KCPress Forum, and David Awbrey

Posted 16 May 2006 by Jack Krebs

A couple of weeks ago (May 4, 2006) I attended a panel discussion hosted by the Kansas City Press Club entitled "Intelligent Design, Intelligent Media: Is Coverage Accurate." Panelists included Kansas Board of Education chair Steve Abrams, Kansas State Department of Education Director of Communications David Awbrey, and three reporters, Dave Hellings of the KC Star, Toby Cook of WDAF-TV and Ben Embry of KCUR-FM. Derek Donovan, Reader's Representative for the KC Star, was the moderator. To me, the most interesting aspect of the forum was listening to the comments of Awbrey. Awbrey is a conservative journalist who was recently hired by the state Board - the same Board that adopted ID creationist-influenced science standards last fall and who also hired Bob Corkins as Commissioner of Education, a rightwing lobbyist with no education experience whatsoever. I was interested in watching Awbrey in action, and I wasn't disappointed. (For miscellaneous information on Awbrey, see Les Lane's David Awbrey page.) The two main things Awbrey said that bothered me were:

Scientists and science educators were arrogantly refusing to participate in the democratic process because they wouldn't "stand on the stage with Steve Abrams" at last May's "science hearings," and

Scientists and science educators bring to the classroom their "religion" which holds that humans are meaningless cosmic accidents as opposed to being God's creation.

I questioned Awbrey about both these issues during the Q&A period. He denied that he had said these things, and later apologized but said that I had confused what he said with a quote he had read. I believe he is wrong on both counts. In this post, I am going to do the following

Describe a bit more about the forum, especially the underlying tension about the fact that only conservative's were invited to be on the panel.

Describe my remarks to Awbrey

Describe Awbrey's denials/apologies

Describe what Awbrey actually said

Respond to Awbrey's points

And finally, draw some conclusions.

This post may seem a little excessive, but I think it is worth publicizing this example of Awbrey's positions and style. He is the Kansas State Department of Education Director of Communications, and as such is responsible for communicating with the public in a way that represents the Board of Education and the Department of Education as a whole - a role he did not fulfill well at this forum, in my opinion. In fact, the one other Board member in attendance, moderate Sue Gamble, did not think so also. During the Q&A, Ms. Gamble said,

One of my questions is about what's going on tonight, and whether that is fair and unbiased. I question why Mr. Awbrey is a member of the panel, and quite frankly, as a member of the Board, I am quite unhappy with his conduct. I don't think this is the type of information we expect of our Director of Communications - but we'll do that as a separate issue. There is being a dichotomy described between faith and science that I don't think is there, and I hate to see that. So I would have liked to have been represented on the panel in terms of Board representation as opposed to what appears to be an extremely biased Director of Communications.

Listen to all of Ms. Gamble's comments at 29_Sue_Gamble.mp3 Note that complete sound files of the forum are at KCFS News., and a zipped set of files in shorter, more organized form is here. I will link to important segments in this post if you wish to listen. You might also want to read the following blog posts on the event:

Pat Hayes at Red State Rabble here and here.

Paul Decelles at The Force That Through..., and

Dave Warren at KansasRealPolitik.

Some controversy about the makeup of the panel It turns out that Intelligent Design (ID) leader John Calvert, Board member Sue Gamble, and myself had all contacted the event organizer and/or the panel moderator asking why just conservatives were invited. The explanation given was that the "two sides" of the panel were the conservatives, whom they assumed (correctly, as it turned out) would think that coverage was inadequate, and the reporters, who would think that coverage had been fair and balanced. Calvert protested that Abrams and Awbrey had nothing to do with Intelligent Design (because "ID isn't in the standards", he says), and therefore they shouldn't have been on the panel: rather an expert in ID (obviously Calvert) should. I felt that a representative of the science standards committee and of mainstream science should have been represented (e.g., me), and as stated, Sue Gamble thought the moderate minority of the Board should have been represented. I think it all turned out for the best though, because this way Abrams and Awbrey were in the spotlight, and the heat was not from us (the usual suspects), but rather from the reporters. My challenges to Awbrey during the Q&A 1. Scientists and religion Let's look first at what Awbrey said about scientists and religion, and let's begin by looking at my remarks to him during the Q&A:

Krebs: Mr. Awbrey presents a very divisive point of view that if you are for evolution you are against God. Awbrey (interrupting): That is so wrong, that is a slander - I am a theistic evolutionist. I'm an Episcopalian - how the heck could I ... Good grief, man. Krebs: You quoted Gould and you associated evolution with people who think the world is a cosmic accident, and you accused the science education community of teaching that the world is a cosmic accident, and that is a slander on the scientific community. Awbrey: I didn't say that either. Krebs: You did say those things. I have them right here [pointing to my computer which was recording the event], and will quote them at a later time.

Listen to all of my comments to Awbrey at 24_Krebs_Q.mp3 First notice that I didn't say anything about Awbrey's personal beliefs. I don't care what Awbrey himself believes: what I care about is his false accusations about the implications of evolutionary theory and his false statements about the beliefs, and subsequent effects of those beliefs on students, of those in the science education community. So what did Awbrey say? Did I "slander" him, or he us? Here is Awbrey, earlier in the forum:

I think the whole thing here is a game. Both sides are playing religion because one side takes a look at the evidence and comes to the conclusion as Jay [sic] Gould has done, as Richard Dawkins has done - who are very neo-Darwinist ... For example, this is Jay [sic] Gould. [Note: Awbrey had obviously come prepared with this quote.] Through no fault of our own, by dint of no cosmic plan or conscious purpose, we have become the power of a glorious evolutionary accident ...

In other words, it is a glorious accident, the whole thing we are talking about. Other people can look at the same evidence and say, "I see some evidence - I see God's hand at work. But yet the Gould view that there is no purpose in the universe, it's all meaningless, it's all a glorious accident: that's science. [my emphasis] [Interruption from reporter Dave Hellings: "No, that's metaphysics - that's absolute metaphysics"] And metaphysics is real close to religion because it's faith - the definition of religion is that it is faith in what is unseen. Anyone see the origin, anyone see the Big Bang, anyone see the dinosaurs? These are all metaphysical speculations by people who look at the same evidence and disagree with what they see. If the scientists would take their religion out of the science classes, there would probably not be a problem. But when you look - if you can construct a world where, as the Declaration of Independence says, we are endowed by our Creator - our rights come from a God, and all of a sudden we substitute that by saying it's just random accident, random mutation ... You see the philosophical problem here of wanting a purpose in life, and one without ... I can't arbitrate which is right, but both sides are practicing religion(14_Awbrey.accident.metaphysics) Wow - where to begin? Well, first let me note that even though Awbrey brought Gould's quote with him, he did not read it completely or accurately. The correct quote, with the part Awbrey left out in bold, is

Through no fault of our own, by dint of no cosmic plan or conscious purpose, we have become by the power of a glorious evolutionary accident called intelligence the stewards of life's continuity on earth.

(Gould, A Glorious Accident, 1997) Notice the difference in meaning in Awbrey's quote and what Gould actually wrote: Gould did not say that we have "become a power" but rather that by the power of evolution, we have developed intelligence that has made us stewards of life. Gould is not saying there is "no purpose" in life - he is in fact pointing to one of the purposes we now have because of the contingencies - glorious contingencies - that have made us who we are. Why didn't Awbrey quote, or interpret, Gould correctly? Because he wanted to use this distorted quote-mine to segue into his main (pre-planned) point that there is a dichotomy between those who "see God's hand at work" and the scientists and science educators who bring their "religion" that we are random accidents, products of random mutations, into the classroom. Despite his denial, he said exactly what I said that he did when I said, "Mr. Awbrey presents a very divisive point of view that if you are for evolution you are against God." This disingenuity is disturbing. First Awbrey came prepared to make the point that underlies the Board's attack on the science standards: that the world of science is aligned with atheism. However, then when he is called on this he denies it. This is the key issue by which the Board and Calvert et al have applied the Wedge to Kansas - claiming that science inherently supports materialism and atheism, and therefore design (aka supernatural causation) must be allowed in scientific explanations. Furthermore, as we have pointed out many times, the Board and its advocates reject the idea that a Christian, or a theist in general, can also accept the methodology and content of science, especially in regards to evolution. Many scientists are theists, or adherents of other religious views: Awbrey's blanket condemnation of the science community as being materialists who do not "see God's hand at work" in nature is an insult, if not a slander, to scientists and science educators all over the world. [By the way, we shouldn't leave this topic without pointing out, as several Kansas bloggers did, Awbrey's comment that dinosaurs are metaphysical. When Dave Hellings pointed out that dinosaurs were in fact not metaphysical, Awbrey replied, "But we never saw them." How much lack of understanding of both science and philosophy does this remark show?] 2. Scientists and democracy The other thing Awbrey said that was disturbing was that scientists were refusing to engage in the democratic process both in general and specifically through their boycott of the May 2005 "Science Hearings." Let's again work backwards. I called Awbrey on this during the Q&A, and later in the Q&A he appeared to apologize but in fact denied what he had said. Here's his apology/denial:

I apologize if I've slandered you, but remember what I saying was really from Randy Olson - I mean, he's from Lake Quivera, Flock of Dodos, very much pro-evolution - I mean, he's the one saying what you are attributing to me. My problem is that when any organization that has something essential to contribute holds back, I think that's a slight against democracy.

Well, Awbrey again used a quote as a disguise for presenting his own views. Here, for the record, is some of what Awbrey had to say: see for yourself whether I mis-attributed any views to him, and whether what he was saying "was really from Randy Olson."

The public generally favors a creationist point of view - divine involvement in creation. ... A 26% minority in one of the polls (the Pew Foundation, I believe) believe the darwinist version. But yet of course the public has one agenda on this issue - the public has one totally different view than the scientists. Science education ..., the neo-Darwinists, refuse to engage this issue. Steve Abrams has a standing invitation to any of you to appear in debate - to call up any of your supporters and lets' have a debate, but they will not participate. They will not participate because they think it lends legitimacy. They are not going to play the democratic process. [my emphasis] Unfortunately, science education is at stake here. And the people who claim to care the most about it are not going to participate with the public in a public debate on the public schools. The arrogance of that is just breath-taking to me, who believes very much in public education.

(06_Awbrey_on_debate_Hellings) And shortly afterwards,

We have an attitude, the scientific community, that says they're not involved in the public process... [Awbrey then quoted Randy Olson from an article in the Times (presumably the New York Times) that concluded that scientist need to "get off their collective high horse" and take their case to the public.] That to me is one of the untold stories - how the scientific community in this state has basically said we don't care for the public process, [my emphasis] we don't care about how the public perceives us, we don't care to engage in intellectual debate with people who have a lot of letters behind their names too. We are just going to insist on this, from our dogmatic point of view: we are the Vatican, we are the experts, we are KU, everyone else go away. That's the attitude that's out there. And it's the hostility, the arrogance, the elitism, that's driving so much of this.

(26_Awbrey_'apology' This is clearly Awbrey speaking, not Olson: trying to pass his remarks off as merely Olson's is again disingenuous - dishonest. really. And slanderous to the scientific community. Awbrey says that science educators "are not going to play the democratic process," and that they "don't care for the public process." Well let's review a bit:

The state science standards writing committee was chosen by the state Board (a democratically elected body) following established procedures

That committee elected a chairperson by majority vote

the committee adopted rules requiring a 2/3 vote for revisions

the committee submitted Draft 1 to the state Board in December, 2004

At that point, a minority of the committee worked outside the established process, under the leadership of John Calvert, who was not a member of the committee, to produce a Minority proposal, which they were allowed to present directly to the Board. Subsequently, the committee

voted on the Minority proposals, and rejected all but one

solicited input from the K-12 science education community

held public hearings, according to established procedures, in which we listened to over 200 people speak out of 800 who attended four public meetings around the state

and finally presented their democratically produced Draft 2, the product of hundred's of man-hours of work by dedicated members of the science education community (myself included), to the state Board for their consideration.

Pretty democratic, don't you think: a committee appointed by an elected body followed established procedures, including democratic rules about voting, and then considered over 400 individual comments from the educational community and the general public. So what did the Board do. Did they "play the democratic game" and follow established process? Heck no. They collaborated with John Calvert to concoct the infamous "Science Hearings", and later adopted wholesale the Minority report proposals. So, speaking of "breath-taking arrogance", I found it breath-taking to hear Awbrey accuse us of not participating in the democratic process. Furthermore, as was pointed out during the forum, scientists participate all the time by doing the research and putting their work up for review. The scientific process is very much a democratic process by which theories have to earn their way in the marketplace of ideas. The Intelligent Design advocates, however, want to skip the marketplace of ideas and go straight to the government - getting a government hand-out by having their unestablished ideas placed into the science standards. Whose being undemocratic here? It's the ID advocates who don't play the real democratic game - the one where you present your ideas to those qualified to judge them and let a consensus about what is wheat and what is chaff arise from the process. And of course we shouldn't forget, as Sue Gamble pointed out, the little event up in Dover recently. There we had a nice bit of democracy, called a trial - "both sides" got to make their case, and we know how that turned out. And last, Awbrey said that "Abrams has a standing invitation to any of you to appear in debate." It's news to me that this invitation is still standing, but as I said at the forum, "I offer to stand and debate the following points [the two mentioned here in this post] with you guys in a public forum." My offer stands also, with Abrams, Awbrey, or anyone else they want to choose. But they don't want to discuss the real issues, which are, among other things, their rejection of the methodology and validity of science for religious reasons, and their rejection of the beliefs of millions of religious people who do accept the methodology and validity of science and find that acceptance compatible with their beliefs about God. Conclusion David Awbrey is the Director of Communication for the Kansas State Department of Education (KSDE). However, like Commissioner Bob Corkins, he does not have experience as an educator - he is a journalist known more his conservative rhetoric than anything else. Yet, as the spokesperson for the KSDE, I would think he would (should?) work to represent the Board as a whole as well as the education community. But instead we saw, as Sue Gamble said, an "extremely biased Director of Communications" - one whose biases, as I have shown, badly misrepresent scientists and science educators in regards to both their religious beliefs and their participation in the democratic process. I have taken the time to dissect all this because I believe these views of Awbrey's need to be well known. If he is going to be speaking for the Board (really the Board majority), then we (the public, the press, the scientific and education communities), need to know both his biases and his style.

33 Comments

RBH · 17 May 2006

Thanks for that, Jack. I listened to the whole thing last week. Awbrey is a piece of work, all right.

RBH

Torbjörn Larsson · 17 May 2006

Well done.

BTW, the Big Bang isn't metaphysical either. It has been a physical theory since the 1920's, and was verified by WMAP 2003.

JohnS · 17 May 2006

So if only 26% of the public were literate, Awbrey as an appointee to an elected board would be seeking ways to increase the number of illiterates graduating from the school system? How can there be any progress if only the beliefs of the majority can be taught. Slavery and discrimination against women were also once the majority position.

If he gets his way, soon the only people capable of teaching or doing science in the US will be foreign graduates.

History may be repeating itself. A case can be made that the Roman Empire fell and the Dark Ages lasted as long as they did because of the espousing of ignorance by the church.

Liars For Christ, their only excuse is that they can make themselves believe anything is true if it supports their wishful thinking.

CSA · 17 May 2006

Excellent points, Jack.

Awbrey is continuing his disinformation campaign he began as soon as he started his $76,000/year job. After the Kansas Association of Teachers of Science blasted the new state standards, Awbrey stated for a 2/16/06 article in the Johnson County Sun:
"Now they [KATS]want to participate all of the sudden when the issue has already been resolved. That's not the way the process works," Awbrey said. "Anything they say now I have to perceive as a political action aimed at the August and November elections on the school board."

Steve Case, co-chair of the standards writing committee, rebutted in the comments
"Mr. Awbrey's statement makes it cyrstal clear that he is poorly informed and/or is quite willing to make things up. There are several KATS members who serve on the Standards Writing Committee. These recognized outstanding educators are active KATS members. During the Standards writing process, KATS was discussed as an organizational partner to develop several example curriculum scope and sequences that aligned with the Standards; in an effort to support school district implimentation. The Chair of the writing committee is a current KATS Board Member and the Co-Chair is a long time active member and Past President. In addtion, the KATS Board developed a statement that was read at each of the public hearings across the state and was read directly to the State Board of Education at the citizens open forum. Each State Board of Education Board member also received a personal letter from the KATS Board as well. KATS was and is an active participant in this process; continuing its committed to promoting quality science teaching and the scientific literacy of both students and citizens throughout the state of Kansas. KATs is well respected in Kansas Science education based on several decades of quality work.

KATS is not a political organization. Mr. Awbrey's statement is another example of how the professionals and experts in Kansas are being ignored and marginalized by the State Board of Education in the reckless pursuit of implimenting a political/social agenda."

Mr. Awbrey is quite aware that the scientists have indeed participated in the democratic process. Another aspect of the democratic process will occur in the voting booth August 1, 2006. Please, if you live in Kansas, make sure you're registered to vote, and that you do so in this primary!

CSA · 17 May 2006

And Awbrey continues this morning, in the Topeka Capital-Journal at http://www.cjonline.com/stories/051706/opi_lettered.shtml. I apologize for the long URL; I'm not used to posting here, just lurking.

We think we know

I thank Cheryl Shepherd-Adams for her May 11 letter, "Seeing isn't believing." She gives me a chance to clear up misperceptions of my comments about evolution made at a journalists' forum in Johnson County on May 3.

Though admittedly not with the greatest clarity, the point I was trying to make about no person being present to see the Big Bang or observe the dinosaurs is that scientific knowledge is a human construct that relies on human intellectual and sensory capacities. We know only what we think we know. Interpretation is an integral part of the process; therein lays much of the controversy over evolution.

My main argument was that many participants in the evolution debate are engaged in metaphysical speculation, which is a kissing cousin to religion.

The late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, for example, calls human origins a "glorious accident." He saw no order or logic in the universe and certainly no supernatural forces at work in the unfolding of the Earth's natural history.

I respect Gould's idea. I see how he came to his conclusion. To me, events like Hurricane Katrina or the Asian tsunami are powerful arguments supporting Gould's position. How could a god who calls himself just and merciful create a world in which these catastrophes happen?

I would argue, however, that Gould and those who agree with him are engaging in metaphysics, not science, in claiming lack of purpose or direction in the universe. I just don't know how you prove scientifically whether there is underlying order or meaning in the cosmos.

I've always appreciated philosopher William James' remark that, "When it comes to the universe, we may well be like dogs in our libraries." Like James, I think we should be humble and avoid claiming absolute knowledge of things that could well be beyond our intellectual or moral abilities to comprehend.

In interests of full disclosure, I am a cradle, C.S. Lewis variety Episcopalian and would define myself as a "theistic evolutionist." When I saw the sonogram of my now 6-year-old daughter, I knew creation was a divine act. I would not, however, claim that transforming personal experience as objective fact as regards the structure of the universe.

DAVID S. AWBREY, communications director, Kansas State Department of Education

Daniel Morgan · 17 May 2006

Great job outlining the issues. I think more long and exhaustive posts like this are needed, as the abbreviated versions are often more susceptible to spin by the ID-iots. This sort of post slams the door on the toe they try to stick in.

Dinosaurs are metaphysical? Now that's a new one...

Is the phrase "stupid ID-iots" redundant? ;)

Torbjörn Larsson · 17 May 2006

"My main argument was that many participants in the evolution debate are engaged in metaphysical speculation"

Sigh! Exactly *who* is engaging in metaphysical speculations and thereby disclaiming perfectly valid physical evidence?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 17 May 2006

I hear that South Carolina just rejected "teach the controversy".

It seems as if ID's string of losses remains unbroken.

Kansas will be next.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 17 May 2006

From South Carolina: http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4914339 Excerpt:

A House committee today rejected a proposal to require that all new school textbooks incorporate "critical thinking and analysis."

Several lawmakers questioned whether it was practical to expect that all textbooks, including math and history, incorporate critical analysis.

I guess DI didn't tell them that it's only EVOLUTION they are interested in having "critically analyzed" . . . . (snicker)

Flint · 17 May 2006

Sounds like quintessential creationist behavior, from the composition of the Kangaroo Kourt judges to the adoption of the Minority Report to the selection of (all-creationist) members of this panel, to the use of misquotes from the mine, to the self-servingly false claims about what was said and how things were orchestrated, right on down the line. If the ends require dishonest means, then we get dishonest means. After all, (their) god is the only end that matters.

The real key to this situation is that a majority of Kansas voters are both (1) ignorant of any science; and (2) aren't willing to leave science to those who know anything when they can use their votes to construct a religious pulpit. So long as evangelicals seek to convert children, and it remains legal for creationist elected politicians to ignore establised procedures and railroad creationism into the curriculum, there will be trouble.

And evangelism will never stop being as pushy as possible, while modifying the political procedures to rescue this issue invites mischief and abuse elsewhere. We have met the enemy and he is us.

I admire the job Jack is doing; someone desperately needs to do it.

Jim Ramsey · 17 May 2006

[By the way, we shouldn't leave this topic without pointing out, as several Kansas bloggers did, Awbrey's comment that dinosaurs are metaphysical. When Dave Hellings pointed out that dinosaurs were in fact not metaphysical, Awbrey replied, "But we never saw them." How much lack of understanding of both science and philosophy does this remark show?]

Hmmmm.

On that basis dinosaurs are metaphysical but centaurs are not?

Viruses were metaphysical until the 20th century (I'm thinking electron microscope)?

Flint · 17 May 2006

How much lack of understanding of both science and philosophy does this remark show?

Cynically, I think it reflects not a lack of understanding, but rather a sensitive appreciation of the target audience. Remember that these people are politicians.

AC · 17 May 2006

But when you look - if you can construct a world where, as the Declaration of Independence says, we are endowed by our Creator - our rights come from a God, and all of a sudden we substitute that by saying it's just random accident, random mutation ... You see the philosophical problem here of wanting a purpose in life, and one without ...
— David Aubrey

Great, another moron citing the DoI to argue against evolution. I have a big problem with people who read that passage and think more about God than our unalienable rights, which happen to apply regardless of your belief in Creation. The question bears repeating: Who's being undemocratic here? Furthermore, it doesn't surprise me that Aubrey would see a "philosophical problem here of wanting a purpose in life". His religious tradition convinces people that, rather than man himself being a creator of values, meaning, and purpose, God is the only source of these things, and any attempt on the part of man to create them for himself is blasphemous arrogance. The irony, of course, is that God itself is a fairly arrogant creation of man, and that religious adherents are creating purpose for themselves even as they deny the possibility or decry the practice.

AC · 17 May 2006

And as far as dinosaurs being "metaphysical" (cue Inigo Montoya) because "we never saw them", I submit that David Awbrey's great-great-grandfather was "metaphysical", because no one alive today ever saw him.

I can't help hearing an exasperated Tim the Enchanter crying, "Look at the BONES!"

fnxtr · 17 May 2006

AC hints:

And as far as dinosaurs being "metaphysical" (cue Inigo Montoya)

For the two people who never saw Princess Bride: (Mandy Patinkin in a parody of Spanish): "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Ed Darrell · 17 May 2006

As a former professional journalist and a former press secretary and public information officer for several government organizations, I am pained whenever I see some flack trying to cover up the law with flim-flammery.

Kansas has a legal, approved system for modifying science curricula. The Kansas state board of education short-circuited and violated that process, refusing to take the advice and recommendations of scientists through the legal route. So the Kansas board adopted what was at best an extra-legal route (and is probably at root illegal, but that's a matter for litigation).

Awbrey should know this. His endorsement of the not-legal process, and calling scientists to endorse it, is irresponsible government.

There should be a code of ethics for press secretaries and flackers. Were there such a code, patent disregard of the law public employees swear an oath to uphold should be among those things proscribed.

Did Awbrey have to swear an oath for his job? Does anyone ever remind him of that?

Raging Bee · 17 May 2006

Awbrey makes $76,000 per year for spouting made-up crap? That's more than I'm making for writing truthful explanations for software. I WANT HIS JOB!! Oh, wait, I'd have to move to Kansas and be nice to bigots and fools. Never mind, I'll just try to get Noam Chomsky's job insetad...

Bill Gascoyne · 17 May 2006

There should be a code of ethics for press secretaries and flackers.

I'm sorry, but this notion strikes me as funny. Idealistic, but funny. Who would write such a code? Who would interpret it? Who would enforce it? Call it "spin" or "BS", it boils down to propaganda, "[n] information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause". It's not a dirty word, and it perfectly describes what a press secretary does for a living. "Propaganda" does not necessarily mean "false," but "fair and balanced" can have nothing to do with it until someone comes along and proves that honesty and integrity can make propaganda more effective.

Ed Darrell · 17 May 2006

Awbrey doubts Big Bang? Photos available here: http://aether.lbl.gov/www/projects/cobe/

He wasn't alive to see Abraham Lincoln, either, but I'll bet he doesn't deny Lincoln's existence. Why not? The photos of Big Bang are more recent...

Had the Kansas Kangaroo Kourt been a real trial, they would have accepted photographic evidence. That Awbrey now denies such evidence is one more indication the event was not a trial (and more justification for scientists to have avoided it -- why participate with crazy people who deny photos?).

Dinosaurs? Photos of Kansas dinosaurs here: http://www.oceansofkansas.com/Dinosaur.html

Sir_Toejam · 17 May 2006

Sigh! Exactly *who* is engaging in metaphysical speculations and thereby disclaiming perfectly valid physical evidence?

*sigh* broken record time again. it's called projection. anybody trying to understand how IDiots attempt to communicate with reality should begin by studying basic psychology.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 17 May 2006

Call it "spin" or "BS", it boils down to propaganda, "[n] information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause". It's not a dirty word, and it perfectly describes what a press secretary does for a living. "Propaganda" does not necessarily mean "false," but "fair and balanced" can have nothing to do with it until someone comes along and proves that honesty and integrity can make propaganda more effective.

Here is the headline from one of the DI Ministry of Propaganda's latest "press releases":

Failiure to Censor Intelligent Design on College Campuses Has Led Darwin's Thought Police to New Efforts to Make Evolution Unassailable

Reminds me of the old Maoist Chinese "news stories" which had titles like "Paper Tiger United States and its Capitalist Running Dogs Reveal Imperialist Ambitions With Treacherous Attacks on Peace-Loving People's Movement."

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 17 May 2006

"press releases"

Speaking of which, does any serious newspaper actually run any of DI's "press releases" any more? Does anyone at all even read them or pay any attention whatever to them, other than us?

Bill Gascoyne · 17 May 2006

OK, this is getting OT, but how does one go about sending out a "press release"? What qualifies one to "release" something to the press to which they might pay attention? By what mechanism does this occur?

gwangung · 17 May 2006

US Mail, generally. e-mail, if you know the section editor in question

There is absolutely no qualifications about issuing press releases. Credibility plays a part in whether the newspaper runs the release or calls back; this is where the abysmal science education in America plays a part in the press granting credibility to these clowns.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 17 May 2006

OK, this is getting OT, but how does one go about sending out a "press release"? What qualifies one to "release" something to the press to which they might pay attention? By what mechanism does this occur?

Well heck, all you gotta do is write it and send it to the press. Email, snail mail, whatever. They will then either (1) ignore it completely, (2) print it, or (3) have a reporter interview you to write their own story. Or, as some papers do, (4) print your press release as if it were written by a reporter. Well over half of the "news" that one finds in the newspaper (and, increasingly, on TV news) is either a press release, or is based upon one. The old idea of tenacious reporters working their beat and tracking down stories on their own, is pretty much a thing of the past. News agencies nowadays just pretty much vomit up whatever they are fed.

paragwinn · 18 May 2006

So if Awbrey see's conflict between the 'majority' public belief in divine involvement and the darwinist views of scientists, he's gonna love the numbers for people's rejection of quantum mechanics despite growing evidence for its acceptance.
Watch out, physics, you're next.

Mike · 18 May 2006

I understand, and agree, with what Jack is demonstrating in laying out the facts of how the board was hijacked by creationists, how creationists refuse to work within the scientific process, and how this is undemocratic. But I'm always troubled when no one points out the absurdity of a creationist insisting that science is, or should be, ruled by a general population one man/one vote. In fact, it usually is pointed out immediately that science is decidedly not democratic, and for obvious reasons. The lieing and misrepresentation taking place here is in portraying this as blind arrogance, pretty much a slam dunk propaganda technique when twisting the public preception of some authority group. Its as effective as it is cynical, which is why it has to be ridiculed every time its brought up.

steve s · 18 May 2006

Speaking of which, does any serious newspaper actually run any of DI's "press releases" any more? Does anyone at all even read them or pay any attention whatever to them, other than us?

I'm sure some do. But we've all seen how the media's attitude toward Intelligent Design has changed since Dover. Intelligent Design now reeks of death.

AC · 18 May 2006

I'm always troubled when no one points out the absurdity of a creationist insisting that science is, or should be, ruled by a general population one man/one vote. In fact, it usually is pointed out immediately that science is decidedly not democratic, and for obvious reasons.
— Mike

I'd say science is a meritocracy, and those without merit never like that idea.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 18 May 2006

But we've all seen how the media's attitude toward Intelligent Design has changed since Dover. Intelligent Design now reeks of death.

Well, since this is Jack's thread, I will point out once again that it was not Dover that led the press to sniff the stink of ID, but the Kansas Kangaroo Kourt. By refusing to play along, Jack and the other fine folks in Kansas forced the IDers to do the one thing they CAN'T do --- put on a positive case that doesn't consist merely of pooh-poohing the "evolutionists". The results were so crushingly apparent that every major newspaper in the US ran editorials excoriating the Kansas Kooks. The press dropped its kid gloves, and never put them back on again. It was the beginning of the end for ID. Dover just nailed the lid on the coffin; Kansas was where the stinking corpse climbed inside.

Sir_Toejam · 18 May 2006

yes, but ID is not just a stinking rotted corpse, it's also a zombie that keeps rising from the grave; always hungry for fresh brains. It's not a even a "B" grade zombie flick, but there it is.

I wonder if battling ID would make a good episode of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"...

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 18 May 2006

More like "Weekend at Bernie's".

ID is dead, but Luskin's Liars keep carrying around the stinking corpse.

Registered User · 25 May 2006

Lenny

It was a truly brilliant move by the scientists in Kansas.

Dover was like two foot thick creamy icing on that cake.