven't answered, I will answer for you.
you can't, simply because you will not realize that there is no scientific basis for ID, and so it can't solve problems in the real world. God and faith lie outside of the natural realm, so even if you utilize every word of your bible, it will not explain anything you can see around you in practical terms. it never has, which is why creationism was abandoned by critical thinkers in favor of the scientific method to begin with, and it never will.
the only reason you persist in trying to change the rest of us is that nagging fear that you deny so readily.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 20 May 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 20 May 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 20 May 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 20 May 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 20 May 2005
Sir_Toejam · 20 May 2005
"I say it's time to start dragging THEIR ass into court, instead of the other way around."
hmm. i seem to recall Wesley mentioning he was going to talk to legal about your idea.
Did you ever hear back? I'd love to see that idea come to fruition, my own minor criticisms aside.
Arden Chatfield · 20 May 2005
"What is the most selfish thing that someone could possibly ask for? A billion dollars? Nope, immortality trumps everything. Even if they spend a lifetime doing charitable things, they're still probably doing it for the perceived reward of immortality. So it could be argued that most people ultimately come to their faith through extreme selfishness!"
Or, alternately, the flipside of *this* argument is the notion held by certain fundamentalists that people cannot possibly behave in a moral or ethical manner without the threat of God's punishment hanging over their heads.
This is how the fundies convince themselves that society 'needs' them. Never mind that much of Europe is much less religious than America but also far less violent.
Arden Chatfield · 20 May 2005
"I think the evidence would suggest that most people come to their faiths through their families and through their upbringing. For example, I was born into my faith and I haven't left it, though it's demonstrably changed as I've learned."
This too is a good point that's often overlooked -- the bulk of people are whatever religion most of the people around them are. This is why it seems to be missing the point when someone gives some explanation of why they're a Christian (or whatever) -- would we expect, say, your average Saudi to have a reason why they 'chose' to be Moslem?
Henry J · 21 May 2005
Longhorm,
Re "Methusehah didn't live to be 969 years old."
Then maybe he didn't drown after all? ;)
Re "Some people think Elvis is still alive and doing stuff."
Well, there was that cameo in the movie "Death Becomes Her". On second thought, ignore that remark.
Re "Which event(s) on earth did the designer(s) cause? "
I'd suggest saying "engineer" rather than "designer", to emphasize that something or somebody would have had to do the actual work, rather than just punching data into a CAD* terminal (or its supernatural equivalent). It just seems to me that their use of the term "design" is an attempt to mask that fact.
*(CAD = Computer Aided Design)
---
Barron,
Re "The goal I think is to find a way to defuse the emotional mine field around evolution"
Wish I knew how to find a convincing way to tell somebody that "God is behind it" does not logically contradict "it looks like it happened in a way consistent with known physical processes".
Henry
Sir_Toejam · 21 May 2005
er, speaking of creationist behaviors...
the latest post on Dembski's blog is very strange.
it starts off accusing evolutionists of saying students are too stupid to understand evolutionary theory, but then provides two links in "support" that don't quite mesh, to say the least:
"Teenagers, high school students, take note. The evolutionary establishment thinks you are just too stupid to grasp weaknesses and alternatives to the theory of evolution that gets peddled in all your high school biology textbooks (i.e., neo-Darwinism). For a sampler of just how intellectually challenged they think you are, go here (http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2001/05/04/darwin/print.html) and here (http://www.lacitybeat.com/article.php?id=2085&IssueNum=102). "
uh, the first accuses darwinists of being racists (does anyone remember the discussion we had in another thread about the role-reversal creationists play?)
and the second talks about the laughability of the kansas BOE in the face of the spread of creationism. the only quote Dr. Dembento finds of use is one related to trying to teach ID's "finer points" as too complex for students to deal with in high school. and that is saying students are too dumb to learn evolutionary theory? hmm. sounds like exactly the opposite to me.
he even includes the counter to his own argument in the very quote he mines from the article:
"The only reason for raising such questions before state education authorities is not to deepen the scientific understanding of teenagers but rather to sow deliberate confusion."
Has Dembski lost it?
Air Bear · 21 May 2005
"the latest post on Dembski's blog is very strange."
But not unusual.
Over on the New York Times forums, rabid policital conservatives sometimes post a link to some web page that they claim has "proof" of something. Invariably, the referenced web page is barely on the same subject, and offers no support for the claims they're making. Standards of evidence apparently don't matter to these people.
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 21 May 2005
lamuella · 21 May 2005
regarding the supposed differences between ID and creationism:
What, precisely is the difference between saying "someone created this" and "someone designed this" with regards to life on earth?
Dan S. · 21 May 2005
FL says "This debate is like a great chess game for extremely high stakes----the very hearts and minds and worldviews of science-loving people, young and old. "
Yes, capturing the hearts, minds, and worldviews of people, and imprisoning them in little cages - cages not of faith but of fear, provoked by the relentless drumbeat of "Darwinism is atheistic! Science is atheistic! Etc!"
This stuff is really beginning to bug me . .
*****
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD says "It contains a couple of hidden, and mistaken, assumptions.. . ."
I dunno about that second one. I think the explicit part of this claim - science restricts itself to the natural - is the only part; it's politely, nonconfrontationally not bringing up whether religion stays on its side of the fence or jumps over and starts wandering around. In other words, we're staying within our borders, and the fact that certain factions seem convinced that all of Upper and Lower Naturalia happens to belong to them, so anything we do is an attack on their territorial integrity, well, we don't have to bring that up, do we?
But of course, this view accepts these borders (which many don't accept/understand), so I guess I see what you're saying . . .
Dan S. · 21 May 2005
"What, precisely is the difference between saying "someone created this" and "someone designed this" with regards to life on earth?"
The old-school creationists are at least honest and upfront about who they think the Creator was, leading to easy-hypothesis testing and swift legal butt-kicking. The IDers coyly (for the most part, some may actually be sincere) avoid talking about the Designer's identity in public, away from their core religiously-motivated supporters, so as to avoid said swift legal butt-kicking.
Also, "designed" conjures up all sorts of quasi-scientific sounding stuff, adding to their protective coloration and surface plausibility, while "created" is unabashedly theological.
Etc.
Dan S. · 21 May 2005
Also - what Henry J. said
Cubist · 21 May 2005
tristero · 21 May 2005
I am glad that scientists are beginning to address what has been patently obvious to so many non-scientists who have been following this contretemps for a long time. This is not an argument about science or scientific evidence, but about cultural mores.
Burt Humburg gets it. Why would anyone who wasn't a biologist, or was intellectually curious about the scientific origin of species, care enough about evolution to launch decades-long crusades to foist a poor alternative that no decent scientist who understands the facts can accept.? Why not crusade against, say, tcp/ip instead?
The reason is that christianists believe that somehow evolution calls their entire worldview into question, especially the notion that human moral behavior must be regulated by God. Therefore, by sowing confusion about evolution, the christianists make it possible for the suckers who follow them to feel comfortable to ignore Darwin and, by extension, any science that christianists believe is in conflict with their sense of virtue.
Therefore, ID/Creationism/Yadda, yadda is asserted not to advance science but merely to criticize evolution. The real game afoot here is, as it has been since Bryan's time and even before, cultural.
Arden Chatfield · 21 May 2005
"Over on the New York Times forums, rabid policital conservatives sometimes post a link to some web page that they claim has "proof" of something. Invariably, the referenced web page is barely on the same subject, and offers no support for the claims they're making. Standards of evidence apparently don't matter to these people"
I think they're just counting on people not looking up the articles, and hoping they'll just be dazzled by all the references. Makes it look like everyone agrees with them.
Sir_Toejam · 21 May 2005
"Invariably, the referenced web page is barely on the same subject, and offers no support for the claims they're making"
invariably the sycophantic statements in support of such missives do in fact, fail to mention the invalid links as well.
not one of the comments on Dembski's blog even mentions the first two links.
Ed Darrell · 21 May 2005
Ed Darrell · 21 May 2005
James Blair · 22 May 2005
ONe needs to remember that an attack on motives is not necessarily a valid attack on an argument.
There are several problems with an attack on motives, which can border on an ad hominem. First, you can't really know "the motives". Second, they may be independent of the argument.
For example, you would not think it was valid for someone to critcize evolution as being motivated by atheism, would you?
And even if it were, since some like Richard Dawkins have said that he liked evolution because it allowed him to be "intellectually fulfilled" (whatever that meant) it would not prove the case.
Cubist · 22 May 2005
Wesley R. Elsberry · 22 May 2005
Let's try to put this simply. The legal system in the USA generally doesn't give grounds to sue over schools teaching non-science in the science classroom. It is when the non-science is religious non-science that precedent has been established for taking those who pushed that to court. In these cases, motivation is relevant and is considered very seriously indeed. Examining motivation is not intended to cast doubt upon whatever "argument" may be offered. Instead, the intent behind particular bits of non-science has been used in the past by courts to find that the non-science constitutes an establishment of religion.
The whole "bringing up motivation is an ad hominem argument" thing misses the point completely, and likely is done to confuse people. Those in the pro-science camp should be sure to document carefully everything related to the motivation of officials who advocate religious non-science in science classes. Note the simple denial by officials in Dover, PA of having made religious arguments in board meetings and discussing "creationism". Sufficient documentation can reduce the effectiveness of POFS (Public Official Forgetful Syndrome, hat tip to Molly Ivins). While ID cheerleaders may not like it, judges have been interested in the topic.
Jack Krebs · 22 May 2005
Wesley's point is and will continue to be quite pertinent in regards to Kansas. The tracks of the religious motivations and theological concerns behind the non-science being offered are pretty clear.
Kevin Nyberg · 22 May 2005
Jack is right. KSBE members are "on the record" making numerous religiously-motivated statements by virtue of their office, and memories will last long on this one. Very, very long.
kdn
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 22 May 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 22 May 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 22 May 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 22 May 2005
Burt Humburg · 22 May 2005
Flint · 22 May 2005
Burt Humburg:
Dawkins's point was that before some testable mechanism was proposed for how we came to be, the only candidates available were magic, and the hazy suspicion that maybe it wasn't magical but instead a result of, well, *something*.
If you read this site for very long, you will see endless demands that the ID proponents provide some testable mechanism in support of their preferences. The implication is that if they can't dream up any way to test them, they're just babbling quasi-scientistical nonsense. But that was pretty much what someone who didn't like magical explanations was limited to before Darwin. A genuinely testable mechanism moved evolution solidly into the realm of science.
Burt Humburg · 22 May 2005
Russell · 22 May 2005
Russell · 22 May 2005
Ed Darrell · 22 May 2005
steve · 22 May 2005
FL should read Orr's review of Dembski's NFL. It points out that the best of ID is just confused pleading to not believe evolution. There's no paradigm shift to be had. In brief, Orr reveals Dembski's book to say:
1 The NFL theorems show evolution is no good
2 Except that I admit they don't really apply to evolution
3 Nevertheless I don't think evolution could be too useful because it would just find local maxima of the fitness function
4 Except that I admit the function changes with time so that's not true,
5 But anyway the Real action is with IC things
6 Though it turns out there are at least two ways IC things could evolve but,
7 Since certain systems like the flagella have not been historically explained down to every last detail, I can still believe that some step might not be explainable without god.
One might wonder, since he indirectly admits that none of his arguments are any good, why does he make them, with lots of pages of impressive-looking math? To impress people like FL.
Ed Darrell · 22 May 2005
I beg your pardon: Should have been ". . . to indicate He did."
Sir_Toejam · 22 May 2005
no... to impress people like Ahmanson.
supporting ID is a singular way to make a career for yourself, when you are an obvious failure as a real scientist.
IIRC, Dembski was fired from Baylor, and after that doubled his efforts at promoting ID.
obviously there is a lot of money out there to support creationism, as evidenced by the 25 million available to build a "creation musuem" headed by that idiot Hovind?
the funny thing is, Dembski often links to articles and provides subtexts that indicate, just like his book, that he might not actually believe in any of the ID nonsense.
Not that it really matters, as long as he continues to whore himself for "the cause".
what gets me is how people like slaveador and FL can be drawn in by such obvious claptrap, just to somehow support their "faith" which is obviously lacking.
steve · 22 May 2005
I wouldn't be surprised if Dembski and other IDists started suing critics. Their grants and salaries are threatened by scientists' comments.
frank schmidt · 22 May 2005
As one who insists that ID always be appended with a C, it seems that FL and others who object to this are playing political word-games. They attempt to (in public at least) distinguish themselves from the Hovind-type creationsists by insisting that the term only applies to Biblical creationism. In fact there are many versions of creationism, including Greek mythological, Native American, etc. What all versions have in common is the positing of an event or mechanism outside the known mechanisms of Chemistry and Physics to account for the origin and diversity of life.
We call these events miracles, and many believe in them, but they are not the appropriate area for science, because (by definition) they are outside the natural processes that science studies. As Fr. Hesburgh said when President of Notre Dame: "Biology does not study miracles."
As for Dawkins' atheism, I suspect its roots took hold well before he read the Origin. He would have been just as much of an atheist in 1700, before any of this was discovered.
Sir_Toejam · 22 May 2005
"I wouldn't be surprised if Dembski and other IDists started suing critics. Their grants and salaries are threatened by scientists' comments."
this reminds me; anyone know what is happening with the lawsuit against Eugenie Scott?
Flint · 22 May 2005
Hokie · 22 May 2005
Great post. I'd always viewed ID as a reaction to a fear of science (not just evolution, but science as a whole), since it seeks to undermine the methodological naturalism of the scientific process and replace it with a God of the gaps, but I didn't quite go the extra step to view their "critique" as intentionally confusing and simply with the end of criticizing. Very, very nicely laid out.
RBH · 22 May 2005
Henry J · 22 May 2005
Given that Jesus wouldn't have heard any of the modern evidence against a worldwide flood (e.g., continuity of ice caps, continuity of unique ecosystems, species having more genetic variety than would arise in 6000 yrs, lack of a unique layer of debris at that age in the geologic record), I wonder if it's really relevant to ask if he took the Flood story literally? Without recent knowledge, he wouldn't have had our reasons for not doing so.
Henry
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 22 May 2005
Sir_Toejam · 22 May 2005
" "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you""
I beleive it was Ploink Ploink who originally gave that bit of wisdom unto his followers.
FL · 22 May 2005
FL · 22 May 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 22 May 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 22 May 2005
FL · 22 May 2005
JRQ · 22 May 2005
Steven Laskoske · 22 May 2005
JRQ · 22 May 2005
Kevin Nyberg · 22 May 2005
Russell · 22 May 2005
Russell · 22 May 2005
And, might I add, where does a dilettante outsider who smugly insist that an entire branch of science -thousands and thousands of professional biologists with millions of study-hours behind them - are all mistaken about the very foundation of their discipline... where does such a piker get off talking about "presumptuousness"!!!???
Sir_Toejam · 22 May 2005
well, i gotta admit. FL's comments have certainly fit the threads title to a "T".
Ruthless · 22 May 2005
Sir_Toejam · 23 May 2005
"the non-Darwinists demonstrated the courage to face a Darwinist attorney's cross-ex grilling in public"
for the last time, FL...
NOT UNDER OATH! their proclamations mean less than nothing.
and no, creationists have NEVER won a federal case in a court of law.
and no, you actually did not address my question as to why you post here, because it was based on my incredulity at the total lack of credibility on just about every issue you have commented on, again and again, as just demonstrated.
however, by far my more important question was...
if you got what you wanted, and all scientific endeavor was replaced with relgious dogma:
What practical applications can you see coming out of that? It's a very simple question, really.
Sir_Toejam · 23 May 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 23 May 2005
Sir_Toejam · 23 May 2005
Kirala · 23 May 2005
Fear is indeed a big problem in this debate. But I think pride is a bigger one.
The Righteous are so busy defending Truth (Justice, and the American Way) that they can't stop to look at the facts of the matter objectively, much less logically. The Enemy of Good is on the prowl, and threatening all human existence. Pretty soon, there's so much shouting going on, no one can hear themselves think - and rational thought is then abandoned. Fear of losing is close kin to pride, after all.
And, of course, the Righteous are to be found in many places, wherever the opposition Must Not Win. The world has not yet ended on account of Darwinism, as the Religious Right ought to note, but neither has it ended on account of stubborn fundamentalism.
I find it ironic, though, that there are so many battles over what science curriculum is. The anti-evolution wing should be content to leave matters as they are: it was the ridiculous, badly-presented Darwinist curriculum in my schools which turned me to Young Earth Creationism, and it was the YEC Answers Book which turned me away from the Creationist movement altogether. And I have some amazing news to report to the still-faithful of the Young Earthers: I didn't have to become a Bible-burning God-hating devil-worshipper or atheist to do it!
Steve U. · 23 May 2005
Sir_Toejam · 23 May 2005
better start measuring your head.
Mike S. · 23 May 2005
atoller · 23 May 2005
Sir_Toejam · 23 May 2005
" but it's ludicrous to claim only conservatives, or only Republicans use that tactic"
perhaps it would be, if that is what he was doing.
what he was doing, and is essentially correct in saying, is that this "new breed" of republican we have seen since Reagan seems to take this tactic to the extreme; moreso than any other political group in recent memory.
There is a ton of evidence to support this, and the fact that the extreme right wants to nuke the filibuster, and to get support for this, is accusing the dems of being "anti-faith" (frist's own words), is the icing on the cake.
if you can't see this, you have must be wearing some politically "bent" blinders.
Burt Humburg · 23 May 2005
I do not hold that to assent to the realities of evolution is tantamount to being pro-choice or anti-gay rights. I do feel that several verified theories and observations that arise from science (like evolution, child development, sexual development, embryonic biology, etc.) do undermine the basis of many of the fundamentalist claims.
1) Evolution should cause us to rethink what God meant when he said we were made in his image.
2) Any theorem that verifies deep-time will cause us to rethink salvation in the light of a pre-man death.
3) An actual understanding of embryonic procedures and biology should cause us to rethink how morally upright it is to consider abortion and stem cell research murder, but not in-vitro fertilization.
4) If no one chooses their own sexuality, then this should cause us to rethink the "sin" of homosexuality, especially in the light of an evolutionary ascent of man and the fact that there was no physical Adam and Eve.
Now those are the questions. If you engage those questions, even if you maintain your answers, then that is not fear and my thesis would not apply to you. But if you dismiss these questions without due consideration for the ideas - say, for example, you don't rethink your anti-gay rights stance due to your use of Behe's IC as an excuse to dismiss evolution - then the chances are you are in fear of the answers.
Let me put it another way: I reinforce the fears of creationists and undermine my thesis by asking these questions ONLY to the extent that the beliefs of creationists are indefensable in the light of the evidence that those who aren't in fear would consider.
Is it possible that your concerns indicate you embody my point about fear more than you'd care to let on?
Regarding politics, your point is well taken, though I'm not sure how relevant it is. While it is appropriate to spin something so that uninterested people consider that it "is their ox getting gored," I think you'd be straining credibility to charge that Republicans are more enthusiastic than Democrats in inspiring independent thought. (Remember, according to studies, the people who voted for Bush were not only more likely to think that Iraq had WMD, but that they were more likely to think we actually found them in Iraq.)
Needless to say, it's not the most informed voting that the US has ever seen. And, needless to say, I think it seriously undermines your thesis that conservatives aren't far more guilty of this than moderates.
BCH
Steve U. · 23 May 2005
Larry Lord · 23 May 2005
Sir_Toejam · 23 May 2005
"Rarely, if ever, are the proponents of such beliefs (e.g., prominent political preachers) asked to explain what the hell are they talking about and how their views can be reconciled with positions on other topics and with positions taken by other Christians on the same topic."
...like when Falwell claimed that 9/11 was god's punishment for sinful americans?
Ed Darrell · 23 May 2005
Mike Haubrich · 23 May 2005
Thanks for sharing your insight. You articulated much that I have been trying to tell people for years, that it is fruitless to argue science with creationists of whatever stripe. It is an article well worth saving.
Sir_Toejam · 23 May 2005
breaking news on the filibuster issue:
just now (5 pm PST), the moderates in the Senate announced a deal to remove the "nuclear option" from the table.
the details of the deal haven't been published yet, but it appears there might be some hope for moderacy after all.
Henry J · 23 May 2005
Re "1) Evolution should cause us to rethink what God meant when he said we were made in his image."
I think just the extreme similarity of human and ape anatomy and biochemistry should do that even if common ancestry weren't being considered.
Re "2) Any theorem that verifies deep-time will cause us to rethink salvation in the light of a pre-man death."
That point too doesn't really depend on whether evolution was involved, but just the simple fact that so many different types were but now aren't.
Henry
FL · 23 May 2005
Ruthless · 23 May 2005
Sir_Toejam · 24 May 2005
"I know very well, from personal experience, that people, all flavors of people, often have real questions, maybe tough questions, about God, Christ and the Bible, (and science, social justice, ethics, heaven, hell, sin, suffering, salvation). And they're even now looking for somebody they can trust to ask those question(s)."
now you are really pissing me off.
what you are essentially saying is that you want to be the one to take advantage of people who are unsure, so that you can foist your pathetic belief structure on them and claim it covers both science AND religion.
I hope you never meet any confused kid before they can learn about what science REALLY is.
You don't see it, but you do both christianity and science both a disservice with your dissembling idiocy.
It's utterly amazing to me that you can think yourself "well centered" and able to resolve issues of faith for others, when you are so obviously confused yourself.
I feel very sorry for you, and anybody you manage to "convince" of your ideology.
Can't you see that you are still lost? that you yourself are still for answers? you are just grasping at straws, just like Salvador, in order to prop up your own failing faith.
pathetic.
speck · 24 May 2005
FL,the evidence you provide for Jesus' existence all appears to be hearsay. Unfortunately, Jesus left no personal writings or confirmed artifacts and the gospels were all written well after his purported existence.
I think it's more accurate to say that scholars agree on the historical concept of Jesus, which is not the same as claiming he ever actually walked the earth. I think "proof" of his existence is no more qualified than "proof" of his non-existence.
I don't know why this would trouble you, I was raised to believe that God gave us and respects our free will. Anything that would confirm or indicate the existence of God and his workings would be in direct violation of our free will. We would be coerced to love and serve. God would have effectively taken away our free will and faith would be meaningless.
Do you agree that we possess free will? Do you agree that your faith is meaningless without free will? Or, did God leave behind bread crumbs, evidence of his existence?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 24 May 2005
Russell · 24 May 2005
Well, Lenny, I don't think we're going to make too much progress convincing FL that his "religious opinions" are not, in fact, The Truth, or that the Republican party is not the Body of Christ.
But I think it's a good thing for him to expound on his theology here. It serves the dual purpose of discrediting his "science" for the large majority of readers who will recognize his theology as wing-nut and discrediting his theology for the large majority of readers who will recognize his "science" as crackpot.
Mike S. · 24 May 2005
Russell · 24 May 2005
Flint · 24 May 2005
Burt Humburg · 24 May 2005
I agree with what Russell wrote. You're presenting a false dichotomy.
But to answer your question directly, I'm wearing two hats here. First, as a proponent of strong science education, I want to do what I can to further the teaching of evolution and undermine those who would seek to subvert that teaching. Since this is an outcome or method that is shared by all with posting privileges at the Thumb, I get to post my essay to that end here.
The other hat I am wearing here is of one who professes Christianity. I am a theist and I think I have just as much right as anyone to speak out against theologies that are bad/dangerout/etc. Unfortunately, this isn't Burt's Blog: this is the Panda's Thumb. And lest readers of this site visit and feel betrayed that so much theology was bantered about, I intentionally restrained myself from talking too much about the poor theology of ID here at the Thumb.
So, to pile on to what Russell said, yours is a false dichotomy for another reason: it is precisely because I am a proponent of Christianity that I seek to undermine the aberration of antievolutionary ID creationism theology if for no other reason than that the God I worship doesn't suck. (See links above if this is offensive; the God of ID creationism is a God no Christian should want to have anything to do with.)
BCH
Colin · 24 May 2005
Mike S. · 24 May 2005
FL · 24 May 2005
Burt Humburg · 24 May 2005
Let me try it another way...
Kenneth Miller might be virulently anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, etc., but if he arrives at those conclusions having considered evolution in its fullness, then my fear thesis would not apply to him.
On the other hand, if Joe Creationist maintained his homophobia because he literally reads the Bible and thinks that "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" is a serious argument to that, but when told about evolution decides not to consider it because then he's have to rethink his thoughts on religiously-fueled homophobia, then that's fear and my thesis would apply to him.
It's about the process involved. If you say, "Here's something that could potentially make me rethink my views on X. I'm going to ignore that something," that's the kind of fear my essay is referring to. It's when you take your faith off of God and put it in a God that under no circumstances would use evolution that faith becomes the kind of misplaced faith I'm referring to in my essay.
Is that better?
BCH
Sir_Toejam · 24 May 2005
"Judging from the way you've worded it, it looks like no matter how much a Christian "bends", somebody's always gonna be pushing him or her to keep on bending some more, and more, and more, and more, ad nauseum, ad vomitum. "
yup. until eventually we abandon all this superstitious nonsense. I expect it will take 4 or 5 more generations until religion itself becomes marginalized.
better get out there and get to work FL!
Russell · 24 May 2005
Burt Humburg · 24 May 2005
I don't have a problem discussing theology, but I don't think that the ease with which I discuss it should be the standard for everyone on these forums. Theology is one of those things that people should feel comfortable to discuss or not per their preference.
I will say that my religious beliefs do not require me to shut my eyes to reality. I'm therefore free to investigate and accept the conclusions of verified science and my theology is only of tangential relevance to evolution. (Hence, the absence of reference to my own theology in my essay.)
There are other theologies that do make an enemy of verified science (e.g., Wells and his "Father's words, my prayers" quote). In those cases, religious motivations are key to consider since they are the sine qua non of antievolutionism in most cases.
BCH
Russell · 24 May 2005
Mike S. · 24 May 2005
Steve U. · 24 May 2005
Mike S. · 24 May 2005
Flint · 24 May 2005
Non-Christians are not over-represented among those getting abortions, so there's not even any relationship between what people say they believe, and what they do when their beliefs turn out to be inconvenient. If creationists have a political agenda besides converting as many as possible to the same general doctrines, it's taking care that their policies only apply to other people. The dual goals are (1)saying the right things, and (2)making sure other people DO the right things.
But one need not be a creationist to be two-faced or apply a double standard. It's not even clear that being a creationist is particularly helpful, much less necessary. Evolution only encourages people who aren't comfortable with the notion, to find rationalized workarounds for evolution-related discomfort. Kind of like being a practicing Christian only for one hour each week -- gotta stay focused here.
Burt Humburg · 24 May 2005
David Heddle · 24 May 2005
Russell · 24 May 2005
Russell · 24 May 2005
David Heddle · 24 May 2005
Russell,
Are you arguing that Humburg is stating that born-homosexuals are a problem only for religiously-fueled homophobes, while allowing that there are some who are opposed to homosexuality for biblical reasons but who are not homophobes? I don't think so.
If he agrees that it is possible to accept, as truth, that homosexuality is an abomination, because the bible teaches as much, without being a religiously-fueled homophobe, then I'll retract my previous comment.
From your perspective, I suspect, not only is "religiously-fueled homophobia" not a minor phenomenon, but it applies to all Christians who oppose homosexuality.
Sir_Toejam · 24 May 2005
that's some wacky stuff there, Hedley.
"Christians who oppose homosexuality"
Ok, so we have Christians, who by definition are a religious group.
Now the "oppose homosexuality". How do they do this hedley? by not being homosexuals, or by screaming and protesting about how homosexuality is a sin?
that irrational opposition of one sin over another could quite well be defined as a the result of a defense mechanism due to fear (phobia).
hence, it IS logical to conclude that the basis for public christian opposition to homosexuality is a phobia.
the only thing i would wonder about is whether using the bible is just an excuse for a previously existing phobia.
so are you using the excuse of the bible to declare yourself a homophobe, or were you already one to begin with?
Russell · 24 May 2005
To answer your question(s), David, I think I can just pretty much just "ditto" Sir ToeJam.
(Though without that last question, because, as you know, I don't want to be uncivil, accusing people of being homophobes, or of posing questions idiotically, that sort of thing.)
David Heddle · 24 May 2005
Russell · 24 May 2005
Sir_Toejam · 24 May 2005
"So the bible condemnations are illegitimate reasons?"
i answer your question with another:
how many things that the bible condemns do we actually condemn in public?
I don't think you know your bible very well.
try it sometime. if you think the bible is an authoritative text, then go through and list on paper everything that is condemned in the bible, then compare that list to things that are actually condemned in public.
I know you will find a great discrepancy. In fact, it makes me wonder just what kind of a bible-thumper you are to not know this already.
now, if you ever get to the point of finishing this task (i personally don't see the point of finishing it altogether, as I'm sure after an hour of reading the list will be long enough to have proved my point), you should be able to answer both the question I posed, and the one you posed to me.
If you accept one thing condemned in the bible as worthy of public condemnation (legitimate), then why don't you accept ALL of the things the bible condemns, eh?
On a far smaller scale, how many of the ten commandments are actually written and utilized as current law in the US?
I mean, we have a huge percentage of the populations that supposedly believe in the bible, yes?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 24 May 2005
Russell · 24 May 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 24 May 2005
Sir_Toejam · 24 May 2005
"the prohibition of clothes of mixed fibers."
i've forgotten; was there a proposed punishment for that?
like forcing someone who wears a poly/cotton blend to wear wool?
;)
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 24 May 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 24 May 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 24 May 2005
Sir_Toejam · 24 May 2005
"http://www.petertatchell.net/homophobia/bigots%20are%20bugge . . . "
lol. doesn't surprise me a bit.
Sir_Toejam · 24 May 2005
"Why do all IDers seem to have such a lethal allergy to answering direct questions?"
because they are in denial to begin with. it's how they live, so why should we be surprised when they can't answer direct questions?
hell, you just posted a link that has your answer in it.
David Heddle · 24 May 2005
Russell and Sir TJ:
As for the ceremonial law, you raise a valid question. For the general viewpoint of Christians is the the ceremonial law was done away with by Christ. While this is believed by virtually all Christians, including me, it is not trivial to prove. It is done mostly by anecdote--i.e., Jesus' own violation of the Sabbath, etc. And in Jesus' claim of fulfilling the law--although personally I think that means something else.
If the condemnation of homosexuality were only tied to the ceremonial law, you would have a valid point. However, it receives condemnation in the NT as well, so therein lies the difficulty. In other words, it does not stand or fall with the ceremonial law.
Lenny,
You finally ask a reasonable question. I've always wanted to have an actual dialog with you, but, until now, all you ever did was repeat your silly mantra, which I already answered.
The answer is: The rest of the country is not obligated to live according to my Biblical religious opinions, and no section of the Constitution places the US under my interpretations of Biblical law. Are we square on that?
I am not saying that homosexuality should be illegal under US law.
I am saying that two things, actually, neither of which have any connection to your question.
The first is that I don't believe that Russell, or Sir TJ, or Humburg think that there is any type of Christians opposed to homosexuality other than religiously-fueled homophobes. You may be in that category too.
The second is that the possibility that some (or even all) homosexuals are born homosexual is compatible with orthodox Christianity. In fact, if you followed the link I posted in my first comment, to argue, as some Christians do, that all homosexuals choose to be gay, is, in my opinion, a heretical viewpoint.
By the way, Lenny, I would swear under oath that ID is religiously motivated. I don't see how anyone can claim otherwise.
Jim Harrison · 24 May 2005
At most times and most places, people simply assume that what they were taught is truth. Not all belief is the result of a spiritual struggle. Mostly it's just a default. I'm sure most Christians would identify homosexuality as a sin if somebody asked 'em the question since that is the traditional position; but their answer doesn't imply that they give a damn about the issue or couldn't be readily convinced that other aspects of their faith, agape, for example, are more important than a few lines in Leviticus.
Presumably a homophobe is somebody for whom homosexuality is a big deal, not just somebody who answers a poll question one way or another.
Sir_Toejam · 24 May 2005
lol.
whatever. if you want to stick to the new testament, be my guest. However, you can no longer claim the "bible" as a legitimate authority, since it includes both new and old testaments.
even if i went so far as to cede your ceremonial argument to you...
I would simply rephrase the question and ask you to list ALL the things condemned in the new testament and perform the same comparison.
My point works just as well.
again, you are only indicating your ignorance of the very source of authority you seem to think is so important.
Sir_Toejam · 24 May 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 24 May 2005
Kid Who Delivers Pizza to Flank · 24 May 2005
Russell · 24 May 2005
Russell · 24 May 2005
By the way, I know there are passages in the bible condemning, specifically male homosexuality. But does the bible say anything at all about female homosexuality? Does anyone know why fundies get all hot and bothered about lesbians?
steve · 24 May 2005
FL · 24 May 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 24 May 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 24 May 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 24 May 2005
Burt Humburg · 24 May 2005
There's a back and forth here going on that I don't want to stoop to. I want to answer Heddle's question as best as I can, but I don't want to get embroiled on the locker-room stuff going on here of late.
I think it is rare to find someone who is able to take a religious view against homosexuality and not be religiously homophobic. Those people do exist, clearly, but they are the rarity. Rather, what is far more common is to see people like Jerry Johnston openly advocate hatred of homosexuals as a political instrument.
I don't want to be ethereal here so let me be plain. On or before the day I attended Johnston's sermon, gays and lesbians and their friends had decided to be silent for a full 24hours in representation of the silent adversity faced by those who are not out of the closet. Independent of what one's religious beliefs are about homosexuality, the fact that gays who are not out experience silent hardship and emotional pressure cannot be debated. It would be like me refusing to speak for 24 hours in deference to creationists who silently believed that evolution was false: it's something anyone independent of belief could do to recognize the adversity.
Jerry Johnston prayed to God (see the writeup in my essay above), apologizing that as Christians they lacked the political power to crush that simple promotion of awareness.
There is religiously-fueled homophobia in the world and it wouldn't surprise me if the majority of people who were so did so thinking they were being Godly when they act this way.
In closing, I will only say that to consider admonitions against homophobia as having NT validation is for you to hold that Jesus was not competent to talk about the things that mattered. (Please remember that Jesus mentioned the topic all of ZERO times. He did have things to say about liars and injustice, however.)
Nuff said on this topic. You may go back to your feces flinging.
BCH
Sir_Toejam · 24 May 2005
RBH · 24 May 2005
Sir_Toejam · 25 May 2005
oh please.
DougT · 25 May 2005
David H
Regarding ceremonial law. When people bring up this issue, they frequently mention things like mixed fiber garments and dietary laws (no shellfish, no cheesburgers- I'm sure you can do the list better than I can). Your answer was pretty standard relative to that of others with a biblical inerrancy standpoint. One OT law that seems not to have been overturned in the New Testament is against the charging of interest on loans. Nobody has ever given me a cogent answer about why Christians don't have a problem with it despite a straightforward biblical proscription. Care to take a crack? (and apologies to all, this feels way off topic to me).
David Heddle · 25 May 2005
Burt Humburg · 25 May 2005
So you admit that Jesus didn't think homosexuality was a big deal?
BCH
David Heddle · 25 May 2005
Exactly the opposite. It is impossible for Paul to teach something in the bible that conflicts with Jesus, and Paul wrote against homosexuality.
Ed Darrell · 25 May 2005
I think the creationist disregard for evidence often affects the way they read the Bible.
1. Nothing in the Bible suggests that it would be impossible for Paul to teach something in the Bible that conflicts with Jesus. In point of fact, Paul says that some of what he says is his own opinion, not from any other source. Why would Paul say that? Why would a student of the Bible ignore the point?
2. Paul wrote against temple prostitution, and he wrote about both heterosexual temple prostitution as well as homosexual prostitution, if in fact his words can be construed accurately to be against homosexuality. Some scholars question that. Paul preached hard against promiscuity -- in all things, in all people.
Paul also wrote against marriage.
Now, if we were to be consistent, and take all of this stuff literally, we'd be in the same position as the Shakers. Mr. Heddle is not of the Shaker persuasion, however -- so our question should be, why does Mr. Heddle do what he accuses the rest of us of doing, pick and choose parts of the Bible to emphasize, sometimes with disregard for the rest?
3. Jesus spoke not a word against homosexuality recorded in scripture. Not even in the Apocrypha.
4. If we're interpreting Paul's use of the word "unnatural" as disallowing homosexuality, we have a lot of explaining to do now that we know homosexuality is not uncommon among hundreds of other animal species (not to mention that it is virtually required in some plants).
5. When claims that Paul spoke against anything come from those who twist scripture to claim that Jesus affirmed the literalness of the flood and creation stories, since we know that Jesus did neither except in passing in longer comments against divorce and the end of time, we might be justified to dismiss the claims about Paul as similarly twisted or ill-informed.
6. Jesus talked about money and economic justice more than any other topic. Hell on Earth is poverty, and Jesus preached against it. Hell on Earth is sickness, and Jesus preached against it. Applied evolution has given us the green revolution to combat poverty and medical miracles that promote healing. To the extent that creationism calls those things evil in its haste to disavow Darwin (who was a good and just man), creationism is blasphemous. And that's wholly apart from whether Paul intended to condemn homosexuality.
Burt Humburg · 25 May 2005
I'd comment to Heddle, but Darrell summarized my thoughts nicely. I endorse his rejoinder, especially its organizing thesis that Heddle is allowing his preconceptions about the Bible to affect the way he reads it.
While I don't want to criticize him on this point - because one observation of the psychology of learning and creativity is that we are able to understand only that which we already half-know - I do think he's making some assumptions about the God-breathed aspects of the Pauline NT that might not necessarily be valid.
BCH
Sir_Toejam · 25 May 2005
Heddley does a little twirl:
"The whole notion that God spoke through the prophets and that the writers of the gospels and epistles were inspired must be tossed out"
uh, just a couple of posts before that, you essentially threw out the entire OT as of no value in answering the questions i posed.
so which is it, eh? Is it "the bible" or just a collection of random texts?
do you even know yourself?
Flint · 25 May 2005
Bah! On this board, scientists find the Bible supports evolution, creationists find that it does not. On other boards, bigots find Biblical support for bigotry, homophobes find Biblical support for their visceral disgust with homosexuality, while homosexuals find Biblical endorsement of their orientation. Apparently we could change the name of the Bible to the Giant Golden Book of Congenial Ambiguities. It seems to say anything anyone wants to believe.
In this respect, the Bible sounds just like ID and anything else that means everything and its opposite and therefore can't be wrong even when it's wrong. Are you people feeling all right?
Sir_Toejam · 25 May 2005
"It seems to say anything anyone wants to believe"
Exactly, why do you think it's been around for so long?
Henry J · 25 May 2005
now that we know homosexuality is not uncommon among hundreds of other animal species (not to mention that it is virtually required in some plants).
And at least one species of lizard.
Henry
Henry J · 25 May 2005
(Oops, left out some punctuation from the above.)
Re "[...] now that we know homosexuality is not uncommon among hundreds of other animal species (not to mention that it is virtually required in some plants)."
And at least one species of lizard.
Henry
Ed Darrell · 25 May 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 25 May 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 25 May 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 25 May 2005
Sir_Toejam · 25 May 2005
lenny, Heddle says he's done with us. something about "getting a life".
which means you might have to wait a few days before his inevitable return.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 25 May 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 25 May 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 25 May 2005