Derbyshire at National Review on Kitzmiller

The Derb, almost alone, shows there is some hope for a scientifically literate conservative intelligentsia.

He's been fighting a pretty lonely fight, alas, agains the Coulters and Bethells.

I've debated Creationists on the web before who hate the ID crowd with a passion. Considering John still agrees with Coulter on Kwanzaa, I seriously doubt he is all that sane.

I admit I had no clue what Kwanzaa was all about, and I was most interested in Wikipedia has to say. It's celebrated by an estimated 13% of African-Americans, and by (evidently) nobody else anywhere. It was dreamed up by someone 10 years ago, who just happened to be an ex-con convicted of torturing two black women. Let's hear it for black unity!

It has nothing to do with anything celebrated in Africa, and no connection to any historical, cultural, or religious event. It seems to consist of a week of lighting candles, eating and (most of all) drinking a lot. Too bad it wasn't tied in with watching bowl games on TV. At least then, it would have some cultural relevance!

I loved seeing the quote from DaveScot again; it also appeared in Pennock's speech, and it was unattributed in both instances. I have to wonder whether DS was upset his "name" didn't get mentioned in public, or whether he was relieved his handle wasn't attached to such an idiotic statement. Given DS's desire to build a Howard Stern-type persona for himself and his inability to be embarrassed by his litany of mistakes, I'd have to guess the former. Either way of course he loses.

Derbyshire's piece was a great synopsis of KvD plus a year.

The DaveScot quote is a shining example of the self-absorbed lunacy that pervades the aviary of birdbrains called UD.

Derbyshire was the sixth person to sign the mission statement of Conservatives Against Intelligent Design(CAID, http://www.caidweb.org/blog/) and made the comment: "nice to have company."

Other conservatives who have spoken out or written against ID include George Will and Krauthammer. Hard to believe, but even Rush Limbaugh has done so. Hopefully, other conservatives and libertarians will sign on to the CAID statement.

About Kwanzaa:

It seems to me that holidays are just days that a significant number of people chose to celebrate. If a large enough group of people choose to celebrate Kwanzaa then why not give them that? Does it really matter who suggested the holiday (even if he is an ex-con)? After all, was Jesus really born on Dec. 25? We certainly do not celebrate the same holidays we did 50 years ago.

And no, I do not celebrate this holiday myself.

IDers and other creationists operate on the assumption (unfortunately, usually correct) that their followers won't bother to look at scientific articles, court documents or other long and difficult documents to discover the truth.

Nick, you're right. Anyone who reads the Kitzmiller v. Dover transcripts cannot fail to come to the conclusion that the incompetence and arrogance of the Thomas More Law Center, the cowardice of ID witnesses, and the asinine and perjurious behavior of the defendants combined to create a perfect storm for Judge Jones's decision.

No judge with any scruples could have decided otherwise. The wailing and gnashing of teeth on the ID side is the howling of an injured dog. They have nothing to say about science, and their entire approach is creationism disguised in a "cheap tuxedo," in Leonard Krishtalka's memorable term.

Bah. Humbug.

DeWolf says Jones's ruling was "based upon evidence and characterizations of intelligent design that have been sharply contested by leading proponents of intelligent design."

No mention of whether the characterizations are actually accurate, they've just been contested. Sheesh.

One could make a year's supply of vinegar from their sour grapes.

Having read all of Derbyshire's column, not just the ID part, I do have doubts about the integrity of Derbyshire's overall intellectual weave, not to mention his goodwill. The sight of schoolchildren singing bogus Kwanzaa carols seems to drive Derbyshire slightly mad with hate. The expression "Happy Holidays," too. But, as Mojo Nixon has pointed out in his usual colorful language, the history behind Christmas and Hanukha is no more pseudo than that behind Kwanzaa. (The chances that Jesus was actually born on Dec. 25th are about 1 in 365.) People make up their minds to have a celebration: it's not based on hardcore, verifiable history; so what? Anyway, the provenance of Kwanzaa or any other holiday is irrelevant. The idea that humble or grotesque origins somehow discredit a practice or belief embodies no defensible logic.

The ID-relevant moral: beware of cranks bearing gifts. Derbyshire has a wild hair up his nose against ID, but he also denies that global warming is significantly anthropogenic (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODQ0MDA0YjZlOGYwYWZmYThhN2RmNmMyODZhOGM5YjU=) and is eager to make straight the way of Bell Curve-esque conclusions about race, inequity, and the futility of egalitarian social programs by citing papers in Science that do not support such conclusions: ". . . if different human groups, of different common ancestry, have different frequencies of genes influencing things like, for goodness' sake, brain development, then our cherished national dream of a well-mixed and harmonious meritocracy with all groups equally represented in all niches, at all levels, may be unattainable" (http://www.olimu.com/Journalism/Texts/Commentary/SpecterOfDifference.htm ). All, of course, in the name of not giving in to wishful thinking---just the facts, ma'am, just the facts! Scientific justification for capitalistic inequity? Would that scratch any itch for John Derbyshire? Perish forbid!

Derbyshire opposing ID is, I think, just the stopped-clock effect: even a professional reactionary curmudgeon is bound to despise the right thing once in a while. But it doesn't mean much. In my opinion, Derbyshire finds evolution amiable because he believes that it puts his heart's desire for trog/paleo/retro Social Darwinism on a scientific footing.

Regards,

Larry

Aaaaaah, Larry G?

I would suggest that your implicit assumption that everyone on this side of the ToE/ID fence shares your (politically motivated) contempt for The Bell Curve and the school of thought which holds that racial groups have identifiable heritable characteristics is unwarranted.

I find myself to be insufficiently egocentric to believe for an instant that I am the only adherent of the scientific method who finds the opposition to TBC and the research of Jensen, et al. to be as ideologically driven and anti-scientific - and bogus - as ID.

So sorry, but I would seem to have dashed off that last without including what I felt to be a pertinent quote:

The position of environmentalists that over the course of some 100,000 years peoples separated by geographical barriers in different parts of the world evolved into ten different races with pronounced genetic differences in morphology, blood groups, and the incidence of genetic diseases, and yet have identical genotypes for intelligence, is so improbable that those who advance it must either be totally ignorant of the basic principles of evolutionary biology or else have a political agenda to deny the importance of race. Or both."

- from Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis

Any apparent similarity to the scientific community's collective take on ID is in no wise coïncidental.

The position of racists that over the course of some 100,000 years some peoples separated by geographical barriers in different parts of the world somehow found an environment that did not reward intelligence with greater longevity for them and their children is so improbable that those who advance it must either be totally ignorant of the basic principles of evolutionary biology or else have a political agenda to declare the importance of race. Or both.

In a vain attempt at clever repartee, you have somehow managed to thoroughly obscure any informational content you may have been seeking to convey. (Or, in the immortal words of Paul Rodriguez, "Could you be a little more vague?")

The PC mob is known far and wide to be inordinately fond of the sort of Logic-Free Reasoning®™ that your post exemplifies, leading me to suspect that you may in fact be a member of said mob. The sly/snide introduction of the highly loaded term of opprobrium 'racist' is, to me at least, a reliable indication that the author's reasoning has been suspended in favor of emotion, that scientific enquiry has become subordinated to political dogma. Kinda ironic, innit? I mean, for someone who carps about IDers when they do that thing...

Or am I wrong?

Have you quibbles about someone's research? If so, could you be so kind as to elucidate, with some semblance of objectivity? Or is it to be a name-calling festival?

I would suggest that your implicit assumption that everyone on this side of the ToE/ID fence shares your (politically motivated) contempt for The Bell Curve and the school of thought which holds that racial groups have identifiable heritable characteristics is unwarranted.

Larry G;

In contemplating the most appropriate sort of response, I feel I should first suggest, as a gesture of goodwill toward the forum, that many regulars would justly regard continuation in this thread as a hijack.

Perhaps we could take it elsewhere, presuming, of course, that you are amenable...

The trouble with Lauren and other bell curve proponents is that they fail to see that they are at the wrong end of it. Perhaps you'd be wise to read some scientific literature on the subject rather than depending on pamphlets produced by barmy racists.

Anyway - I live in the UK -here's to another 100,000 years of geographical isolation!

I always appreciate it when a leftist reminds me why I'm a conservative. Thank you, Larry G!

Damn those liberals at the National Review!

The trouble with Lauren and other bell curve proponents is that they fail to see that they are at the wrong end of it. Perhaps you'd be wise to read some scientific literature on the subject rather than depending on pamphlets produced by barmy racists.

The trouble with Lauren and other bell curve proponents is that they fail to see that they are at the wrong end of it. Perhaps you'd be wise to read some scientific literature on the subject rather than depending on pamphlets produced by barmy racists.

[creationist filter]
Oh yeah, LaurenTheFish? Well if race determines intelligence, then why are there still stupid white people?
[/creationsit filter]

Actually, I don't really have a point for this post, and I certainly don't have the time or knowledge to get involved in this discussion. I just thought the above caricature was funny....

I always appreciate it when a leftist reminds me why I'm a conservative.

Polarization always amuses me.

Coulter may be an amoral clown, but that in no way prevents her from occasionally (very occasionally) uttering a truth or two.

Substitute the name Al Sharpton for Coulter and the preceding statement loses not an iota of truth.

Neither side has a monopoly on either truth OR untruth. What each has is a mixture of fact and fallacy. As self-evident as that is (or should be), I am sore amazed at the number of individuals who make not the first attempt to winnow the wheat from the chaff of what's flogged by the polar extremists, and instead blindly follow the party line on most-to-all of the issues.

Black-and-white thinking: it's not just for prepubescent children any more!

I'd guess that NR might finally stick by honest science and honest judges. While it is said that the NR staff has no IDists or creationists on it, they have for too long waved with the wind of a strong but insubstantial conservative IDist breeze. Whose side are they on (vis-a-vis the right)? The winning side, of course, or at least they'll suck up to the possible winners.

I'm hoping that Derbyshire's their guy now that Kitzmiller has embarrassed and weakened the ID forces. These guys at NR are hardly science whizzes (back when I still read NR some, I remember Buckley arguing in favor of nuclear power because the same reactions occur in the sun), but even they're going to see through the flim-flam of Behe and Dembski eventually. And their major donors aren't likely to be keen on being seen with the likes of the IDists at this late stage of the game. If they were winning, well, why worry about IDists and their little scams? When they're losing, IDists are just moronic losers with whom they're not going to associate, at least not happily.

This is, I think, why we do this. We're never going to convince IDists and creationists, of course (maybe a few young bright ones, but that's about it). We can, however, demonstrate what embarrassing know-nothings they are, so that once again those having the power won't sully their reputations by entertaining their pseudoscience.

Even Phil Johnson seems awfully quiet any more. I wonder what it's like to be a respected legal mind (I've had a textbooks dealing with criminal law which quoted him authoritatively) who has formulated the concept that a conservative judge found to be a dishonest repackaging of theocratic buggery. Johnson would have died as a respectable, if fairly minor, figure on the legal scene, and now he's going to be remembered primarily for a pseudoscientific assault on our government. Let others learn from his fate.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Neither side has a monopoly on either truth OR untruth. What each has is a mixture of fact and fallacy. As self-evident as that is (or should be), I am sore amazed at the number of individuals who make not the first attempt to winnow the wheat from the chaff of what's flogged by the polar extremists,

In retrospect, I seem to have celebrated Kwanzaa without even knowing it. I burned plenty of candles and did a LOT of drinking, for an entire week. I feel refreshed and ready to return to the salt mines, perchance to achieve! I'm already planning to celebrate Kwanzaa next year.

Re: the Coulteroid

"When one says intelligent, correct things as incredibly rarely as Coulter does, it's not really worth the investment of time to look for some nugget on the off chance it should drift by."

I concur heartily. Somehow your observation there conjured up a mental image of scuba diving in a cesspool in search of a cubic zirconia.

"Better to look for wisdom from someone's who's, you know, not insane."

Personally, I don't feel she has sanity issues, but rather a ripe mélange of rank stupidity and opportunistic sociopathy.

I admit I had no clue what Kwanzaa was all about, and I was most interested in Wikipedia has to say. It's celebrated by an estimated 13% of African-Americans, and by (evidently) nobody else anywhere.

It was dreamed up by someone 10 years ago

who just happened to be an ex-con convicted of torturing two black women

Let's hear it for black unity!

It has nothing to do with anything celebrated in Africa

and no connection to any historical, cultural, or religious event.

It seems to consist of a week of lighting candles, eating and (most of all) drinking a lot. Too bad it wasn't tied in with watching bowl games on TV. At least then, it would have some cultural relevance!

Kwanzaa has been criticized because it is not a traditional holiday of African people, and because of its recent provenance, having been invented in 1966. The origins of Kwanzaa, however, are not secret, and are openly acknowledged by those promoting the holiday.[20] It was never advanced as an indigenous, African celebration. Other criticisms center on Karenga's criminal record, including having been convicted and jailed on charges of felonious assault and false imprisonment for the torture of two women. The women were themselves African-American, which some critics, among them Les Kinsolving, feel detract from Karenga's claim that he created Kwanzaa to celebrate and strengthen the unity of black people.[21][22] In 1999, syndicated columnist (and later White House Press Secretary) Tony Snow wrote that "There is no part of Kwanzaa that is not fraudulent."[23] and other conservative writers have remarked on the Marxist leanings of Karenga[24] and some of the seven principles of Kwanzaa, questioning whether Kwanzaa should be taught in American schools.[25] Some Christians see Kwanzaa as an organized attempt to detract from Christmas.[26]

who just happened to be an ex-con convicted of torturing two black women

Coulter may be an amoral clown, but that in no way prevents her from occasionally (very occasionally) uttering a truth or two. Substitute the name Al Sharpton for Coulter and the preceding statement loses not an iota of truth.

I always appreciate it when a leftist reminds me why I'm a conservative. Thank you, Larry G!

I admit I had no clue what Kwanzaa was all about, and I was most interested in Wikipedia has to say

let me repeat what I wrote, that you quoted, that apparent you didn't bother to read.

you just can't imagine any reason they might have done so

Popper's Ghost -
I am game to discuss any valid criticisms people may have with the science. I will not , however, be lured into an absurd political flame war. This isn't even the place for politics.

I thought I would make a (minor) point regarding the hypocrisy of people who can somehow identify ideologically-driven pseudoscience from "them" yet are utterly oblivious to their own identical hypocrisy. PCers differ not a whit from IDers in thumbing their collective nose at science that fails to validate their respective predetermined conclusions. PC simply substitutes political dogma for ID's religious dogma, but they're the same in their disdain for the unwashed who fail to recognize the obvious truth that they alone are bright enough to percieve.

The word 'racist' would appear to be a favorite of yours. Many years of experience have demonstrated to my satisfaction that people who bandy that term about as you do are invariably self-righteous politically correct ideologues. Every time, without exception. YMMD.

And again this is not the place for political back-n-forth. If you think you can improve on Gould's specious hatchet job on intelligence/behavior heritability research, The Mismeasure of Man, by all means be my guest. Maybe you can succeed where all others have failed. I'm not betting the farm on it, m'sel.

Coulter is particularly immoral, and is not treated as a clown by the media. Sharpton is not particularly immoral, but has been treated as a clown by a frankly racist media. Sharpton has made errors, but has stated far more truths and far fewer untruths than Coulter.

Probably small of me, but of PG's current set of, um, uh, debate opponents, if I get to choose only one--a false set of constraints, I realize, and nobody gave me a vote, other than this virtual one, I also realize--then I'd be fine with him passing on Flint-kwanzaa and RB-Dawkins, and focusing on the Fish (races, whatever they are, vary on intelligence, whatever that is) person.

I suspect that the Kwanzaa thing is a misunderstanding. The RB thing is a re-run, an oldie, maybe even a goldie, but not brand-new.

But LTF--nothing personal, but I just have a hunch that the Fish holds out the most in the way of potential entertainment/enlightenment...

Eh, not that we're just here for entertainment, but there's no reason not to go for the full-value package.

I second Steviepinhead's vote!

And the motion carries.

Oh, all right.

It would appear that PG has discovered urgent matters elsewhere which simply must be attended to...

..or perhaps not.

Don't worry LTF, he'll be back.

I'm a fool.
That'll teach me to speak for another.

Well, and again, it wasn't really my place to attempt to "arrange" a debate on a not-directly-related topic, having no idea of the temperament of the contestants, etc., etc.

So, whether PG appears or not means little, as he never agreed to do so.

Coulter may be an amoral clown, but that in no way prevents her from occasionally (very occasionally) uttering a truth or two.