The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

More on The ICR Lawsuit

Posted 21 April 2009 by Timothy Sandefur

There's more on the ICR's lawsuit against the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board over at Tony's Curricublog, and from Steven Schafersman of Texas Citizens for Science. Shafersman makes an important point here:
ICR claims it "met or exceeded" the 21 Standards of Certificates of Authority. In fact, ICR did not meet several of those standards which was the basis of the THECB's refusal to grant the Certificate of Authority. Three of those unmet standards were faculty qualifications, the curriculum, and academic freedom of the faculty and students. The standard of judging these things is comparison with other Texas institutions of higher learning that offer the same Master of Science Degree in Science Education. ICR was in no way comparable to other institutions, which was the original THECB justification for denial of the certification. Indeed, ICR compares so unfavorably that in my opinion it would never be able to achieve accreditation from a legitimate accrediting association, and I believe ICR's plan was to keep renewing its state Certificate of Authority indefinitely (or seek legislative assistance in some fashion....) ICR's claim that it suffers from "anti-accommodational evolution-only-science enforcement policy practices" is frankly absurd. ICR has every right in the world to teach its Creationist pseudoscience to paying students and can continue to do that, so that falsifies its claim of illegal victimization by the State of Texas. It has no right, however, to demand that its graduating students be awarded a Texas-certified Master of Science degree, since under no definition of science or practice of legitimate science education in the United States is ICR's curriculum "science."

91 Comments

Doc Bill · 21 April 2009

Also, I think one could argue that ICR is not a "degree mill" as they charge around $13,000 for a Masters.

So, let me get this straight. They take 13 grand from people desperate enough to fork out the dough for a bogus certification. Nice work if you can get it, I guess!

I'd grant one for $100. Where do I sign up?

KP · 21 April 2009

Some of that seemed, oh, I don't know, VAGUELY IMPORTANT:
In fact, ICR did not meet several of those standards which was the basis of the THECB’s refusal to grant the Certificate of Authority. Three of those unmet standards were faculty qualifications, the curriculum, and academic freedom of the faculty and students.
Now, WHO?????? has the problem with academic freedom????? Would someone from the "Big Tent" like to enlighten me on this issue? Anyone? Anyone?

Stanton · 21 April 2009

KP said: Now, WHO?????? has the problem with academic freedom????? Would someone from the "Big Tent" like to enlighten me on this issue? Anyone? Anyone?
The ICR has absolutely no problem with "academic freedom," as the students and faculty are free to believe whatever their blessed hearts desire, provided it falls within the statements of faith forbidding them from ever ever contradicting a literal interpretation of the Holy Bible. It's only those evil liberals that regard something like this as a "lack" of academic freedom.

DS · 21 April 2009

These guys obviously have a bad case of science envy. Why do they want real accreditation anyway? Won't the religious organizations hire their graduates without it? Can't they contrive some phoney accreditation by another religious institution? Why do they even want the vaneer of respectability? Who do they think that they will be fooling? Just imagine what a job interview for a tenure track position would be like. Anyone who was going to hire their graduates would no doubt already be aware of the quality of their graduates anyway. Isn't it good enough for them to just go to work at the place they graduate from? After all, they already know that the standards for faculty there are pretty low.

Oh well, at least it is theoretically impossible for a court to change the law anyway. The suit will probably thrown out with extreme prejudice and the judge will probably charge them for wasting his time by making him read such a lengthy piece of nonsense. It' s about time that these people learned that there are consequences to such actions.

As for academic freedom, I suppose that means that they do not allow anyone to "teach the controversy" or that they allow the teaching of the weaknesses but not the strengths of evolutionary theory.

Wheels · 21 April 2009

Stanton said:
KP said: Now, WHO?????? has the problem with academic freedom????? Would someone from the "Big Tent" like to enlighten me on this issue? Anyone? Anyone?
The ICR has absolutely no problem with "academic freedom," as the students and faculty are free to believe whatever their blessed hearts desire, provided it falls within the statements of faith forbidding them from ever ever contradicting a literal interpretation of the Holy Bible. It's only those evil liberals that regard something like this as a "lack" of academic freedom.
I wonder if we'll see the DI trying to convince the ICR that they need more ID in their system? It would be amusing, because the ICR has been critical of those wish-washy IDists before.

TheNewAtheist · 21 April 2009

Giving Degrees in Awesomeness, and Reptoid Studies @ http://www.TheNewAtheist.com

Dan · 21 April 2009

I wonder why they don't just merge with one of the established fundamentalist schools like Liberty University, Bryan College, or one of the seminaries like the Southern Baptist one in Louisville, KY? Would they need additional certification or acreditation? I thought Liberty U's education major graduates could get certified to teach in Virginia and numerous other states. Hope I'm not giving them any ideas. It would be especially rotten for KY to have both the ICR and the Creation "Museum".

Of course Ham could let them have a spare room in the warehouse/book distribution center attached to his "museum."

Stanton · 21 April 2009

Dan said: I wonder why they don't just merge with one of the established fundamentalist schools like Liberty University, Bryan College, or one of the seminaries like the Southern Baptist one in Louisville, KY?
Money. And power. Mostly money.

DavidK · 22 April 2009

Stanton said:
Dan said: I wonder why they don't just merge with one of the established fundamentalist schools like Liberty University, Bryan College, or one of the seminaries like the Southern Baptist one in Louisville, KY?
Money. And power. Mostly money.
Yes, yes, but more importantly, they'd be certified to teach in the public schools and other public institutions as well as outside of Texas. That, I think, is their ultimate goal.

Mike Elzinga · 22 April 2009

The lawsuit names as defendants the eight members of the THECB in both their official and individual capacities, thus making it expensive for each member. No doubt all will be represented by the same team of attorneys, but each will have to consider their individual financial liability, which will be unappealing and discouraging to them. This will intimidate them to settle with terms favorable to ICR. ICR could have just sued the THECB as an institution, but that would not be mean-spirited and intimidating enough for the litigious ICR.

— Steven Schafersman
Wow; talk about mean-spiritedness. These ICR fake Christians are really gunning for a fight this time. I would hope that, after this ploy fails, the members of the board would counter sue to recover their losses and impose extreme punitive costs on the individual members of ICR for wasting taxpayer money. There must be enough evidence by now to start throwing these clowns in prison for fraud. Every other type of misrepresentation and misdirection of other peoples’ money and resources is considered fraud, why should this not be the case with the tactics of these idiots? It might take a team of scientists to go through the decades pseudo-science material pumped out by these crackpots and compile a convincing case for the courts. It would take a little time, but at some point these creeps need to feel some real pain and brought to a halt. Unless they are finally "body-slammed" in the courts and in public, they will continue to nickel-dime the public coffers to death indefinitely. Apparently that is how they think

Amadán · 22 April 2009

Nope. That would just prove that they're being persecuted, would generate more funds from the flock, and so load to another stunt with financial and political objectives. But it's hard to see what approach would work best.

These people lie - fluently, repeatedly, and unhesitatingly. The people they lie to most are their own followers. Those followers, like most Christians, tend to have strong views on the ninth commandment. However, authority figures who get caught with their [body part] in the [cliché] are allowed (after a tearful appearance on someone's cable show) a degree of forgiveness that verges on colletive amnesia. (I suspect this has something to do with reinforcing group identity in an authoritarian culture, but that's a question for another thread). So you can try to discredit them in the eyes of their supporters, but the nature of their appeal - which is to reinforce their supporters' own sense of self - means that trying to discredit them is interpreted as trying to discredit the group identity. Not much prospect for success there.

The science argument is irrelevant: the loons lost that one even before Darwin. (And as anyone who has suffered through a dose of Dembski/Hovind etc knows, they consider science only a means to their religious and political ends.) Engaging with them on that level is counterproductive and just make it look like there really is a 'controversy'.

That leaves the approach of insulating them from means by which they can do damage to those who don't want to go along with their world of make-believe. That means constant fire-fighting on school boards, state government panels, etc etc. Depressing, but I don't see any other realistic options.

And here's your 98 cents change.

Dave Luckett · 22 April 2009

IANAL, but I seem to recall that part of the legal definition of fraud is that the accused must have profited personally or vicariously in some quantifiable, tangible way from the imposture. It is perfectly true that the ICR is using up public money, and it is quite certain that their case is nothing but lies and misrepresentation, but I don't know how it would fit any definition of fraud that I know.

DS · 22 April 2009

Amadan wrote:

"Nope. That would just prove that they’re being persecuted, would generate more funds from the flock, and so load to another stunt with financial and political objectives. But it’s hard to see what approach would work best."

This is probably true. However, when they get laughed out of court they will play the persecution card anyway. They will never even consider the fact that they are completely in the wrong, legally or scientifically. The only real deterrent to such behavior is to make them pay financially. Eventually the followers will get tired of paying for a hopeless cause that hasn't won a court case in over one hundred years. They may never give up, but they might at leaast be forced to try some different tactics, hopefully ones that are less expensive for tax payers. Who knows, they may eventually realize that trying to force your religious views on others is not desirabe for anyone. Is this really what Jesus would do?

ravilyn sanders · 22 April 2009

Mike Elzinga said:

The lawsuit names as defendants the eight members of the THECB in both their official and individual capacities, thus making it expensive for each member.

— Steven Schafersman
Why are the moderate Christians keeping quiet about it? Why are the people who argue persuasively why the Bush admin officials who authored "torture is legal" opinions must not be prosecuted silent now?

raven · 22 April 2009

Also, I think one could argue that ICR is not a “degree mill” as they charge around $13,000 for a Masters.
So it isn't a diploma mill. Looks more like an outright scam. How long does it take to teach someone to write GODDIDIT? You can get the same material for free from AIG and countless creo websites. IIRC, a lot of the ICR's program is distance learning, available over the internet. $13,000 sounds outrageous for an internet pseudoscience fake degree. You can also get an enormous amount of real, up to the minute science over the internet for free.

c-serpent · 22 April 2009

Nope. That would just prove that they’re being persecuted, would generate more funds from the flock, and so load to another stunt with financial and political objectives.
...which could promptly be taken as legal fees and punitive damages with the next court case... followed by more claims of persecution and more donations... followed by legal fees and damages... Eventually, the ICR's donors might as well just start funneling their donations directly toward the attorneys for the defendants and cut out the ICR middlemen.

raven · 22 April 2009

Why are the moderate Christians keeping quiet about it?
That is a perennial mystery. Moderate xians exist but there don't seem to be very many of them. 1.5 million people leave the xian religion every year in the USA. Xianity has lost 10% of its adherents in a few decades and is now down to 76% of the population. My parents mainstream protestant church might be typical. Most of the active members are old and female. There are virtually no couples with young children. They might get a couple of kids for sunday school or not. This is a large church in a well to do area.

The Sanity Inspector · 22 April 2009

ravilyn sanders said:
Mike Elzinga said:

The lawsuit names as defendants the eight members of the THECB in both their official and individual capacities, thus making it expensive for each member.

— Steven Schafersman
Why are the moderate Christians keeping quiet about it? Why are the people who argue persuasively why the Bush admin officials who authored "torture is legal" opinions must not be prosecuted silent now?
Never fear, we're out here, though not so vocal and eloquent as you guys.

Mike from Ottawa · 22 April 2009

Why are the moderate Christians keeping quiet about it?
'Moderate Christians' exist and some of us do speak up in various places, but, perhaps due to the generally poor quality of science education, the media's false 'fairness' of 'balance' in its reporting of the issues (the credulity the local rag, the Ottawa Citizen shows toward creationism is depressing) and the lack of interest in science in and of itself, most 'moderate' Christians simply don't get involved. Projects like the one enlisting clergy to sign on to statements supporting good science education including the teaching of the theory of evolution can draw out opinion from the 'moderate' Christians by actually addressing individuals who may take the time to consider it. The reality is that most people don't spend a lot of time and effort on this sort of issue, even most fundies (and thank God for that!) so mobilizing 'moderate' Christians, as such, is hard to do. The fundies have an advantage in that their churches provide an organizational basis for their creationism. This is because the fundies see (real) science as a threat to their religion and thus it is an issue that would engage a bunch of people who have come together to engage in their religion - i.e. a 'church'. It is in the nature of those Christians who accept science as our waying of knowing about the material universe that the issue isn't critical to our religion itself and thus does not have an obvious connection to our religion that would make our churches into rallying points for science and science education. That asymmetry is inherent in the fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist Christian views. The result is that 'moderate' Christians who accept science would engage as ordinary people outside the context of their churches and not necessarily identifying as Christians. In my case, for the most part, I see my Christianity as being irrelevant to the science and vice versa, so there's particular point in bringing it in unless the milieu is one where the example of someone who is a Christian and accepts good science would be useful.

Mike from Ottawa · 22 April 2009

Moderate xians exist but there don’t seem to be very many of them.
Not much encouraged to come out as such by the general tenor of contempt indicated by the use of terms like "xians". Using a term to label someone when they would not apply that label to themselves is an indication of disrespect, and I've not run into many Christians who label themselves as "xians".

Frank J · 22 April 2009

Stanton said:
KP said: Now, WHO?????? has the problem with academic freedom????? Would someone from the "Big Tent" like to enlighten me on this issue? Anyone? Anyone?
The ICR has absolutely no problem with "academic freedom," as the students and faculty are free to believe whatever their blessed hearts desire, provided it falls within the statements of faith forbidding them from ever ever contradicting a literal interpretation of the Holy Bible. It's only those evil liberals that regard something like this as a "lack" of academic freedom.
Except that you can't get more liberal than ID, which in Dembski's own words can "accommodate all the results of Darwinism." Compared to that the ICR is almost as "conservative" as us "Darwinists." They require that the whatever is taught conforms to their particular (one of many mutually contradictory) interpretations of Genesis, while we require that whatever is taught has been rigorously tested and peer-reviewed to earn the right to be taught. ID's (unspoken) motto is "If it feels good, teach it."

Mike from Ottawa · 22 April 2009

I'd kind of like to see an atheist group launch a 'Christian university' that would grant degrees in theological education and teach that Christianity is the belief there is no God, there was no Jesus, the Bible is hogwash and there is only the material and no such thing as the spritual and required students to sign a statement affirming they hold those beliefs. Somehow I can't see the ICR agreeing that an organization that accredits schools of theology should accredit such a 'Christian university'.

Frank J · 22 April 2009

Using a term to label someone when they would not apply that label to themselves is an indication of disrespect, and I’ve not run into many Christians who label themselves as “xians”.

— Mike from Ottawa
I am not only not a Christian, I like to think of myself as the last person in the Universe that would ever join an organized religion. But I still won't say "fundie," let alone "xian," and not only because it's foot-shooting.

Amadán · 22 April 2009

Mike from Ottowa:

Brillian, absolutely brilliant.

Make sure to include the words 'Southern Baptist' and 'Rapture' and 'Evangelical' in the name.

eric · 22 April 2009

Mike from Ottawa said:
Moderate xians exist but there don’t seem to be very many of them.
Not much encouraged to come out as such by the general tenor of contempt indicated by the use of terms like "xians".
Mike, I usually agree with you but I have to disagree with you here. Using X to designate Christ goes back to the early church and was originated by Christians themselves. There's nothing contepmtous about it. Why do you think so many stained glass windows, banners, robes, etc have the overlapping letters "X" and "P" on them? They represent the greek Chi and Rho and stand for the first two letters of the word Christ. Xian may be more contemporary and not in general use by Christians, but its origin is Christian shorthand, invented by Christians to represent Christians. Its about 1,700 years too late to start complaining about its use. Moreover, anectdotally I know lots of Christians who use "Merry Xmas."

Mike Elzinga · 22 April 2009

IANAL, but I seem to recall that part of the legal definition of fraud is that the accused must have profited personally or vicariously in some quantifiable, tangible way from the imposture.

— Dave Luckett
I don’t know what the legal definition of fraud is either; perhaps there is a different concept that applies. Another difficulty, however, is finding a significant number of people who have legitimate standing in any such any such suit. Class action suits are complex and difficult to bring together. Individuals may not feel sufficiently harmed to make their involvement worth the effort. Scientists are generally too busy, and individually they may not have legal standing in any such litigation.

That means constant fire-fighting on school boards, state government panels, etc etc. Depressing, but I don’t see any other realistic options.

— Amadán
Unfortunately, this may be the case. Legal methods have only limited effect with this kind of sectarian fanaticism. Humor might be better, but we also see them imitating any tactics that are use against them. This keeps bringing me back to my appreciation of the National Center for Science Education, Panda’s Thumb, TalkOrigins, and those blogs in which the ID/Creationist pseudo-science is contrasted with real science. I guess we just have to rely on peoples’ ability to recognize the stench of fraud and fake science; not comforting, but perhaps the best we can do. On the positive side, having to deal with pseudo-science of any kind does in fact push those interested in good science education to be clear about their explanations. I have occasionally used various kinds of pseudo-science as a foil to add humor to some of my own lectures. Stupid science fiction and peddlers of pseudo-science have provided fodder for the humor. I have even used some the ID/Creationist clap-trap without having to mention its source. Just pointing out the absurdities is effective enough, and it avoids any blowback from fundamentalists.

raven · 22 April 2009

I’ve not run into many Christians who label themselves as “xians”.
See it all the time and used often by xians. Up until recently I was a moderate xian myself and used the shorthand often in informal writing. If you really feel like complaining about something trivial, somewhere in the world right now it is raining or even snowing. If you are in Ottawa, the Canadians love to bitch about the United States.

David Fickett-Wilbar · 22 April 2009

raven said:
I’ve not run into many Christians who label themselves as “xians”.
See it all the time and used often by xians. Up until recently I was a moderate xian myself and used the shorthand often in informal writing.
In informal writing, yes. In my own notes I frequently write "Zism" for "Zoroastrianism" and "Bism" for Buddhism. But posting on a message board is a step up from informal, and I would never use it here. Notice as well that you rarely see it capitalized -- "Xian" -- as would be appropriate for a proper noun. Further note that although "X" has been used in the past as a symbol for "Christ," "xian" does not have such a pedigree. And remember that usages change.

raven · 22 April 2009

from a xian apologetics website
Xtian Some people refer to Christians this way. "X" is a symbol for Christ, from the Greek letter chi (shaped like an X) of Christos (Christ). Xtian I leave the t off because x is the symbol for christ. Most don't. This useage is millenia old. Since when did xians become so hypersentive? There is a backlash in the USA against the fundies for sure. After they nearly destroyed the country and are destroying the religion, this is not surprising. "As you sow, so shall you reap." They earned it the hard way. Even so xians are still a persecuted minority of only 76% of the population and no one can be elected even as a dog catcher without claiming to be one.

fnxtr · 22 April 2009

... and how much longer does it take to type those 4 extra letters anyway? It's not like you're being charged by the character. It might look disrespectful if non-Christians do it, but Christians typing "xian" just looks... shy.

Amadán · 22 April 2009

Mike Elzinga wrote:

Humor might be better, but we also see them imitating any tactics that are use against them.

Not at all. I have yet to see any worthwhile attempt at satire or humour from a fundie. (As far as I recall, Dick to the Dawk was created by movie people who worked on Expelled but didn't have a dog of their own in the Evo/creo fight). If they had any sense of the absurd, they'd never be able to spout the bilge they do with a straight face. Akshuly, humour might be a good idea: as evil commie evolutionists, a collective effort seems appropriate. Please add a line and we'll see where this goes: A Canadian "writer", a failed mathematician and a jailed tax cheat walk into a bar. Charles Darwin is serving and asks them what they'd like. (C'mon, you can do it!)

eric · 22 April 2009

DS said: These guys obviously have a bad case of science envy. Why do they want real accreditation anyway?
So they can sell their cheap ripoff of science as the real thing. It reminds me of the Simpsons. "Creation science" is to science what Sorny and Magnetbox are to televisions. :)

Chris Ashton · 22 April 2009

OK, I have been lurking on this site for years without contributing, mostly because the discussion is frequently just over my head, but I do feel I have to comment here. I am by trade a pediatrician, by avocation an amateur paleontologist and dedicated evolutionist, and by faith (by my definition, anyway) a conservative Christian. There are 2 points I want to address, first of all to those who are using the "term" xian. Even if you do not mean it an a snarky fashion, that is how it comes across. It is inevitably used here and elsewhere in a derogatory fashion. If you can find it used in any other manner, please do so. I'll wait......

OK, point made. Now then, on to my more important point.

Most Christians will not argue that God's word and God's work are both worthy of study. My point with other Christians is that if we had perfect understanding of both, there would be no inconsistencies between them. If there are, it is only because we have not studied them enough. Until then, we need to study more and understand more, following the data where it leads. I do not argue that it should be easy to understand, in fact it should not be. The Bible is not east to understand, why should creation? The current data is best explained by evolution. It is always possible for that to change (unlikely, but still..), but if it does it will be due to new information, not because some group wishes it away. I actually have a much more detailed discussion, involving a lot more theology and Bible quotations, but not likely to be appreciated in this forum!

Anyway, as has been pointed out, ~76% of Americans consider themselves Christians. If you want to win in the court of public opinion, it is not generally a good idea to go out of your way to piss off that group for no gain. Even if you do not care about public opinion, it is usually good habit to avoid terms that are offensive and demeaning for the simple civility of it.

Thanks,
Chris

Mike Elzinga · 22 April 2009

Anyway, as has been pointed out, ~76% of Americans consider themselves Christians. If you want to win in the court of public opinion, it is not generally a good idea to go out of your way to piss off that group for no gain.

— Chris Ashton
The problem is often that one doesn’t know what various religious sects are going to take offense about. There are so many of them, and many of them don’t seem to like each other, let alone those who don’t have any religious affiliation. And many of these politically active sectarians pushing ID/creationism seem to take gratuitous offense and just about anything in order to get fights going. Most of us live among people who have some kind of religious beliefs. Even though we can live and let live, many of these sectarians have beliefs that require them to meddle in the affairs of others, even to the point of attempting to segue any conversation into a discussion of their sectarian dogma. So sectarians spend a great deal of their time pissing people off also.

David Fickett-Wilbar · 22 April 2009

Mike Elzinga said:

Anyway, as has been pointed out, ~76% of Americans consider themselves Christians. If you want to win in the court of public opinion, it is not generally a good idea to go out of your way to piss off that group for no gain.

— Chris Ashton
The problem is often that one doesn’t know what various religious sects are going to take offense about.
Quite right. But there are some things you do know, so how about working with those? For instance, you now know that there are Christians who don't like "xian." So take the effort of typing the extra four letters. No big deal for you, big deal for them.

eric · 22 April 2009

Browsing through the material on the Texas Citizens for Science, I found this nugget in Gerald Skoog's review of the ICS program:
The lack of emphasis of creationist tenets in the K-12 science curriculum historically and presently is not the result of censorship, but a result of their consistent failure to provide a coherent and evidence-supported view of the nature of history of the natural world. [Link: http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/AAR/privateinstitutions/ICRCommentsFromScientists.pdf, p18]
Yeah. What Skoog said.

Chris Ashton · 22 April 2009

Mike Elzinga said: The problem is often that one doesn’t know what various religious sects are going to take offense about. There are so many of them, and many of them don’t seem to like each other, let alone those who don’t have any religious affiliation. And many of these politically active sectarians pushing ID/creationism seem to take gratuitous offense and just about anything in order to get fights going. Most of us live among people who have some kind of religious beliefs. Even though we can live and let live, many of these sectarians have beliefs that require them to meddle in the affairs of others, even to the point of attempting to segue any conversation into a discussion of their sectarian dogma. So sectarians spend a great deal of their time pissing people off also.
Not arguing that point, certainly there are more than enough people and groups being rude, obnoxious and unreasonable. I just feel it does not move the discussion forward when those who should be the "voices of reason" are among them. Chris

eric · 22 April 2009

Oops... make that ICR. Its the computer, I swear...

DS · 22 April 2009

Dave wrote:

"...but I seem to recall that part of the legal definition of fraud is that the accused must have profited personally or vicariously in some quantifiable, tangible way from the imposture."

So, if I paid to go to this "accredited" "university" and I got a "degree" in "biology" and I then found out that it was completely worthless and that I was completely unemployable, then I could sue the university and perhaps the accreditation board? Great.

How can these people possibly think that they can get away with something so underhanded and illegl? How can the same people then turn around and say that judge Jones should not rule about what is and is not science if they persue blatantly illegal tactics like this?

Have they ever thought of perhaps addressing some of their deficiencies in order to get accreditation? Have they thought of hiring some professors with real PhD degrees from real universities? Have they thought about getting a real biology curriculum? Have they thought about giving their professors and students real academic freedom? I wonder why not?

MememicBottleneck · 22 April 2009

Dave Luckett said: IANAL, but I seem to recall that part of the legal definition of fraud is that the accused must have profited personally or vicariously in some quantifiable, tangible way from the imposture. It is perfectly true that the ICR is using up public money, and it is quite certain that their case is nothing but lies and misrepresentation, but I don't know how it would fit any definition of fraud that I know.
I sat on a fraud (civil) case jury once (California) and the definition was inverted from this. The accuser had to show loss due to the misrepresentation. The defendant was a slimy character who made a significant profit, but the plaintif failed to show any loss. By this definition, the ICR (IANAL either) could possibly be liable because the plaintif could show loss. To mitigate this liablilty, the ICR may want to have an accreditation to wave around to say "Texas says we are legit".

Mike Elzinga · 22 April 2009

David Fickett-Wilbar said: Quite right. But there are some things you do know, so how about working with those? For instance, you now know that there are Christians who don't like "xian." So take the effort of typing the extra four letters. No big deal for you, big deal for them.
I think this is missing the point. Why are people expected to constantly “walk on eggshells” around various religious sects? Just a couple of hours ago there was a segment on National Public Radio about a Christian woman in Rochester, NY who was celebrating the Passover by adapting some of the Jewish Seder to her own faith and adding Christian religious songs instead of the traditional Jewish songs. A Rabi called and took quite angry offense at this, arguing that it is inappropriate and insulting to Jews. What are people who have no religious affiliation to make of these “offenses”? Where in the minefield of religious offenses does one walk in the light of the fact that there are literally hundreds of sects that can and do take offense at something? In the case of pushing ID/creationism, one of the most frequent ploys I have seen in the four decades I have been aware of these issues, is that the voices of reason are constantly being accused of offending the religious beliefs of the creationists. Scientific facts were irrelevant. Pointing out errors, misinformation and misconceptions propagated by the creationists is almost always portrayed as religious persecution. And the creationists turn right around and repeat these same errors in every new venue. For many years the science community was afraid to take the gloves off for fear of offending someone’s beliefs. So for those many years, they were attempting to be polite and reasonable even as they were being played as suckers. And the so-called religious trolls who show up here on PT and take offense at the unmasking of pretensions and pseudo-science of the creationists are simply carrying on the persecution shtick instead of facing up to reality. And I don’t recall ever using the abbreviation Xian. But it never occurred to me that anyone would take offense at it since the Greek letter chi has traditionally been used do designate Christ. But that is just the point; how does one know whose sectarian dogma is going to be offended by something other sectarians have no problem with. I personally don’t even try to walk on eggshells around religious people. Most religious people I know are far more mature and have great senses of humor.

Kevin B · 22 April 2009

Amadán said: A Canadian "writer", a failed mathematician and a jailed tax cheat walk into a bar. Charles Darwin is serving and asks them what they'd like.
Surely, it's obvious. Whatever they ask for, he'll serve them from a bottle with a worm in it.....

Mike Elzinga · 22 April 2009

Kevin B said:
Amadán said: A Canadian "writer", a failed mathematician and a jailed tax cheat walk into a bar. Charles Darwin is serving and asks them what they'd like.
Surely, it's obvious. Whatever they ask for, he'll serve them from a bottle with a worm in it.....
I'm still trying to picture the jailed tax cheat walking into a bar.

raven · 22 April 2009

from an xian apologeetics website: xtian meaning christian the x comes from latin and is the latin letter for christ, i.e. x-tian means christ-tian or christian. This derivation is about 1700 years old.
This concern troll stuff is all brand new today for me. Which is odd since I've used this traditional abbreviation for years and other christians use it commonly. Also, spent 5 minutes on google and found nothing much that indicates it is anything other than an abbreviation invented by xians to designate xians about the time the early church was formed. It looks like some xians just made up some new tradition so they could feel persecuted. Xians do this a lot. The War on Xmas which was made up by Bill Reilly so he oculd rant and rave and otherwise never existed. The War on Halloween and on and on. Which adds another data point about the moderate xians. The so called moderates aren't as moderate as they claim. The USA and xianity today has become very politicized and polarized. The moderates are either going fundie and pondering the thought of assassinating MDs, bombing family planning clinics, and killing witches. Or they are leaving the religion. I was a xian for 50 years and just left recently. The fundies who I find appalling and believe turned the religion into something 180 degrees the opposite of what it was were the major factor. I did the math earlier, about 1.5 million people/year in the USA do the same. If xians had any ability to reflect and think, they might ponder why this is happening rather than fighting the War on Science and Education. I use xian as an adjective like it has been for 1700 years. If any one feels insulted, fine, free country. Take a valium or send me some death threats. Fundies send them to me often, it is OK. And move on. I've forgotten what this thread was even about now.

Frank J · 22 April 2009

Anyway, as has been pointed out, ~76% of Americans consider themselves Christians. If you want to win in the court of public opinion, it is not generally a good idea to go out of your way to piss off that group for no gain.

— Chris Ashton
A million thanks from this non-Christian! I wrote a long post about it at Talk Origins last year, but another thing that fellow "Darwinists" do that annoy me is this constant "us vs. the creationists" oversimplification. The demographics are a bit more complicated. Less than 1% of Adult Americans are anti-evolution activists. Another ~25% (mostly fundamentalists) will not admit evolution under any circumstances. But Another ~25% of evolution deniers are not beyond hope, while yet another ~20-25% accepts evolution but still thinks it's fair to teach it on the activists' terms. The last 2 groups ought to be our focus, and only because we genuinely want to help them. Yet too often the first 2 groups are obsessed over, and without even distinguishing between the activists and their followers. Sure, we need to pay attention to the activists, and refute their "science" (which these days is mostly about how "Darwinism" causes Nazism), but always with the goal of helping those they have misled.

Raging Bee · 22 April 2009

Also, spent 5 minutes on google and found nothing much that indicates it is anything other than an abbreviation invented by xians to designate xians about the time the early church was formed.

IIRC, "X" is also the Greek letter Chi, and thus the first letter in the name "Christ." That, and the cross motif, are the main reasons why "X" came to be an abbreviation for just about all things Christian, especially back in the days when early Christians needed a simple, not-too-obvious code-symbol that wouldn't give them away to the wrong people (yes, once upon a time they really were a persecuted minority, and they won't ever let us forget it, even though it was over 1000 years ago).

James F · 22 April 2009

My rule of thumb? If I'm participating in a group discussion and another participant (excluding trolls, of course) objects to a particular appellation, I make a polite retraction and abandon use of that term when addressing said group. I'm a big proponent of calling people what they wish to be called.

Peace.

raven · 23 April 2009

I’m a big proponent of calling people what they wish to be called.
Normally I would agree but not buying it here. Xian is 1700 years old. It was invented by xians to...describe xians and is used by xians to...refer to themselves. This is just a form of concern trolling. It is a form of passive aggression. Some xians like to make up arbitrary rules and ask other people to follow them. When they don't, they get to shriek, Oh poor me, I'm being persecuted, help us. The more active aggressives can then beat up someone or bomb something. We saw that with the fake War on Xmas invented by Bill O'Reilly so he could rant and rave. They do it with selling beer on Sunday. So James, Xmas is 8 months away. So Happy Holidays for your future end of year celebrations. And if Happy Holidays offends you go run over a squirrel or take a valium or whatever. I'm not playing passive aggressive games with religious fanatics.

Chris Ashton · 23 April 2009

OK, I will try this one more time. I am an "evolutionist" or whatever term you choose to apply to one who looks at the available evidence and accepts that the model that best fits it is probably the truth. I am also a Christian, and as such do not accept that we have complete and total understanding of how the universe functions. I find that most Christians are of a similar mindset. However, if one feels under attack from the get-go it is rather hard to objectively assess the data presented. I have read a number of folks here who get a bit offended when Creationists refer to them as "Darwinists" and have said so. I guess my biggest point is that there is nothing gained by use of this term. It does not clarify or edify, and makes certain folks go into a defensive posture. If you want to argue, please point out what is to be gained by using "xian" to refer to a us?

Chris

eric · 23 April 2009

Chris Ashton said: If you want to argue, please point out what is to be gained by using "xian" to refer to a us?
Freedom of speech?

Mary Hunter · 23 April 2009

I always wind-up on the tag end of these discussions, but I find the Xian thing to be hilarious. For over 20 years I went to a catholic church that had the chi roe carved on to the ends of EVERY PEW!!! Were the Catholics insulting themselves? Besides, if xian is somehow disturbing then I'll make a bargain. Quit referring to evolutionists as Darwinists and I won't use xian. I don't find Darwinist insulting just inadequate to the present state of evolutionary theory.

J-Dog · 23 April 2009

Akshuly, humour might be a good idea: as evil commie evolutionists, a collective effort seems appropriate. Please add a line and we'll see where this goes:

A Canadian "writer", a failed mathematician and a jailed tax cheat walk into a bar. Charles Darwin is serving and asks them what they'd like.

(C'mon, you can do it!)

Anmadan - I'm not sure how the middle goes, but

I know that the properly designed punchline is:

Dembski turns to Denyse and says -

"Rectum? It damn near killed 'em!". :)

Wheels · 23 April 2009

Mike Elzinga said:
David Fickett-Wilbar said: Quite right. But there are some things you do know, so how about working with those? For instance, you now know that there are Christians who don't like "xian." So take the effort of typing the extra four letters. No big deal for you, big deal for them.
I think this is missing the point. Why are people expected to constantly “walk on eggshells” around various religious sects?
Well, by that line of argument, some Fundies should be able to call Catholics Pope-fuckers in their public discourses if they want, and nobody should object to that label, right?
I know the "X" abbreviation has been around for a while. I also know some modern cliques who have adopted it on their own (ever since it became "hip" to put "XTREME" in the name of something). I also know that many others see it as a belittlement and potentially a derogatory slur. And personally: 1) I'm not used to finding the X on the keyboard, so I type "Christians" out of habit.
2) I keep wanting to read that as "zians."

Chris Ashton · 23 April 2009

Mary Hunter said: I always wind-up on the tag end of these discussions, but I find the Xian thing to be hilarious. For over 20 years I went to a catholic church that had the chi roe carved on to the ends of EVERY PEW!!! Were the Catholics insulting themselves? Besides, if xian is somehow disturbing then I'll make a bargain. Quit referring to evolutionists as Darwinists and I won't use xian. I don't find Darwinist insulting just inadequate to the present state of evolutionary theory.
eric replied to comment from Chris Ashton | April 23, 2009 9:27 AM | Reply | Edit Chris Ashton said: If you want to argue, please point out what is to be gained by using “xian” to refer to a us? Freedom of speech? OK, I am now done. Back to lurking. I may be alone in feeling that engaging in civil discussion is the best way to get our point across (and let me repeat, for those who seem to have missed this, I AM ON YOUR SIDE!) Forcing people into defensive, us-vs-them positions does not promote objective assessment of facts. But if it makes you feel better, go for it. It's worked so well up to now. Chris

eric · 23 April 2009

Chris Ashton said: OK, I am now done. Back to lurking. I may be alone in feeling that engaging in civil discussion is the best way to get our point across
You are not alone. What about my reply was uncivil?

dhogaza · 23 April 2009

The lawsuit names as defendants the eight members of the THECB in both their official and individual capacities, thus making it expensive for each member. No doubt all will be represented by the same team of attorneys, but each will have to consider their individual financial liability, which will be unappealing and discouraging to them. This will intimidate them to settle with terms favorable to ICR. ICR could have just sued the THECB as an institution, but that would not be mean-spirited and intimidating enough for the litigious ICR.
So presumably Texas has no anti-SLAPP suit legislation? One other reason to stay out of Texas, if true.

Wayne F · 23 April 2009

Amadán said: A Canadian "writer", a failed mathematician and a jailed tax cheat walk into a bar. Charles Darwin is serving and asks them what they'd like.
The failed mathematician says, "I'd like to buy a beer for each of my three friends here"

phantomreader42 · 23 April 2009

eric said:
Chris Ashton said: OK, I am now done. Back to lurking. I may be alone in feeling that engaging in civil discussion is the best way to get our point across
You are not alone. What about my reply was uncivil?
Judging by previous experience with christian apologists, I suspect the very fact that you dared suggest non-christians have any rights at all is defined as "uncivil". Religious cults have very high double standards. Members of the cult can lie, distort, spew insults, spread slander, advocate violence against non-members, even murder them, all without the cult saying a single discouraging word (see the Inquisition and scientology's "Fair Game" policy). But for a non-cultist to object to such tactics, however politely, is an unforgivable assult on civil discourse and a crime against humanity. Chris, you want a civil discussion? Do something about the psychopaths in YOUR faith who can't stand the very existence of anyone who disagrees with them. Why should anyone bend over backwards to avoid offending your faith when your faith won't extend the same courtesy? The only way to avoid offending fundamentalist nutjobs of any cult is to convert or die. Fuck that.

Kenneth Baggaley · 23 April 2009

Chris Ashton wrote:

"I may be alone in feeling that engaging in civil discussion is the best way to get our point across (and let me repeat, for those who seem to have missed this, I AM ON YOUR SIDE!) Forcing people into defensive, us-vs-them positions does not promote objective assessment of facts."

Chris makes a good point. I would suggest it is not a black/white matter of principle, but a matter of degree, and of individual assessment. If in discussion a person tells me politely they prefer Asian to Oriental, I believe it is common politeness (at very little cost) to oblige. If someone prefers "historical revisionist" to "Holocaust Denier", I feel compelled to insist on the latter. The difference: my assessment of the honesty and intention of the request (i.e., after hearing his statements, in my opinion the Denier is looking to legitimitize and cover his lies and hatred).

In other words, I am willing to 'combat' what I feel is an attempt at manipulation or dishonesty. I find no such attempt in the preference for 'Asian'. Likewise, to Chris' comments, I find no attempt in his preference for 'Christian'. I can understand how others may feel differently - especially those who combat the nonsense of Creationists repeatedly. But Chris' point - the refusal to accomodate an honest preference - can be translated by the listener as a sign you are in 'combat' with them. This is not always a winning strategy.

Look, people can say whatever they like. I'm just pointing out that not every request for titular accomodation is part of some nefarious hidden plan. Nor is it always intended as an affront on your rights.

IMHO, typing "Christian" instead of 'xtian' is not where we want the battle to be. Don't be tricked into opening an unnecessary second front. YMMV.

Peace.

Chris Ashton · 23 April 2009

phantomreader42 said:
eric said:
Chris Ashton said: OK, I am now done. Back to lurking. I may be alone in feeling that engaging in civil discussion is the best way to get our point across
You are not alone. What about my reply was uncivil?
Judging by previous experience with christian apologists, I suspect the very fact that you dared suggest non-christians have any rights at all is defined as "uncivil". Religious cults have very high double standards. Members of the cult can lie, distort, spew insults, spread slander, advocate violence against non-members, even murder them, all without the cult saying a single discouraging word (see the Inquisition and scientology's "Fair Game" policy). But for a non-cultist to object to such tactics, however politely, is an unforgivable assult on civil discourse and a crime against humanity. Chris, you want a civil discussion? Do something about the psychopaths in YOUR faith who can't stand the very existence of anyone who disagrees with them. Why should anyone bend over backwards to avoid offending your faith when your faith won't extend the same courtesy? The only way to avoid offending fundamentalist nutjobs of any cult is to convert or die. Fuck that.
Well, in answer to Eric's question, "freedom of speech" in this instance is not really applicable, since I am not asking about your rights. Of course you have the right to use whatever term you like. I am only questioning the wisdom and productivity of using it, in an effort to encourage civility. In response to phantomreader, I am not a "Christian apologist," I'm a doctor. If I could fix crazy people who call themselves Christians, I would. I would also fix crazy people who call themselves scientists, athiests and Martians. As that is not going to happen, I will return to my original request to merely engage in civil, respectful discussion and refrain from name calling and use of derogatory terms. Personally, I would prefer also to limit the language used to that which I could allow my daughter to read, since this is a very educational site and frequently features the sorts of discussions that she would benefit from. But not here, or now. Chris

eric · 23 April 2009

Chris Ashton said: Well, in answer to Eric's question, "freedom of speech" in this instance is not really applicable, since I am not asking about your rights. Of course you have the right to use whatever term you like. I am only questioning the wisdom and productivity of using it, in an effort to encourage civility.
While I respect Kenneth's answer, the "productivity" that I am going for is not allowing small subgroups to dictate what counts as civility. Chris, implied in your argument is that there is a common definition of civility, and that definition agrees with your personal tastes. My tastes, which see nothing wrong with xian, are uncivil to you. So let's get this straight - you are not simply asking for people to be civil, you are asking them to accept your personal definition of what civil is. Mike Elzinga was very right to point out that people often have very different definitions of civility and that this undermines your whole argument. And yes, Kenneth, that applies to your argument too because there are many "honest" and 'well-intentioned' Christians who would pass your test with their (to my mind) unreasonable insistence that "Happy Holidays" is an offensive greeting. Let me suggest a wild and crazy idea. How about we start applying terms like 'civil' to our own behavior instead of seeing it as a means to impose our will on others. Perhaps, maybe, I know this sounds crazy, 'civility' should not be used as a reason to tell people to refrain from using words you don't like. Perhaps instead we should take civility to mean that we, ourselves, should not take offense at words that were clearly not intended to be insulting. Just a suggestion...

Chris Ashton · 23 April 2009

eric said:
Chris Ashton said: Well, in answer to Eric's question, "freedom of speech" in this instance is not really applicable, since I am not asking about your rights. Of course you have the right to use whatever term you like. I am only questioning the wisdom and productivity of using it, in an effort to encourage civility.
While I respect Kenneth's answer, the "productivity" that I am going for is not allowing small subgroups to dictate what counts as civility. Chris, implied in your argument is that there is a common definition of civility, and that definition agrees with your personal tastes. My tastes, which see nothing wrong with xian, are uncivil to you. So let's get this straight - you are not simply asking for people to be civil, you are asking them to accept your personal definition of what civil is. Mike Elzinga was very right to point out that people often have very different definitions of civility and that this undermines your whole argument. And yes, Kenneth, that applies to your argument too because there are many "honest" and 'well-intentioned' Christians who would pass your test with their (to my mind) unreasonable insistence that "Happy Holidays" is an offensive greeting. Let me suggest a wild and crazy idea. How about we start applying terms like 'civil' to our own behavior instead of seeing it as a means to impose our will on others. Perhaps, maybe, I know this sounds crazy, 'civility' should not be used as a reason to tell people to refrain from using words you don't like. Perhaps instead we should take civility to mean that we, ourselves, should not take offense at words that were clearly not intended to be insulting. Just a suggestion...
If the most important thing to you is to show "those damn fundies" that they can't intimidate you and you will bloody well do as you please, man, do what makes you happy. Just know that it makes it harder on folks like me who are trying to have discussions with Christians to bring them around to a rational viewpoint when I find that I am trying to bring them into agreement with people who have no respect for them. I don't even disagree with you about not taking offense, and in fact I do not personally take offense. I do know some who do however, and it is courteous to not tromp on people's toes when you really gain nothing from it. Obviously we are not going to agree on this topic, but give it some thought.

Doc Bill · 23 April 2009

I think the discussion gets skewed because it's not Christians that are the "problem" but creationists.

There is no point in being civil to a creationist because, to tar the entire genre, creationists are dishonest.

What's the difference between saying "Luskin, you are factually wrong," "Luskin, you idiot, you are factually wrong," and "Luskin, my esteemed colleague, you are factually wrong."

Listen up, creationists. Your opinion doesn't matter. Seriously, it doesn't.

The age of the Earth is 4.54 billion years plus/minus 1 percent. Not 6,000 years.

There was no global flood.

Adam and Eve is a myth.

Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution proposes how evolution happens and is supported by all scientific evidence.

So, my creationist friends, being all civil and all, quit the quote mining, quit the lying and do some work.

ndt · 23 April 2009

Mike from Ottawa | April 22, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Edit Moderate xians exist but there don’t seem to be very many of them. Not much encouraged to come out as such by the general tenor of contempt indicated by the use of terms like “xians”. Using a term to label someone when they would not apply that label to themselves is an indication of disrespect, and I’ve not run into many Christians who label themselves as “xians”.
Actually Christians invented the abbreviation "xian". You might want to learn a little more about the history of your own religion before you look for spurious reasons to get offended.

Frank J · 23 April 2009

Listen up, creationists. Your opinion doesn’t matter. Seriously, it doesn’t. The age of the Earth is 4.54 billion years plus/minus 1 percent. Not 6,000 years. There was no global flood. Adam and Eve is a myth. Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution proposes how evolution happens and is supported by all scientific evidence. So, my creationist friends, being all civil and all, quit the quote mining, quit the lying and do some work.

— Doc Bill
Not to defend anti-evolution activists in the least, but many of them, including most at the DI, agree that the Earth is as old as science says, and probably also deny the global flood and literal interpretation of Adam and Eve. And some even accept common descent. Part of that work that they need to do is to stop covering up their irreconcilable differences with their strategy of "don't ask, don't tell."

James F · 23 April 2009

I strongly suspect that the majority of rank-and-file creationists are YECs. Appreciating the cosmological age of the universe and the Earth requires some education; it's much easier to believe in a six-day creation and a universe 6,000 years old (or whatever the pastor says it is). I would love to see statistics on how many creationists are OECs.
Frank J said: Not to defend anti-evolution activists in the least, but many of them, including most at the DI, agree that the Earth is as old as science says, and probably also deny the global flood and literal interpretation of Adam and Eve. And some even accept common descent. Part of that work that they need to do is to stop covering up their irreconcilable differences with their strategy of "don't ask, don't tell."

Ravilyn Sanders · 23 April 2009

Chris Ashton said: Just know that it makes it harder on folks like me who are trying to have discussions with Christians to bring them around to a rational viewpoint when I find that I am trying to bring them into agreement with people who have no respect for them.
Dr Ashton, it is nice to hear that you do try to persuade your fellow congregants that science is not all that evil and it would be possible to be a good Christian and still support science. And also you encourage your children to be fully informed about science by visiting sites like PT. Very good. I am curious, please do not mistake me, I am not trying to be snarky, (English is not my mother tongue and I tend to be a little bookish). What kind of things you have said that you find were effective when speaking to your fellow Church goers about these topics? At what level, if you don't mind disclosing, you engage them? (Ranging from writing to letters to the editor and vociferously expressing dissenting views to visiting Creationists on one end, shrugging and not showing any sign of dissent to Creationism outwardly)?

Kenneth Baggaley · 23 April 2009

Eric wrote:

>>>While I respect Kenneth’s answer, the “productivity” that I am going for is not allowing small subgroups to dictate what counts as civility.<<<

I understand, Eric. I would suggest to you that the reverse position, that no one may request another to address them in a particular manner, is too extreme. But if your point is applicable only to 'certain subgroups', then it is a choice you have made based upon your assessment of their integrity, and we are in agreement on that.

>>>Mike Elzinga was very right to point out that people often have very different definitions of civility and that this undermines your whole argument. And yes, Kenneth, that applies to your argument too because there are many “honest” and ‘well-intentioned’ Christians who would pass your test with their (to my mind) unreasonable insistence that “Happy Holidays” is an offensive greeting.<<<

Eric, I would agree with you on the point of 'Happy Holidays' - it is a pleasant greeting which accomodates multiple faiths, as well as those without supernatural beliefs. I believe the insistance on christmas (while not offensive to me) is too narrow, and while not feeling compelled to use it, my decision to use it would be based on my asessment of the requestor's intentions ('good' intentions do not include one-upmanship, IMHO).

I would suggest that 'xtian' over 'christian', when used in scholarly tomes, clealry had no one-upmanship involved, nor could any be reasonably presumed. I would suggest that when used talking to xtians about evolution, it has the potential to be perceived as replacing 'Christ' with an 'X' (however unfairly or without intent), and is therefore possibly counterproductive. And more to the point, it gives Creationists another finger-wagging opportunity ("see? they want to x out our lord!").

It seems disingenuous to argue that Xtian is 'easier to type' or 'readily accepted' - in fact I was originally raised catholic, and xtian was most assuredly NOT used in self-description (in my experience). If your intention is to make a stand, and you feel the principle is too important, by all means do so, I understand. But I ask you, in reflection, to simply be aware that an insistance on calling people what you want to call them, on principle, can also be construed as 'imposing your will on others'.

We are not that far out of agreement. I simply suggest that, when presenting our points, we make the points the focus, not the nomenclature - unless we assess that nomenclature as disingenuous one-upmanship. And we should adjust our level of concession - or not - accordingly.

- K.

David Fickett-Wilbar · 23 April 2009

Chris Ashton said: I have read a number of folks here who get a bit offended when Creationists refer to them as "Darwinists" and have said so.
Now, now, you don't want to have to walk on eggshells.

David Fickett-Wilbar · 23 April 2009

eric said:
Chris Ashton said: If you want to argue, please point out what is to be gained by using "xian" to refer to a us?
Freedom of speech?
Really? You really think this is an issue of freedom of speech? Rather big hammer for such a small nail.

David Fickett-Wilbar · 23 April 2009

Wayne F said:
Amadán said: A Canadian "writer", a failed mathematician and a jailed tax cheat walk into a bar. Charles Darwin is serving and asks them what they'd like.
The failed mathematician says, "I'd like to buy a beer for each of my three friends here"
The jailed tax fraud says: 1. I don't care what you buy as long as my tax dollars don't pay for it. 2. Three? There are biiiilions and biiiiilions of us here. He said something somewhere about not drinking alcohol, but I forget what it was.

David Fickett-Wilbar · 23 April 2009

phantomreader42 said: Judging by previous experience with christian apologists, I suspect the very fact that you dared suggest non-christians have any rights at all is defined as "uncivil". Religious cults have very high double standards. Members of the cult can lie, distort, spew insults, spread slander, advocate violence against non-members, even murder them, all without the cult saying a single discouraging word (see the Inquisition and scientology's "Fair Game" policy). But for a non-cultist to object to such tactics, however politely, is an unforgivable assult on civil discourse and a crime against humanity. Chris, you want a civil discussion? Do something about the psychopaths in YOUR faith who can't stand the very existence of anyone who disagrees with them. Why should anyone bend over backwards to avoid offending your faith when your faith won't extend the same courtesy? The only way to avoid offending fundamentalist nutjobs of any cult is to convert or die. Fuck that.
All this because someone wanted you to spell out the name of their religion? Who is it who is supposed to be the one with the thin skin here?

phantomreader42 · 23 April 2009

David Fickett-Wilbar said:
phantomreader42 said: Judging by previous experience with christian apologists, I suspect the very fact that you dared suggest non-christians have any rights at all is defined as "uncivil". Religious cults have very high double standards. Members of the cult can lie, distort, spew insults, spread slander, advocate violence against non-members, even murder them, all without the cult saying a single discouraging word (see the Inquisition and scientology's "Fair Game" policy). But for a non-cultist to object to such tactics, however politely, is an unforgivable assult on civil discourse and a crime against humanity. Chris, you want a civil discussion? Do something about the psychopaths in YOUR faith who can't stand the very existence of anyone who disagrees with them. Why should anyone bend over backwards to avoid offending your faith when your faith won't extend the same courtesy? The only way to avoid offending fundamentalist nutjobs of any cult is to convert or die. Fuck that.
All this because someone wanted you to spell out the name of their religion? Who is it who is supposed to be the one with the thin skin here?
No, really it's more a general reaction to the whining about "civility". Why is it that anything short of total submission is treated as a horrible insult by the religious, but they don't bat an eye at their fellow believers accusing atheists of mass murder, spreading baldfaced lies, and celebrating the never-ending torture of anyone asking an inconvenient question? Why do the "moderate" "civil" christians blubber like little children about an abbreviation, but don't take their own fanatics to task for outright slander and threats of violence?

Frank J · 24 April 2009

I strongly suspect that the majority of rank-and-file creationists are YECs. Appreciating the cosmological age of the universe and the Earth requires some education; it’s much easier to believe in a six-day creation and a universe 6,000 years old (or whatever the pastor says it is). I would love to see statistics on how many creationists are OECs.

— James F
I agree about the rank-and-file, but I'm not so sure if that would still be the case if the early anti evolution activists had not framed "scientific" creationism ("flood geology" and all) around a YEC position - which itself is a compromise between the "too hot" flat-earthism and geocentrism, and "too cold" OEC. AIUI Most of the educated activists before the Henry Morris era were OECs (though "day-age" and "gap", not the "progressive" version that concedes all of mainstream chronology). So we could have seen a very different situation had the OECs taken control first. I don't have exact statistics for the rank-and-file, but many polls over 27 years show a fairly consistent ~45% of adult Americans choosing the option that "God created humans in their present form in the last 10,000 years. That option includes "old-earth-young-life", and may also be selected by some theistic evolutionists who are more concerned with souls than cells, and thus prefer it to the "God guided evolution" option. Meanwhile I have seen one other poll which framed the question in more explicit YEC terms, and the result was ~33%. So a reasonable estimate is that ~3/4 of rank-and-file creationists are YECs. But as you say, most just don't understand enough of the science to make an informed choice. To which I would add, most just don't give it enough thought. With the exception of those who are obviously "activists-in-training," nearly all of those who do take the time to understand some of the science do become OECs, and often even "evolutionists." As for the activists, the more I read about them, the more it seems that few if any of them these days, including those in YEC organizations, truly believe that the evidence (as opposed to their personal "revelation") supports a young Earth, or even young life. Certainly most DI fellows don't. The DI's "token YEC" Paul Nelson is free to prove me wrong, but after more than a year he has still not answered my simple question in that regard.

eric · 24 April 2009

Kenneth Baggaley said: I would suggest that when [X is] used talking to xtians about evolution, it has the potential to be perceived as replacing 'Christ' with an 'X' (however unfairly or without intent), and is therefore possibly counterproductive.
And...
Chris Ashton said: it makes it harder on folks like me who are trying to have discussions with Christians to bring them around to a rational viewpoint when I find that I am trying to bring them into agreement with people who have no respect for them.
Both of your comments say to me that there is a bigger fish to fry than evolution here. Someone has clearly lied to your audience about the origin and symbolism of using X to represent Christ, and they believe that liar. The chances are slim that you will be able to convince them of anything about evolution until you first get them to understand that whatever authority they are listening to is lying to them. So rather than the X issue detracting from your evolution conversation, it is a good teaching moment. Chris I also don't think its particularly 'respectful' to allow someone to repeat a mistake that makes them look foolish. If someone is walking around talking about how substituting X for Christ is an insult and an atheist plot to take the Christ out of conversation, its like spinach in their teeth. You do them more of a favor by pointing it out than by ignoring it. Having said that, I do empathize. You guys clearly have an uphill battle ahead of you, because it seems to me that you are trying to argue evolution with people who haven't yet grasped the "sticks and stones..." concept.
David Fickett-Wilbar said:Who is it who is supposed to be the one with the thin skin here?
That's easy to tell - its the person that demands other people change their speech.

Kenneth Baggaley · 24 April 2009

Eric wrote:

"...Having said that, I do empathize..."

Thanks, Eric, and I fully empathize with your position as well. Names and Labels can be very powerful, and can be heavily manipulative in arguements. 'Terrorist' or 'Freedom-Fighter'? 'Soldier' or 'Partisan'? One can't concede to these labels without conceding part of the arguement at the onset.

When I speak with a Muslim, I am respectful using the name Mohammed, but I am not compelled to add 'PBUH' after each reference. In discussions about Jesus, I do not have to call him "Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ". To insist that I must, in order to be 'civil', is asking me to concede an important point within the labelling.

If someone asked me to write 'christian' instead of 'xtian', I don't see where I've conceded any important debate point. Such an unimportant concession makes for more civil conversation. I agree with you, you could use it to discuss the history of 'xtian'. Then, if the person still prefers 'christian', what debate point have you lost? Every concession is not a defeat - in fact, the clever concession of unimportant points is one key strategy to winning a debate on the important ones.

"...You guys clearly have an uphill battle ahead of you, because it seems to me that you are trying to argue evolution with people who haven’t yet grasped the “sticks and stones…” concept..."

Absolutely correct.

Thanks for the discussion, Eric.

- K.

Chris Ashton · 24 April 2009

Ravilyn Sanders said:
Chris Ashton said: Just know that it makes it harder on folks like me who are trying to have discussions with Christians to bring them around to a rational viewpoint when I find that I am trying to bring them into agreement with people who have no respect for them.
Dr Ashton, it is nice to hear that you do try to persuade your fellow congregants that science is not all that evil and it would be possible to be a good Christian and still support science. And also you encourage your children to be fully informed about science by visiting sites like PT. Very good. I am curious, please do not mistake me, I am not trying to be snarky, (English is not my mother tongue and I tend to be a little bookish). What kind of things you have said that you find were effective when speaking to your fellow Church goers about these topics? At what level, if you don't mind disclosing, you engage them? (Ranging from writing to letters to the editor and vociferously expressing dissenting views to visiting Creationists on one end, shrugging and not showing any sign of dissent to Creationism outwardly)? AS I said in my initial post (before realizing that I was stirring a bloody hornets' nest) I have a pretty involved talk approaching science as a whole and evolution specifically from a Christian standpoint. It actually helps to be very familiar with the Bible and theology. I can usually get their attention by pointing out things like the Biblical flood is described as 26ft deep, and the Garden is described as "the Garden" rather than all of creation. As far as my approach, I usually take it as a discussion rather than confrontation, and find that talking to individuals and small groups works better than "mass media" approaches. Just my approach. Chris

ravilyn sanders · 24 April 2009

Chris Ashton said: I can usually get their attention by pointing out things like the Biblical flood is described as 26ft deep, and the Garden is described as "the Garden" rather than all of creation. As far as my approach, I usually take it as a discussion rather than confrontation, and find that talking to individuals and small groups works better than "mass media" approaches. Just my approach. Chris
Dr Ashton, As a doctor, you have high visibility and stature among the congregants of your Church. With visibility what you don't say, and what you don't do also will have an impact on others. If a visiting speakers demonizes science or repeats well known well rebutted points about evolution, and you stay silent, others would assume you agree with such statements. And your silence would embolden the charlatans. Of course, I realize, not all of us are comfortable openly confronting such people. But, if you take a moment to let the leaders of the Church privately that you don't agree, it would be good. May be there are lot more people who are fed up with the charlatans. But because all of them are silent they underestimate their own numbers. BTW that 26 feet figure is interesting to know. I once calculated that if all the water in the atmosphere condenses suddenly it will just raise the sea levels by about 6 inches. (From atmospheric pressure = 10.24 m of water, H2O concentration less than 0.1%)

Chris Ashton · 24 April 2009

Dr Ashton,

As a doctor, you have high visibility and stature among the congregants of your Church. With visibility what you don't say, and what you don't do also will have an impact on others. If a visiting speakers demonizes science or repeats well known well rebutted points about evolution, and you stay silent, others would assume you agree with such statements. And your silence would embolden the charlatans.

Of course, I realize, not all of us are comfortable openly confronting such people. But, if you take a moment to let the leaders of the Church privately that you don't agree, it would be good. May be there are lot more people who are fed up with the charlatans. But because all of them are silent they underestimate their own numbers.

BTW that 26 feet figure is interesting to know. I once calculated that
if all the water in the atmosphere condenses suddenly it will just raise the sea levels by about 6 inches. (From atmospheric pressure = 10.24 m of water, H2O concentration less than 0.1%)

For better or worse, my church is not one with any organized creationist anything, so I don't generally run up against that. Just a sort of generalized distrust of science, as a whole. Probably why i felt I had to jump in here. These are folks who are open to discussion and ideas, but will very quickly shut out someone who comes across as talking down to them or disrespecting their core beliefs. Do not misunderstand, I am a practicing Christian with a fairly conservative set of beliefs. I just do not see that rejecting science is required for that. In fact, my belief is that it disrepects God to reject the facts surrounding the universe He made.

By the way, the 26 ft (literally 15 cubits) is directly from Genesis, (And the waters rose 15 cubits and all the hills were covered) and in my discussion supports a historic local flood. If you are a Hebrew standing in the Sinai in 3000BC, 26 ft would be a pretty unheard of amount of water, and would cover the visible hills. Gotta remember, those folks had no knowledge of Himalayas, Andes or any of the other major ranges!

Chris

eric · 24 April 2009

Chris Ashton said: For better or worse, my church is not one with any organized creationist anything, so I don't generally run up against that. Just a sort of generalized distrust of science, as a whole.
That sort of feeling is one of the reasons this debate is so aggravating. The ICR demands their religious training be called science, while at the same time we have religious communities that say they distrust science. If you (rhetorically, not you Chris) think our club is so bad, why do you want to belong to it? That sort of distrust has this underlying bad taste of hypocrisy to it. Probably 90% of your congregation's material goods wouldn't exist without modern science. To say nothing of their health. And they must, at least at a subconscious level, recognize this, because groups like them support ICR in their effort to gain scientific legitimacy. Which means they value scientific legitimacy. Expelled tried to link the theory of evolution to Nazism. If you (again, rhetorically, not you Chris or your specific congregation) really believe there's a link, why do you want so badly to don the same uniform?

Chris Ashton · 24 April 2009

eric said:
Chris Ashton said: For better or worse, my church is not one with any organized creationist anything, so I don't generally run up against that. Just a sort of generalized distrust of science, as a whole.
That sort of feeling is one of the reasons this debate is so aggravating. The ICR demands their religious training be called science, while at the same time we have religious communities that say they distrust science. If you (rhetorically, not you Chris) think our club is so bad, why do you want to belong to it? That sort of distrust has this underlying bad taste of hypocrisy to it. Probably 90% of your congregation's material goods wouldn't exist without modern science. To say nothing of their health. And they must, at least at a subconscious level, recognize this, because groups like them support ICR in their effort to gain scientific legitimacy. Which means they value scientific legitimacy. Expelled tried to link the theory of evolution to Nazism. If you (again, rhetorically, not you Chris or your specific congregation) really believe there's a link, why do you want so badly to don the same uniform?
Eric, this is a much bigger issue than the "four missing letters" that started the discussion. My take on this is the far too common philosophy our culture seems to have adopted that no one can tell me what to believe or question my beliefs. Applied to abstract philosophical or religious questions, this might be true, but it has been generalized to apply to hard sciences, as in Flat Earthers, Holocaust Deniers and Creationists. They all share the belief that their peculiar belief system is equally as valid as any other, and that there can be no external metric which says otherwise. Of course, if I choose to believe that 2+2=5, or that gravity does not apply to me, it only proves I am either severly led astray, stupid or evil. I have my personal opinions as to which of these apply to whom, and I suspect that we would agree much more than not on these. Cheers! Chris

Just Bob · 24 April 2009

Early in my high school teaching career I learned the meaning of a phrase often thrown at me, usually by a 14-year-old girl who had come to our science-centered magnet school from a Christian "academy."

"You respect my religion (or beliefs), and I'll respect yours."

This usually popped up not after making any derogatory comments about anyone's religion, but after assigning readings in Sagan's Cosmos, or discussing the cultural and literary importance of Charles Darwin. It quickly became clear that "respect my religion" meant "never say anything that I (or my pastor) disagree with." When I put it that way to a kid or two, they generally walked away grumbling, realizing that that was exactly what they had meant.

ravilyn sanders · 24 April 2009

eric said: If you (rhetorically, not you Chris) think our club is so bad, why do you want to belong to it? If you (again, rhetorically, not you Chris or your specific congregation) really believe there's a link, why do you want so badly to don the same uniform?
Well, Science and scientists are not the only things they mistrust. They generally are suspicious of many others in general. Them Washington Bigwigs, Them media pundits, them hot-shot lawyers, ... Compared to them science actually enjoys a better reputation. However secretly they might like to be Washington Bigwig, science and scientific are the appellations they openly admit to liking. They know science and technology delivered goods. That is why the rabble rousers and the demagogues use terms like Darwinism, Darwinist, Evolutionist etc to claim "these people are not true scientists" and then by some weird logic try to convince their audience the "real" "true" "authentic" science is whatever they are selling. One thing these congregations really really love is something that finally ends, "... So science is only now begining to understand the correctness of our scriptures!". What precedes it could be an outright fabrication, like "NASA scientists using computers to calculate the orbits found one day missing!". Or something illogical, "Salt water fish can not survive in fresh water. That shows how the oceanic animals could have died in Noah's Flood!" I think this observation should be used by science supporters. In Richard Dawkins' seminal book "The Selfish Gene", its climatic chapter (second edition) is titled "Nice Guys Finish First". Explains lucidly the Iterated Prisoners Dilemma game, simulation in computers, and the ground breaking Tournament of Strategies by Prof Robert Axelrod. It says essentially "winning strategy that benefits the whole group, is being nice, not being jealous, being forgiving and not tolerating bad behaviour of others. Now finally science is able to show the essential truthiness of the commandment Thou Shalt not covet and our creed of forgiveness". Purists might disagree and call it a stretch. It is lot more correct and lot closer to truth than the demagogues'. And it has the imprimatur of having been confirmed by computers! Who could argue with that? Similarly we could make an argument from evolution to say that "behaving exactly like your parents is a good strategy. Any big deviation is likely to land you in a suboptimal region in the fitness landscape" and claim "Honor Thy Father and Mother" means exactly this. Just yapping away. Sorry to have wasted so much of the bandwidth.

Minta · 25 April 2009

As a "moderate Xian," I'll say that promoting science/battling pseudoscience is not part of the mainline church scene - there is a much larger interest in the social justice issues we believe are core to Christ's message. That said, as a veterinarian, I know modern biology is the basis for ongoing work in medicine and agriculture that improves people's lives. Listening to my 8th-grade daughter discuss how evolution has been entirely avoided in her science classroom to avoid offending the creationists disgusts me as both a scientist and a taxpayer. I would join a Christian group that dedicated itself to promoting the teaching of evolution-based biology in public school classrooms - if one existed. Does anyone know of one???

fnxtr · 25 April 2009

On the surface that description looks like bizarro world to a Canadian, but I think after all the influence was present but just more subtle in the strongly Mennonite community where I graduated. Little things, like lower marks in English, and assumptions that your ideas were not your own, if you didn't attend any of the numerous churches in the vicinity. I don't recall evolution being taught or suppressed, actually. We'd have theological disagreements as kids but never to the point of the nonsense I've seen here from FL, novparl, et al.

Richard Simons · 25 April 2009

Minta,

Have you considered volunteering to give a talk to your daughter's class on being a veterinarian, then sneaking in a bit about how a knowledge of evolutionary relationships is useful when treating exotic animals you've not seen before, and how, because we are animals too, many of our medicines are the same? I sometimes gives a talk on the uses of plants and always bring in a bit about the evolution of wheat and corn. It might not make much difference but at least it is something.

Tony Whitson · 25 April 2009

for links to audio and video of the Senate Committee hearings that are likely to result in non-confirmation of Don McLeroy for another term as chairman of the Texas State Board of Education, see
https://tw-curricuwiki.wikispaces.com/TxSenNommCommMcL_0904

Stuart Weinstein · 25 April 2009

Wheels said:
Mike Elzinga said:
David Fickett-Wilbar said: Quite right. But there are some things you do know, so how about working with those? For instance, you now know that there are Christians who don't like "xian." So take the effort of typing the extra four letters. No big deal for you, big deal for them.
I think this is missing the point. Why are people expected to constantly “walk on eggshells” around various religious sects?
Well, by that line of argument, some Fundies should be able to call Catholics Pope-fuckers in their public discourses if they want, and nobody should object to that label, right?
I'm sorry but comparing the use of "xtian" on the key board to calling Catholics "pope fuckers" is an invidious comparison. Try and show a little more maturity next time.

Minta · 27 April 2009

Richard Simons said: Minta, Have you considered volunteering to give a talk to your daughter's class on being a veterinarian, then sneaking in a bit about how a knowledge of evolutionary relationships is useful when treating exotic animals you've not seen before, and how, because we are animals too, many of our medicines are the same? I sometimes gives a talk on the uses of plants and always bring in a bit about the evolution of wheat and corn. It might not make much difference but at least it is something.
Curriculum/classroom time has been tightened by standardized testing so much that I never hear about this type of career exploration activity happening. Last week's story my 8th grader brought home was about the fundamentalist Sunday schoolers watched a DVD about how the finding of dinosaur bone marrow "proved" young-earth creationism. The proper role for a science teacher is to explain to the kids why scientists know that dinosaurs were not alive 6000 years ago. These kids are very arrogant and say they "know" evolution didn't happen and that they are most certainly not descended from apes. I just asked her to give them a thought experiment - would they drink the latest soft drink if it killed 100% of laboratory rats offered it. If yes, great, but if not, why not? What makes you so much like the rat that you won't take the drink? Maybe you should learn why scientists think it makes sense to do safety testing on animals. Why bother with animal testing if humans are a "special creation" and are unrelated to rats? It is just a tremendous waste of tax dollars to teach kids biological factoids without putting it in perspective by explaining it in terms of evolutionary theory. The worst example I had of this was the young emergency room physician who, upon hearing his cat had a heart murmur, was astounded to learn that cats had 4-chambered hearts. How did he get through enough training to become an MD and not understand that a human is just one variation of the mammalian plan??? This level of ignorance is the norm in the general population. People are continually astounded that their pet can get the same diseases humans get. I remind them its because they have the same parts and the same things go wrong. The average office visit does not permit a full discussion of why we have the same body parts.

Shubee · 10 May 2009

I live in the Dallas area and would like to see ICR demonstrate their inability to distinguish between faith and science in court. How do I find out when and where this trial will be? I’d also like to find out if a blogger can bring a video camera into the courtroom. I assume that I have to petition the court for that. What’s the procedure for making such a request?

Joe Echevarria · 13 May 2009

Just chiming in...
OEC here. Furhermore, in spite of those who claim it to be a contradiction, I also hold to evolutionary development as true. Ultimate cause may be debatable, but arguing that evolution never happened is like denying the solar cycles. We got sundown and sunrise and that is just that!

Have a great day ladies and gentlemen.

Xian Joe
P.S. (:D I take no offense. That X in IXOYE, the Greek word for fish, stands for Christ, and is really the christian origination for X being used as an abbreviation for CHristian. It's not "Crossing out" anything.