Forrest and Branch: Wedging Creationism into the Academy

Somehow, the entry you tried to comment on does not exist.

Off-topic for this thread but:

Turned off science
Students may be the real victims of the evolution wars

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8074471/

"According to McKinney [evolution advocate], interested students have waited until they are outside the classroom to discuss what they perceive as "conflicting" views. "I have flat out told students that the more I know about science, the more glorious God seems," said McKinney."

I don't know what this means. If students feel "conflicted", it is still okay to say God created evolution? Not sure what the teacher is implying.

Rike.. I got the same error

I wanted to respond to O'Brien's remarks

"Ah, yes, Barbara Forrest, the pseudo-scientist who dishonestly claimed the following (in an op-ed piece co-authored with Gross):

"Evolution, on the other hand, is at the center of all life science, much physical science (as in geology), and applied fields such as medicine and agriculture."

Evolution does not inform geology or any other physical science. Forrest tried to hoodwink readers by conflating biological evolution and geological "evolution" (i.e., uniformitarianism and plate tectonics) because biology suffers from an inferior evidentiary threshold and epistemological footing.

Forrest has no credibility and no business speaking on matters on science.
"

I was hoping to have a field day with this..

The link supplied in the main post is busted.

Use this link instead for your comments.

Just for the hell of it - do you suppose Forrest and Branch get a few chuckles out of the serendipitous pairing of their last names?

The Forrest and Branch article in Academe was the topic of a Panda's Thumb thread of 2005-01-20 entitled "Wedging Creationism into the Academy".

Re: tytlal's question:

It seems to me the teacher is skirting the law a bit. I prefer that teachers address the issue head on, noting that a study of biology is not a religious experience per se, and that the course is not designed to change anyone's faith; but students are expected to understand and deal with important ideas. Just as they are not expected to become communists when they study Marx in history or economics, but instead to understand and work with the ideas Marx expressed, neither do we expect students to become Anglicans or polite, faithful husbands and sterling fathers simply by studying Darwin. They are expected to know what Darwin said and why scientists give evolution great credence in order to pass the course.

I was bothered by the implication the article gives that even very good biology courses in very good Georgia high schools pussyfoot (pusillanimously!) around evolution.

Say it ain't so, Zell -- or any other Georgian.

File that article with the earlier piece from the New York Times that found evolution actually taught in a minority of high schools. Among other things, that shows the claim that teaching evolution leads to sin to be a false claim.

I think failing to teach evolution honestly encourages kids to sin, but that's a topic for another time.

Just for the hell of it - do you suppose Forrest and Branch get a few chuckles out of the serendipitous pairing of their last names?

I wanted to respond to O'Brien's remarks

— Stuart

Just for the hell of it - do you suppose Forrest and Branch get a few chuckles out of the serendipitous pairing of their last names?

Just for the hell of it - do you suppose Forrest and Branch get a few chuckles out of the serendipitous pairing of their last names?

— Bob Maurus

Glenn,

Do you have anyone in your family named "Woody"?

I know my dad always calls himself "Hoss", and my oldest brother sometimes does it.

Reed writes "Don't bother. There is a reason why Ed named his Idiot of the Month award after O'Brien."

Oh. He's that O'Brien..

Might it not be good for ID to be taught in classrooms, alongside evolution, but with the proviso that neither theory spends more than 5% of its time or 5% of its textbooks discussing the other? As far as I can tell, if you discard discussion of the problems with ID from the average evolution curriculum you end up with the average evolution corriculum; if you remove complaints about evolution from any ID book (there being no curriculum), then you're left with at best a small pamphlet.

R

What I really want is a coauthor named Root.

— Glenn Branch

One of my treasures is a wedding announcement from a local paper. It shows a picture of the bride, and underneath gives the names of the bride and groom:

Swallows-Cox

I've always hoped she has enough of a sense of humor to appreciate that caption.

The UGA football team had two defensive players named Sullivan and Gilbert. Occationally at the games we'd hear "Gilbert and Sullivan make the tackle."

As long as we are in funny names...

www.effect.net.au/lukastan/humour/Visual-Nice/Names-01.htm
www.effect.net.au/lukastan/humour/Visual-Nice/Surnames-01.htm

I seem to be banned from posting to Beckwith's Right Reason blog. Does anyone know if he shares blacklists with Dumbski?

I seem to be banned from posting ...

I'm amazed at how much Bradley and Beckwith complain about Forrest and Branch's mention of them. Bradly merits one sentence in the Forrest article; Beckwith merits two short paragraphs. In both cases Forrest and Branch are reporting simple facts, among which is the ralationship both Bradley and Beckwith have to the CSC of the DI and "the Wedge", to which their readers may not be privy. How can they protest the article's factual reporting?

Ha! After linking to the site below and pointing out Beckwith's obfuscating and misleading tendencies to the dismay of one Steve Burton, I was promptly banned from participating in further "philosophical discussions" about the Discovery Institute, its Reconstructionist shills and their relationship to Beckwith.

I did save my final (now deleted) post, however, which I will post here tomorrow.

http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/2005/05/my_letter_to_aa_1.html#comments

Thans Philemon. I've posted to that link you sent above, calling Francis out on what I perceive to be the fundamental dishonestly of ID proponents: that they know their position inevitably leads to the assertion that God created life (and, also, it would seem, the universe itself), but refuse to admit this. That's a pretty funny way to play from a scientific perspective--to refuse to disclose the logical consequences of your idea--but when you look at these guys as plain old hucksters it makes perfect sense. I'll be interested to see how Francis responds.

Interesting... he responds by misreading my question and telling me that I need to go do lots, lots more reading to get the answer to another question.

Over at "Right Reason" Dr. Beckwith has deleted all but one of the comments on his response to the Academe article -- and guess which side of the issue that one comes down on.

Beckwith thus leaves the ranks of the almost-sane ID apologist/advocates/promoters/defenders (pick the one that you think best fits, I can provide justification for any of them, and Beckwith will complain regardless).

Those guys have very thin skin, and even less tolerance for science methods or facts.

For the record, my comments (which were deleted) noted that Beckwith's defense of the legality of teaching ID in public schools is based on his erroneous assumption that ID has already been found to be science. He keeps insisting he's not defending ID, but he's not right on the legal aspects of teaching it without such a defense (he's not right WITH the defense, either, but he makes the defense in his books and articles).

It is too bad that so many pro-ID websites delete comments and trackbacks.

I was trying to corner Beckwith and beat out of him two things. First, whether he would admit that intelligent design was a form of creationism because the designer has no possible identity but God. Second, whether he actually did understand the statements of Behe and Dembski as well as the consensus as to their scientific merit, or whether he was so sloppy as to volunteer his services to these two and their like without any care as to what they would do with those services. Ho hum.

In a truly civil society, charlatans and professional obfuscating shills like Frank Beckwith who take money from extremists like Howard Ahmanson would be treated with the same ridicule and contempt that Holocaust deniers and white supremacists receive routinely. The modus operandi of creationist apologists is no different from that of white supremacists and Holocaust Deniers, although the Ultimate Goals are only rarely whispered, for obvious reasons. Although outright racist and anti-Semitic themes are no longer palatable for the vast majority of Americans, there is still a market for gay bigotry. Focus on the Family seems especially eager to milk that cow. They also employ creationist apologists, just like the Discovery Institute (some of the same ones, as pointed out by those "psychotic" commenters), and they also wish to interpret the 1st amendment in a way which would allow them to propogate their ignorance and bigotry on the taxpayers dime. Which aspect of this discussion do you not understand, Mr. Burton? Or would you simply rather deny it? Civility starts with honesty and frankness. Beckwith doesn't get to first base because he ignores what is plain to any objective observer: Dembski and Behe and Wells et al. are dishonest people who peddle confusion and target genuine scientists with their anti-science smears. There is no "vitriol" in making this statement. It's a proven fact and the evidence has been laid out a thousand times over for you and for anyone else who cares to read it. Courts have seen the evidence. Creationists are not doing science. But they say that they are doing science. They are wrong. They are lying. And Frank Beckwith surely realizes this. I wonder if Frank's opinion on the scientific vailidity of a 10,000 year old earth is "fully formed"? And if so, how did Frank manage to "fully form" his opinion? Imagine if some well-funded Christian think tank decided to push a "design" theory which provided that the differences between whites, blacks, homosexuals and chimps were "obviously designed" by some "intelligence" for some unclear purpose. Let's say that a handful of so-called "scientists" -- "coincidentally" all conservative and religious -- used a bunch of big words and said this was a valid "theory" for explaining the differences between whites, blacks, homosexuals and chimps. Let's say that the scientists and the think tank spend millions of dollars lobbying for the teaching of this information in public schools, in spite of the fact that the vast majority of anthropologists and biologists and paleontologists say its unscientific garbage, less like science more like political propaganda for religion. What does Frank Beckwith say? Teach the theory to public school kids? No problem, Constitutionally? I assume that would be Frank's position. Why? Because there is no way to distinguish between the "design theory" I just described and the one he already shills for.

Thanks for the lesson on how to refute an evolution-based argument for white supremacy, Frank. As a Ph.D. in molecular biology, I'm pretty comfortable with those arguments. As a practicing lawyer, I recognize another not-too-slick attempt by you to blow smoke and diminish Darwin's contributions to biology. Take your arrogant educational advice and stick it in someone else's face. Can we return to the subject of my deleted posts, Frank? Remember how you work for the Discovery Institute which is funded by Howard Ahmanson? Remember how Howard Ahmanson spent years propping up a certain Christian extremist by the name of Rushdoony? "Though Ahmanson has read "Institutes of Biblical Law," he told me he prefers books by Rushdoony that deal more explicitly with ethical and moral issues. One such book is "The Politics of Guilt and Pity," a polemical suite of caustic riffs on the pathology of liberals. In this book, Rushdoony writes: "The guilty rich will indulge in philanthropy, and the guilty white men will show 'love' and 'concern' for Negroes and other such persons who are in actuality repulsive and intolerable to them ... The Negroes demand more aid, i.e., more slavery and slave-care, and dwell on their sufferings." http://www.theocracywatch.org/ahmanson.htm Is this the sort of "honest rational" discussion you are referring to, Frank? There's oh so much more for you to explain to us, Frank. We haven't yet gotten to the issue of anti-gay bigotry and discrimination!

As for your little publicity stunt regarding prayer, perhaps you've forgotten this: Matthew 6:5-8 5 And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him." You might also consider the possibility, Frank, that God has led me, Dave, Steven and others who commented here to you so that we can wake you up or otherwise prevent you from promoting ignorance and spreading misinformation in His name. Or have you conclusively ruled out that possibility?

I'm in the process of being banned at another ID blog: http://www.galilean-library.org/blog/?p=88.)

(You may also find other posts here: http://www.galilean-library.org/blog/

It's fascinating. The author wanted to deal with the "rhetoric of scientists" and posted some folderol completely missing the point of the decision in McLean v. Arkansas. So I posted the links and the real arguments, and noted that scientists were complaining about inaccuracies, not rhetorical tricks. (NOTA BENE: One of the chief concerns of real rhetoric studies is the veracity of an argument. Truth is the biggest rhetorical tool one may use; these guys seem to miss that.)

In any case, I predict my comments will be struck down by noon EDT today. If you're masochist enough, take a gander over there and contribute your own thoughts. There are several posts on "intelligent design" and the methods of arguments.

I've saved all the posts Dr. Beckwith censored. Sometimes the archive function of Google is quite useful.

Was there a meeting of IDibots recently where the Commisar of ID decreed that all dissent should be censored from ID blogs? There is no other issue I've seen where an entire bloc of advocates has suddenly become so hypersensitive to even the most gentle criticism.

If there was no such meeting, it's a heckuva study in herd mentality, or fish schooling.

They're just teaching the controversy.

Censoring of ID blogs makes perfect sense. They are PR agents. The purpose of the websites is to give people the impression that it's respected science. Can't do that if you show comments by the scientific community.

Ed Darrell: The Galilean Library, http://galilean-library.org/ is not an ID blog or message board. But keep stuffing that straw.

Ed, ID/creationism does not have a monopoly on incompetent/dishonest rhetoric and philosophising. There was a rather obvious name on the site which you apparently missed. It is probably hard to tell the difference sometimes though if you've come to expect that sort of thing only from IDiots.

Ed,

If I remember rightly Hugo Holbling used to post a bit over on the Internet Infidels messageboard if you fancy continuing your debate over there. I was actually under the impression (if I have the right chap in mind) that Holbling wasn't an IDist.

Indeed, as SEF demonstrates with practically every post, ID/creationism does not have a monopoly on incompetent/dishonest rhetoric and philosophizing.

Only by pointing out where you and people like you are guilty of it, davidm.

People with the name David seem to have a monopoly on useless posts though.

DavidM: What evidence have you that the site is not an ID site? Check out the posts -- none contradict ID. Most assume ID to be science. All of them complain about Darwin.

You might be able to make a case that it's just deluded creationists -- but there is no case to be made that it's a balanced discussion of anything, especially not biology, especially not rhetoric.

Ironic name, though, don't you think? After all, wasn't it Galileo who first noted that the shells in the Alps could not have got there by a flood?

Ed, old bean, do look at who owns/runs the site (via the usual methods). All will become clear. If not, then google may help. If still not, then it's hard to say how many more clues you would need.

In response to my post, Mr. Beckwith dissembled just as he did in response to Dave's posts and pretended to offer me advice as to where I could learn more about Darwin's contributions to eugenics and the white supremacists movement.

I already suggested The Mismeasure of Man to Beckwith. I once suggested it to another born-again conservative (this one a Catholic) who was absolutely convinced that evolution was a racist notion. He shook his head and said he wouldn't waste his time with the opinions of an avowed Marxist.

Ed, old bean, do look at who owns/runs the site (via the usual methods). All will become clear. If not, then google may help. If still not, then it's hard to say how many more clues you would need.

I wasn't saying that Hugo was an IDist though. I was the one saying that it isn't just IDists who look and behave that way. Rather the IDists are merely one symptom of a larger problem of human incompetence and dishonesty.

There's more than that one example of rubbish philosophy to which some people have recently become sensitised. Ed is too busy assuming that simply because he sees something as rubbish it has to be ID rubbish. He's failed to become aware of the larger problem because other people made him aware of that narrow example of the problem. The current awareness of ID among certain people is like them having been given antibodies to a specific disease but not having their own immune system functioning properly to spot other instances of disease.

PS I wasn't even proposing going as far as "whois" but just looking at the site base pages for the names of those involved.

I once suggested it to another born-again conservative (this one a Catholic) who was absolutely convinced that evolution was a racist notion. He shook his head and said he wouldn't waste his time with the opinions of an avowed Marxist

DavidM: What evidence have you that the site is not an ID site? Check out the posts --- none contradict ID. Most assume ID to be science. All of them complain about Darwin. You might be able to make a case that it's just deluded creationists --- but there is no case to be made that it's a balanced discussion of anything, especially not biology, especially not rhetoric. Ironic name, though, don't you think? After all, wasn't it Galileo who first noted that the shells in the Alps could not have got there by a flood?

I wasn't saying that Hugo was an IDist though

Ed, old bean, do look at who owns/runs the site (via the usual methods). All will become clear. If not, then google may help. If still not, then it's hard to say how many more clues you would need.

Yes, really, davidm. Your incompetence at reading comprehension or dishonesty in seeking to misrepresent what's there is quite a feature of your posts. There's been no backtracking by me at all - just repeated incompetence and/or dishonesty from you.

It is a little ridiculous what is going on here. Because Ed cannot understand the context of arguments, Hugo Holbling's personal information is searched for and broadcast? What kind of witch-hunt type nonsense is this? Read the about section of the site or any of the many topics to find out what we're about. We are not Iders---and furthermore, as already said, this hardly matters anyway. Instead of demonzing your opponents and engaging in fruitless conspiracy theorizing( you're telling its that serious that you will search for someone's personal information because they dont talk like Iders are a threat to civilization? This is how it is decided if people are Iders if they speak with the same rhetoric?) why not engage in some fruitful dialogue

Ed, old bean, do look at who owns/runs the site (via the usual methods). All will become clear. If not, then google may help. If still not, then it's hard to say how many more clues you would need.

I'm confused. Why has the point of this thread turned to comments on some other blog and whether or not that blog/messageboard is an "ID" blog? Who cares? Ed posted links, we can all go read everything for ourselves. Why have things escalated like this?

Just an FYI davidm: A whois look up can be done by anyone, anywhere and was made publically available by the person who setup that site. Simmer down.

You don't appear to know what the word "backtrack" means, davidm, and you've also resorted to the capitalisation indicative of an unsound mind.

You are wrong in what you say I implied - indeed I actually stated the opposite, repeatedly: that it wasn't IDists and that people other than IDists could produce rubbish philosophy. Your poor English comprehension and/or dishonesty is not my problem.

Incidentally, I don't approve of the publishing of someone's details and I didn't do that (nor, as I said, was that what I was intending by way of minimal research). However, it is quite shocking that the people running this site should let you go on posting your transparent falsehoods about what other people have said in the way that you do. At least the evidence here speaks for itself, even if you lack the wit to see it yourself.

You specified that in searching for information about the site, then "all will become clear." You then suggested Googling for more information, and that doing so would provide sufficient "clues" to something or other.

Clues to what, SEF? What "all" was supposed to become "clear?" Either you meant that such searches would prove that the owner of the site was an ID promoter, or you meant something else. What? Obviously it's not "clear" to anyone else what you meant, since someone else (not me) originally challenged you on this point.

Because Ed cannot understand the context of arguments, Hugo Holbling's personal information is searched for and broadcast? it's shocking that the people who run this site would let personal information be displayed in this manner, by those who have developed an irrational animus toward anyone who does not think in precise lockstep with them.

Go back and reread SEF's posts. He was originally telling Ed that they weren't ID advocates, but that IDiots aren't the only people to post dumb philosophical crap.

Not just originally but all the time ... consistently and without backtracking. :-D

The low standard of English comprehension of davidm and others are the sort of thing which leads to many of the problems on the internet - and is a prime example of something which is not exclusively an IDist problem. A ridiculous misunderstanding due to careless reading occurred recently here too.

Notwithstanding anything SEF said before or after the key post in question, when SEF invited "Ed old bean" to do a lookup of the information on the owner of the site, it's very clear that SEF was engaging in a cheap bit of innuendo. SEF was implying that there was something unsavory or dishonest about the owner of the site. The most parsimonious assumption, given the hot hosue nature of this discussion, was that SEF was doing a "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" signaling that at the least, the owner was an ID-sympathizer: the equivalent, on this board, of being a Communist in the McCarthy era.

SEF, read Galileo's post: Put up or shut up. It's fascinating that SEF still hasn't explained just what he meant by "all will be clear" after doing this lookup. In posting the information of the owner of the site, what is revealed are names and phone numbers that reveal nothing at all. Nothing is clear from such information, SEF old bean, even to your allies.

Yes, this is widely available public information. But it takes some effort and motive to search for it; what matters here is the context of how this information was revealed. It has about it the aroma of intimidation and threat; the mentality of, rather than meet (or even try to understand!) the arguments of someone with whom we disagree, let's snoop around into his background and see if we can come up with damaging information.

Let's remember, too, that this whole hullabaloo started when Ed falsely characterized the blog in question as an ID blog; he did this even though he could have verified or disconfirmed this claim for himself simply by visiting the Web site to which it is attached. He didn't bother to undertake that simple step. Is this how you guys do science?

Now I'm withdrawing from this ridiculous discussion. The owner of the blog who has come under your McCarthyesque assault has his own observations on the matter: http://www.galilean-library.org/blog/?p=90

dave, you clearly need to calm down and reread the thread. You are overreacting, and these persecution claims are ridiculous.

SEF didn't ask anyone to post any info on this other guy. He didn't tell anyone to do anything other than look at the person's name that is on the website. That's it. What you want to read into that is your own business, and quite frankly, your own failing. How you've taken that and turned it into some sort of lockstep McCarthyism is beyond me.