Disco Institute Damage Control? Barton Book Dumped

Barbara Bradley Hagerty, an NPR religion reporter, ran a segment on Barton a week ago. She and Elise Hu ran a follow-up here. In the follow-up, they checked some of Barton's claims (I will not dignify Barton by calling it fact-checking) and concluded that those claims were not factual.

Hmm, I think we can honestly say the same thing about all the nonsense that the Dishonesty Institute itself publishes in the name of ID.

How many people are going to come out and describe him as the liar he is? There's absolutely no need to be overly polite, the term is simply accurate. Are we going to hear anything from Bachmann, Huckabee, or Gingrich, all of whom championed his invented history? Barton has played no small part in the increased polarization and normalizing of right-wing extremism of American politics in recent years. Now that his contribution is undeniably revealed as built upon things he just made up off the top of his head, instead of any real history, the problem should be acknowledged and the influence excised. Allowing it to sit and fester away unaddressed in the public sphere just perpetuates the diseased state of political discourse. The people who go out of their way to invoke the history and traditions of America in order to gain the trust of the public to govern it have a responsibility to fess up and disown this fraud and his fantasies in front of that same public.

Now it appears that the historians will have their work cut out for them. I hope they can learn from the experiences of the science community's battles with ID/creationism over the last 50 years.

How did this guy manage to be taken seriously? Have serious historians spoken out against him?

Recently, Alabama Public Television refused to air a David Barton-created program. This proved to be the final straw in the tension between APT and the (very conservative) commission overseeing them. So the commissioin fired all the top people, and all those under them quite en masse. The commission (all appointed by Republican governors) claims there's nothing the least bit ideological about this, it was simply time to clean house and allow in some fresh air - despite those who were fired or quit being relatively recent.

I predict the David Barton video will be aired soon by the "new and improved" APT. Anyone want to bet against me?

Barton has largely flown under the radar by not publishing in peer-reviewed journals. Until 2003, he was self-published, and much of it has always been in the form of tapes or videos, sold through right-wing and conservative Christian outlets. He has no credentials in history or law. I find one article by him in an actual professional journal: in the Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy, (Volume XVII Issue No. 2, 2003, p. 399), and it's a review of Jefferon's writings. It seems to have landed with hardly a thud. I had to go to wikipedia for that. Anyone whose google-fu is greater than mine had better check it.

Dr Warren Throckmorton of Grove City College is his chief critic, from what appears on the web, it seems. But Dr Throckmorton is not a historian either.

I strongly suspect that it's somewhat parallel to the situation in which life scientists, paleontologists and geologists find themselves with creationists. The creationists don't pass peer-review and don't try, but they want scientists to "debate" them because it gives them free publicity. Same here.

Apart from a record of publishing respectably peer-reviewed material, the only real test of a historian's work is the extent to which it is used by other historians. It would appear that despite the remarkable number of conservative Christian colleges, only one institution actually includes Barton's works on a course reading list, and that one is Liberty University. Uh-huh.

Matt G said: How did this guy manage to be taken seriously? Have serious historians spoken out against him?

Matt G said: How did this guy manage to be taken seriously?

Dave Luckett said: Apart from a record of publishing respectably peer-reviewed material, the only real test of a historian's work is the extent to which it is used by other historians. It would appear that despite the remarkable number of conservative Christian colleges, only one institution actually includes Barton's works on a course reading list, and that one is Liberty University. Uh-huh.

Its not really really bad but shows a sincere determination to stand by accuracy in scholarship on subjects.
Its a identity of DI and if they failed in this THEN you could question their status.

I never read this guys stuff and understand he's created a audience.
if he is wrong on some things it doesn't define all his stuff.

actually it all again falls into the error of seeing the relevance on one man's opinion on religion and state.
it doesn't matter what Jefferson thought.

James Madison clearly said the spirit and intent of the government and constitution came from the delegates, representing the people, and not a few top dogs who were directing things.
Its the people who gave meaning and credibility to american government and not a elite.

Everyone misses this point these days.
Southern Virginian's aristocracy leading thinkers did not create america's ideas on these matters.
Church and state issues were settled hundreds of years ago and only a post WW11 liberal aggression against American Christian civilization, and reaction, has brought up the whole matter.

It was very well done back in the day and only needs good historians, not modern agitators, to put things straight.

Flint said: Recently, Alabama Public Television refused to air a David Barton-created program. This proved to be the final straw in the tension between APT and the (very conservative) commission overseeing them. So the commissioin fired all the top people, and all those under them quite en masse. The commission (all appointed by Republican governors) claims there's nothing the least bit ideological about this, it was simply time to clean house and allow in some fresh air - despite those who were fired or quit being relatively recent. I predict the David Barton video will be aired soon by the "new and improved" APT. Anyone want to bet against me?

When is Chris Rodda (author of "Liars for Jesus") going to get a medal? She has tirelessly, tirelessly compiled huge lists of Barton's outright lies and recited them in YouTube videos. A hero.

I also admire that she called Barton a liar, over and over, after proving it. She didn't pussyfoot around with the language. She didn't say, "That is not entirely true," and that pussyfoot language, she just called him a liar.

Heroes: Rodda and Throckmorton.

A good blog on American history is "The Way of Improvement Leads Home", written by an honest evangelical Christian.

No wonder the evolutionary historian
Gilman Ostrander, in his history of the rise
of evolutionism in this country, started out
by saying:

The American nation had been founded
by intellectuals who had accepted a
worldview that was based upon Biblical
authority as well as Newtonian science.
They had assumed that God created the
earth and all life upon it at the time of creation
and had continued without change
thereafter. Adam and Eve were God’s final
creations and all of mankind had descended
from them.8

http://www.icr.org/article/6889/

@Henry,

Barton himself could not produce any quotes showing that the Founding Fathers were creationist or believed in intelligent design. He produced a list of quotes, claiming that they proved that, but in some cases indicated on the contrary, just how heterodox the Founding Fathers were. The only real support for the design argument he could find was from a quote from deist Thomas Paine, generally considered not a founding father, and strongly anti-Christian.

Moreover, Thomas Jefferson dismissed a global flood of Noah in his discussion of geology in "Notes on the State of Virginia."

What would ICR say about dismissing the global flood?

I should also point out that Henry said "evolutionary historian." We have a visitor from bizarro world.

Was he also a "gravitationary historian" too? Perhaps a "heliocentrical historian" as well?

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=118208

David Barton's answer to his critics.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=7846

Barton's article on the Founding Fathers and Creation/Evolution.

Henry, thank you for the links, we've read that. But I meant my question quite seriously:

Was he also a “gravitationary historian” too? Perhaps a “heliocentrical historian” as well?

Matt G said: How did this guy manage to be taken seriously?

I've read a lot of Thomas Jefferson's writing. One of his most famous statements is his tombstone inscription:
Here was buried
Thomas Jefferson
Author of the Declaration of American Independence
of the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom
Father of the University of Virginia

Note that the statute on religious freedom ranked above being president of the United States, which he left off. This statute clearly is mainly aimed at preventing religious interference in individuals and in government.

I always get a laugh out of folks who claim that Jefferson was a fundamentalist Christian. Jefferson rejected the Virgin Birth, the miracle stories in the scriptures, the divinity of Yeshua of Nazareth, the Resurrection, and the Trinity. Not much a a fundamentalist Christian there.

I also get a laugh out of folks who claim that Madison was a fundamentalist Christian. Madison was a vigorous critic of organized religion in general and organized Christianity in particular.

Throckmorton is a psychologist and not as was noted an historian. He is a professor at the evangelical Grove City College. How he became interested in Barton is through his discovery that so-called reparative therapy doesn't work. See Barbara Bradley Hagarty story on Exodus International dropping support of pray away the gay and note her quoting Warren Throckmorton.

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/06/156367287/evangelicals-fight-over-therapy-to-cure-gays

The link to Barton is the Disco Tute. By convincing political and religious conservatives that academia was evil they destroyed all evangelical scholarship regardless of discipline and not just biology. This includes climatology and economics. One of the founders of the Disco Tute, George Gilder, is also part of the Manhattan Institute and pushed the supply side snake oil. Stephen Meyer works with Del Tackett in Focus on the Family's so-called Truth Project for the science part. The history is all Bartonesque. The economics is a mix of Gordon Gecko and John Galt just like the current Republican presidential ticket. The Family Research Council pushes the pray away the gay agenda and the Chick-fil-A hysteria.

There is a small but spirited push back from evangelical college professors like Throckmorton and Steve Matheson who posts here. As you will note the common thread is not religion but politics and is why the evangelical Warren Throckmorton and the atheist Chris Rodda are on the same side.There's a reason Chris Mooney titled his book the Republican Brain. By Jay Richards and Thomas Nelson publishing just focusing on the bad historical scholarship they miss the bigger picture and the bigger problem.

Well certainly Richards "missed" the problem because he's part of it, being a fellow at the Discovery Institute. And Thomas Nelson is also part of that murky mindset with their focus on writers like Barton. But at least their right-wing cred helps put political weight on the issue of Barton's fake scholarship. A bit hypocritical and genre-blind of them? Absolutely. Still, it's useful. When even your own backers and fans are calling you out as a fabricator, there's not much ammo left to fight with. Henry's links show us that all Barton has to offer by way of rebuttal is the incredible "They're just jealous! And scared! Because I'm eating their lunch!" tack. How long will that preserve him in the good graces of the aforementioned politicians?

SLC said: I always get a laugh out of folks who claim that Jefferson was a fundamentalist Christian. Jefferson rejected the Virgin Birth, the miracle stories in the scriptures, the divinity of Yeshua of Nazareth, the Resurrection, and the Trinity. Not much a a fundamentalist Christian there. I also get a laugh out of folks who claim that Madison was a fundamentalist Christian. Madison was a vigorous critic of organized religion in general and organized Christianity in particular.

ksplawn said: Well certainly Richards "missed" the problem because he's part of it, being a fellow at the Discovery Institute. And Thomas Nelson is also part of that murky mindset with their focus on writers like Barton. But at least their right-wing cred helps put political weight on the issue of Barton's fake scholarship. A bit hypocritical and genre-blind of them? Absolutely. Still, it's useful. When even your own backers and fans are calling you out as a fabricator, there's not much ammo left to fight with. Henry's links show us that all Barton has to offer by way of rebuttal is the incredible "They're just jealous! And scared! Because I'm eating their lunch!" tack. How long will that preserve him in the good graces of the aforementioned politicians?

Jefferson bordered on being what is referred to as a Christian atheist.

I am in some ways that myself. I don't call myself "Christian" because I don't believe in the supernatural, and therefore don't believe in all of the supernatural claims that the character Jesus makes in the Bible.

However, the ethical teachings of the Jesus character of the four gospels had a major personal and cultural impact on me.

Even the ethical teachings of the Pentateuch argue against lying about history or science, of course.

harold said: Jefferson bordered on being what is referred to as a Christian atheist. I am in some ways that myself. I don't call myself "Christian" because I don't believe in the supernatural, and therefore don't believe in all of the supernatural claims that the character Jesus makes in the Bible. However, the ethical teachings of the Jesus character of the four gospels had a major personal and cultural impact on me. Even the ethical teachings of the Pentateuch argue against lying about history or science, of course.

diogeneslamp0 said: @Henry, Barton himself could not produce any quotes showing that the Founding Fathers were creationist or believed in intelligent design. He produced a list of quotes, claiming that they proved that, but in some cases indicated on the contrary, just how heterodox the Founding Fathers were. The only real support for the design argument he could find was from a quote from deist Thomas Paine, generally considered not a founding father, and strongly anti-Christian. Moreover, Thomas Jefferson dismissed a global flood of Noah in his discussion of geology in "Notes on the State of Virginia." What would ICR say about dismissing the global flood?

bigdakine said:

diogeneslamp0 said: @Henry, Barton himself could not produce any quotes showing that the Founding Fathers were creationist or believed in intelligent design. He produced a list of quotes, claiming that they proved that, but in some cases indicated on the contrary, just how heterodox the Founding Fathers were. The only real support for the design argument he could find was from a quote from deist Thomas Paine, generally considered not a founding father, and strongly anti-Christian. Moreover, Thomas Jefferson dismissed a global flood of Noah in his discussion of geology in "Notes on the State of Virginia." What would ICR say about dismissing the global flood?

Jefferson wrote his own version of the Bible, to get rid of "fables". Creationism is psuedo science for Xtain fundies and Barton has provided psuedo history.

apokryltaros: Jefferson didn’t “write” his own version; he edited it, removing all of what he considered to be either supernatural nonsense, or irrelevant Bronze Age-era superstitions and bigotries. He wound up with a small pamphlet.

All IMO, but... In the long view, he wasn't. He had about one year of fame. Given academic response and publication times, that is not being 'taken seriously.' If we're going to be frank about it, I think we have to admit that revealing and disposing of fraud in journalism and academia usually takes longer than it took Barton to rise and fall. The generation starting school now will likely never even hear about him. He's probably not even going to make the history books as an interesting or successful example of a fraud, let alone as an historian.

Chris Rodda has offered Liars for Jesus free of charge in .pdf format. You can grab a copy here.

It's been a while since I've been able to spare money for a good book purchase, but her's is on the list. I'd encourage anyone who has an interest and can afford to, pick up a hard copy and reward Chris for her hard work.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/njVia0gD0tH7qfXDUdTdQ9WTLR77QTkzzPi_F00Y#5ea76 said: Barton has been around a lot longer than a year....

So he's untrustworthy in history--and it only took years for Richards to figure that out--but not in science, of which he has even less knowledge. Because he agrees with Richards' pseudoscience, of course.

Still, Richards, you've got to be awfully careful about faulting anyone for making unsupported claims. There's always a chance that some on your side might understand that to be a principle, and you'll be out some ID proponents.

Glen Davidson

Ah, but Barton has his right-wing supporters on the fringe:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/glenn-becks-hard-hitting-interview-david-barton

David Barton's "The Jefferson Lies" is being re-published under Glenn Beck's publishing arm Mercury Ink

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/book-news/religion/article/53619-jefferson-lies-author-negotiating-new-edition-for-glenn-beck--s-mercury-ink.html

That looong URL was a bit too much for poor old Movable Type, methinks.

Try this one.

Cheers, Dave

Dave Thomas said: That looong URL was a bit too much for poor old Movable Type, methinks. Try this one. Cheers, Dave

Henry said: No wonder the evolutionary historian Gilman Ostrander, in his history of the rise of evolutionism in this country, started out by saying: The American nation had been founded by intellectuals who had accepted a worldview that was based upon Biblical authority as well as Newtonian science. They had assumed that God created the earth and all life upon it at the time of creation and had continued without change thereafter. Adam and Eve were God’s final creations and all of mankind had descended from them.8 http://www.icr.org/article/6889/

Henry said:

Henry said: No wonder the evolutionary historian Gilman Ostrander, in his history of the rise of evolutionism in this country, started out by saying: The American nation had been founded by intellectuals who had accepted a worldview that was based upon Biblical authority as well as Newtonian science. They had assumed that God created the earth and all life upon it at the time of creation and had continued without change thereafter. Adam and Eve were God’s final creations and all of mankind had descended from them.8 http://www.icr.org/article/6889/

I should have referenced this article. My mistake. http://www.icr.org/article/6898/

harold said: The problem with this heuristic of trusting a source is that for it to work at all, you have to be able and willing to evaluate whether or not the source is trustworthy.

Henry said:

Henry said: No wonder the evolutionary historian Gilman Ostrander, in his history of the rise of evolutionism in this country, started out by saying: The American nation had been founded by intellectuals who had accepted a worldview that was based upon Biblical authority as well as Newtonian science. They had assumed that God created the earth and all life upon it at the time of creation and had continued without change thereafter. Adam and Eve were God’s final creations and all of mankind had descended from them.8 http://www.icr.org/article/6889/

I should have referenced this article. My mistake. http://www.icr.org/article/6898/

The shtoopid, it burrrnnnzzzz....

"But if you study the logistics
And heuristics of the mystics
You will find that their minds rarely move in a line.
So it's much more realistic
To abandon such ballistics
And resign to be trapped on a leaf in the vine."

-- Eno, "Backwater".

A trusted source. ;-}

What I really don’t like about ‘The System of Nature’ is the way he says there is no God. He hasn’t even tried to prove this. The book has its good points but there is no proof. It is a very dangerous and evil book for both ordinary people and princes: ‘If God did not exist, he would have to be invented.’

Dave Luckett said: And as for Morris saying that Washington was a creationist, one who died more than half a century before "The Origin of the Species" and would hardly have had a chance to read even Erasmus Darwin or Lamarck (the publication of the former's "Zoonomia" dates to 1794, and the latter's first works to 1801), that's got to be the most stupid, most egregiously dishonest description of him I've ever read.

I'm surprised that the DI has thrown Barton under the bus. Usually the nutty right stick together no matter how contradictory.

MichaelJ said: I'm surprised that the DI has thrown Barton under the bus. Usually the nutty right stick together no matter how contradictory.

“A reasoning being would lose his reason, in attempting to account for the great phenomena of nature, had he not a Supreme Being to refer to: and well has it been said, that if there had been no God, mankind would have been obligated to imagine one.”

apokryltaros said: ...Creationists are also prone to in-fighting...

Recall the circumstances under which Ken Ham left Australia.

Since Henry is the one who linked to the dishonest ICR article with its fake quote, will Henry now defend the quote he linked to, or will he admit it's probably fake?

diogeneslamp0 said: Since Henry is the one who linked to the dishonest ICR article with its fake quote, will Henry now defend the quote he linked to, or will he admit it's probably fake?

George Washington didn't really say: "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." -- George Washington (questionable)

Thomas Jefferson didn't really say: "I have always said and always will say that the studious perusal of the Sacred Volume will make us better citizens." -- Thomas Jefferson (questionable)

James Madision didn't really say: "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, nor upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves ... according to the Ten Commandments of God." -- James Madison (false)

Patrick Henry didn't really say: “Whosoever shall introduce into the public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world.” -- Benjamin Franklin (questionable)

Patrick Henry didn't really say: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!" -- Patrick Henry (questionable)

Sam Adams didn't really say: "A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or eternal invader." -- Samuel Adams (questionable) [this can be found in Harry Alonzo Cushing, ed., The Writings of Samuel Adams (1908), Vol. 4, p. 124 -- Cliff Walker, May 1, 2002]

SCOTUS didn't really say: "Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian." -- Holy Trinity v. U.S. [Supreme Court] (false)

Noah Webster didn't really say: "The principles of all genuine liberty, and of wise laws and administrations are to be drawn from the Bible and sustained by its authority. The man therefore who weakens or destroys the divine authority of that book may be assessory to all the public disorders which society is doomed to suffer." -- Noah Webster (questionable)

Noah Webster didn't really say: "There are two powers only which are sufficient to control men, and secure the rights of individuals and a peaceable administration; these are the combined force of religion and law, and the force or fear of the bayonet." -- Noah Webster (questionable)

Abe Lincoln didn't really say: "The only assurance of our nation's safety is to lay our foundation in morality and religion." -- Abe Lincoln (questionable)

Abe Lincoln didn't really say: "The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next." -- Abe Lincoln (questionable)

Alexis de Toqueville didn't really say: "America is great because she is good. and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great." -- Alexis de Toqueville, Democracy in America (definitely not in the book; perhaps in other more obscure writings; questionable)

David Barton said: "…it is God and not man who establishes the borders of nations. National boundaries are set by God. If God didn’t want boundaries, he would have put everyone in the same world and there would have been no nations; we would have all been living together as one group and one people. That didn’t happen. From the Tower of Babel, he sent them out with different languages, different cultures. God’s the one who drew up the lines for the nations, so to say open borders is to say ‘God, you goofed it all up and when you had borders, you shouldn’t have done it.’”

David Barton said: "There’s a passage that I love in Romans 1-- I don’t love what the topic is—but it talks about homosexuality and it says that they will receive in their bodies the penalties of their behavior. And the Bible again, it’s right every time, and studies keep proving that and that’s why AIDS has been something they haven’t discovered a cure for or a vaccine for, because it’s the fastest self-mutating virus known to mankind. Every time they just about get a vaccine discovered for it, it transmutes into something new and they have to start over again. And that goes to what God says, hey you’re going to bear in your body the consequences of this homosexual behavior. The same thing goes with abortion and now we’re getting studies, and these are somewhat negative studies, but they’re positive studies in that they prove the Bible is right."

David Barton says: “From a societal standpoint, there should be more concern over elected officials who are secularists and will swear an oath on no religious book, than for Muslims who swear on the Koran. After all, secularism presents a greater threat to American traditions and values than does Islam.”

Dear Henry,

Thank you for dropping one more lie in the puddle. See how it makes the waters of the puddle wave back and forth exposing even more lies ?

It's more fun to jump up and down in puddles of lies than to slowly add to them. The more you jump, the smaller the puddle becomes. Over time the lies are exposed and become well trampled.

Unfortunately it takes a certain amount of intellectual honesty to be successful at lie-puddle-jumping. Sadly, that kind of honesty is something I have come to believe you are devoid of.

But you can prove me wrong Henry ...

Step one is to admit you are spreading a lie and then stop spreading the lie.

Step two ... well, step two is for those who successfully complete step one. Let's see how you do with step one.

As for Barton’s “science”, note how he cannot bring himself to say that HIV evolves. He can only say it “self-mutates” or “transmutes into something new.”

And now more Barton stupidity; more on the Tower of Babel.

Above we saw how Barton interpreted the Tower of Babel story as God creating barriers between "nations", so they will never mix, which is fundamentalist codespeak for racial separation.

Here is a Youtube video where Barton finds another use for the Tower of Babel story, in this case Foxist propaganda that God loves capitalism and hates socialism.

Why? Because socialism = making bricks. In the Tower of Babel story, the people made bricks to build the Tower, and making bricks = socialism.

Now if you look at the video you see dumbshit Barton is talking in front of...a wall of bricks.

Obvious conclusion: God hates Obama. What could be simpler?

diogeneslamp0, here is a good summary of relative mutation rates: http://jvi.asm.org/content/84/19/9733.full.pdf+html

The table shows that HIV and influenza A are pretty close to each other, but not as high as hepatitis C.

HIV 24 μSNI
Influenza A 23 μSNI
Human rhinovirus 67 μSNI
Poliovirus-1 90 μSNI
Hepatitis C 120 μSNI
Bacteriophage Qβ 1100 μSNI (not a human pathogen)

(μSNI = micro-substitutions per nucleotide per cell infection, a unit I just invented for easy transcription and ranking, but you can see the more generally accepted units in the paper.)

So, yeah, Barton is full of crap. Not only is HIV not the fastest-mutating virus known, it's not even the fastest-mutating human pathogen, and we have perfectly good vaccines against other similar-mutation-rate viruses like influenza.

harold,

"Front-loading" means ancient organisms contained genes for functions that did not exist at the time, avoided degeneration or deletion over billions of years of non-functional existence, and then sprang into full functional flower when the right environment came along. It is a claim made by some OECs but not, for obvious reasons, YECs. It is, of course, just about the most stupid argument ever created since it tries to reconcile evolutionary theory with special creation by violating both.

Chris Lawson said: harold, "Front-loading" means ancient organisms contained genes for functions that did not exist at the time, avoided degeneration or deletion over billions of years of non-functional existence, and then sprang into full functional flower when the right environment came along. It is a claim made by some OECs but not, for obvious reasons, YECs. It is, of course, just about the most stupid argument ever created since it tries to reconcile evolutionary theory with special creation by violating both.

MichaelJ said: I'm surprised that the DI has thrown Barton under the bus. Usually the nutty right stick together no matter how contradictory.

Chris Lawson said: harold, "Front-loading" means ancient organisms contained genes for functions that did not exist at the time, avoided degeneration or deletion over billions of years of non-functional existence, and then sprang into full functional flower when the right environment came along. It is a claim made by some OECs but not, for obvious reasons, YECs. It is, of course, just about the most stupid argument ever created since it tries to reconcile evolutionary theory with special creation by violating both.

eric said:

MichaelJ said: I'm surprised that the DI has thrown Barton under the bus. Usually the nutty right stick together no matter how contradictory.

In hindsight, neither am I. They throw local school boards (and anyone else who comes to them for legal advice) under the bus as soon as anyone says 'creationism.' Ditching co-idealists the moment they might tarnish the reputation of the DI seems to be a pretty standard move.

harold said:

Chris Lawson said: harold, "Front-loading" means ancient organisms contained genes for functions that did not exist at the time, avoided degeneration or deletion over billions of years of non-functional existence, and then sprang into full functional flower when the right environment came along. It is a claim made by some OECs but not, for obvious reasons, YECs. It is, of course, just about the most stupid argument ever created since it tries to reconcile evolutionary theory with special creation by violating both.

1) Many thanks for the viral mutation rates reference. 2) I agree with your description of what front-loading implies, but I'd like to point out that I'd still like to hear a creationist explain it. One reason creationists contradict themselves so much is that they operate by contradicting various bodies of evidence for/aspects of the theory of evolution in isolation. They are denial oriented. A contradiction of one example or principle of evolution may be incompatible with the favored contradiction of some other example of evolution. But they'll use them both, because they both deny evolution. Front-loading is obviously an ad hoc effort to deny "favorable" mutations. It also, of course, concedes some common descent, and possibly implies natural selection. But it denies the evidence-supported theory of evolution, so they'll pull it out from time to time.

ogremk5 said:

harold said:

Chris Lawson said: harold, "Front-loading" means ancient organisms contained genes for functions that did not exist at the time, avoided degeneration or deletion over billions of years of non-functional existence, and then sprang into full functional flower when the right environment came along. It is a claim made by some OECs but not, for obvious reasons, YECs. It is, of course, just about the most stupid argument ever created since it tries to reconcile evolutionary theory with special creation by violating both.

1) Many thanks for the viral mutation rates reference. 2) I agree with your description of what front-loading implies, but I'd like to point out that I'd still like to hear a creationist explain it. One reason creationists contradict themselves so much is that they operate by contradicting various bodies of evidence for/aspects of the theory of evolution in isolation. They are denial oriented. A contradiction of one example or principle of evolution may be incompatible with the favored contradiction of some other example of evolution. But they'll use them both, because they both deny evolution. Front-loading is obviously an ad hoc effort to deny "favorable" mutations. It also, of course, concedes some common descent, and possibly implies natural selection. But it denies the evidence-supported theory of evolution, so they'll pull it out from time to time.

JoeG is about the closest I've ever seen to a creationist explaining front-loading. Here is a link, if you can stomach reading him: http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2011/11/genetic-evolutionary-algorithms-and-my.html Of course, no creationist has ever tried to explain where all 620+ HLA-B alleles are hiding in the human genome. If they were front-loaded, then Noah's grandchildren had to have all of them. So far, genetic researchers have even found the remnants.

harold said: I agree with your description of what front-loading implies, but I'd like to point out that I'd still like to hear a creationist explain it.

Suppose that nearly four billion years ago the designer made the first cell, already containing all of the irreducibly complex biochemical systems discussed here and many others. (One can postulate that the designs for systems that were to be used later, such as blood clotting, were present but not "turned on." In present-day organisms plenty of genes are turned off for a while, sometimes for generations, to be turned on at a later time.)

It is, for instance, a logical possibility that the design in the bacterial flagellum was front-loaded into the universe at the Big Bang and subsequently expressed itself in the course of natural history as a miniature outboard motor on the back of E. coli.

harold said: I think pro-science people have a tendency to project our interest in consistency and clarity onto creationists. Whether consciously or not, creationists often just spin BS that is deliberately incoherent and unclear, using the most extreme "baffle them with bullshit" strategy possible.

harold said: No-one seems to have a good example of a creationist giving a clear, coherent, internally consistent explanation of what "front loading" means.

Ken Ham wrote: The [dolphin] researcher is also reported as saying, “A freak mutation may have caused the ancient trait to reassert itself../” It certainly seems that this extra set of fins could be a mutation—as the DNA of the dolphin already has the information for fins. A mutation could cause an extra set of fins to develop (e.g., researchers have seen mutations cause extra sets of wings in fruit flies—extra legs on a cow, etc.). However, to say that the mutation “caused the ancient trait to reassert itself” is an evolutionary interpretation of a phenomenon that is quite common—- mutations resulting in an extra appendage based on the information already in the genes of the animal. [Ken Ham at AIG]

Chris Lawson said:

harold said: No-one seems to have a good example of a creationist giving a clear, coherent, internally consistent explanation of what "front loading" means.

Harold, I'm not sure why you think anyone is projecting scientific consistency onto creationists. I think we're all fully aware that moving goalposts and retrospectively redefining words (sometimes their own words) are among their common defence mechanisms. The reason you'll never get a clear, coherent explanation of "front-loading" is for the same reason creationists can't describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics correctly or explain the testable differences between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. When Behe provided something like a clear description of front-loading, it was so obviously contradictory to everything we know about genetics that he made a damn fool of himself by doing so.

Ken Ham wrote: The [dolphin] researcher is also reported as saying, “A freak mutation may have caused the ancient trait to reassert itself../” It certainly seems that this extra set of fins could be a mutation—as the DNA of the dolphin already has the information for fins. A mutation could cause an extra set of fins to develop (e.g., researchers have seen mutations cause extra sets of wings in fruit flies—extra legs on a cow, etc.). However, to say that the mutation “caused the ancient trait to reassert itself” is an evolutionary interpretation of a phenomenon that is quite common—- mutations resulting in an extra appendage based on the information already in the genes of the animal. [Ken Ham at AIG]

Here is a link to the reference if anyone is interested:

http://repository.ias.ac.in/4658/1/324.pdf

Thewissen et. al. (2006) Developmental basis of hind-limb loss in dolphins and origin of the cetacean bodyplan. PNAS 103(22):8414-8418.

If the "pre-existing DNA" flavor of frontloading were true, the DI and others could do an immense service to all of humanity just by elucidating it. They'd get multiple Nobels out of it, kudos from all the world's leaders, showers of cash, you name it.

Because, when you think about it, here's what they could do with such an hypothesis: look in the human genome and identify and start work on treatments for all future major diseases before they appear in the population. They could literally develop a vaccine for the 2020 equivalent of spanish flu in 2012.

This is a(nother) example of where the conspiracy component of creationism just falls down flat. Nobody but nobody would be rejecting evidence of this, if it existed. The ramifications would just be too beneficial to ignore. And, for venture capitalists, too profitable to ignore. You simply can't claim that there is a genetic code in our DNA to treat the next outbreak without someone asking the obvious question: okay, why aren't you working on finding it?

eric said: If the "pre-existing DNA" flavor of frontloading were true, the DI and others could do an immense service to all of humanity just by elucidating it. They'd get multiple Nobels out of it, kudos from all the world's leaders, showers of cash, you name it. Because, when you think about it, here's what they could do with such an hypothesis: look in the human genome and identify and start work on treatments for all future major diseases before they appear in the population. They could literally develop a vaccine for the 2020 equivalent of spanish flu in 2012. This is a(nother) example of where the conspiracy component of creationism just falls down flat. Nobody but nobody would be rejecting evidence of this, if it existed. The ramifications would just be too beneficial to ignore. And, for venture capitalists, too profitable to ignore. You simply can't claim that there is a genetic code in our DNA to treat the next outbreak without someone asking the obvious question: okay, why aren't you working on finding it?

eric said: If the "pre-existing DNA" flavor of frontloading were true, the DI and others could do an immense service to all of humanity just by elucidating it. They'd get multiple Nobels out of it, kudos from all the world's leaders, showers of cash, you name it. Because, when you think about it, here's what they could do with such an hypothesis: look in the human genome and identify and start work on treatments for all future major diseases before they appear in the population. They could literally develop a vaccine for the 2020 equivalent of spanish flu in 2012. This is a(nother) example of where the conspiracy component of creationism just falls down flat. Nobody but nobody would be rejecting evidence of this, if it existed. The ramifications would just be too beneficial to ignore. And, for venture capitalists, too profitable to ignore. You simply can't claim that there is a genetic code in our DNA to treat the next outbreak without someone asking the obvious question: okay, why aren't you working on finding it?

The simple fact that they haven’t done this shows A) that they don’t know enough about their own notions to be able to think of ways to test it or B) they don’t really want to find out.

DS said: You could go one better and start uplifting chimps to sentience! David Brin would be so proud.

diogeneslamp0 said: Also note that Barton said that "secularists" are more dangerous than Muslims-- by "secularists" Barton means those who call bullshit on Barton's fabrications of American history, and his implacable determined opposition to the plain meaning of the First Amendment of the Constitution. If you call bullshit on Barton's lies, if you prove that he's lying by comparing his fake quotes to what the Founders really wrote, then he says you're more dangerous to America than Muslims. David Barton told Jon Stewart on the "Daily Show" that a community with a Muslim majority is free to establish Sharia law as the official law of the community if they want. Barton is quite clear that Muslim Sharia law is preferable to "secularism", meaning the defense of the plain meaning of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

David Barton says: “From a societal standpoint, there should be more concern over elected officials who are secularists and will swear an oath on no religious book, than for Muslims who swear on the Koran. After all, secularism presents a greater threat to American traditions and values than does Islam.”

After 9/11 many fundamentalists attempted to conflate the threat of "secularism" (defense of the plain meaning First Amendment) with the threat of Islam, leading to many nonsense statements in which materialism is the same as Islam, and atheists are the same as Muslims. Certainly Ben Stein, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson all blamed the 9/11 attacks on "atheists" or "secularists" and a variety of other enemies. Henry Morris' outfit, the Institute for Creation Research, also associated evolutionary theory with the 9/11 attacks. As for Barton, he has said that the First Amendment doesn't apply to local communities/ counties/states, which are free to establish an official religion if they want. I am very disappointed that Jon Stewart has had this pathological liar Barton on his show at least twice, and Stewart always treats him politely and doesn't call bullshit on his outright lies.

Chris Lawson said:

harold said: I agree with your description of what front-loading implies, but I'd like to point out that I'd still like to hear a creationist explain it.

harold, Here's Behe from Darwin's Black Box:

Suppose that nearly four billion years ago the designer made the first cell, already containing all of the irreducibly complex biochemical systems discussed here and many others. (One can postulate that the designs for systems that were to be used later, such as blood clotting, were present but not "turned on." In present-day organisms plenty of genes are turned off for a while, sometimes for generations, to be turned on at a later time.)

So, yeah, Behe thinks that for billions of years before there was even such a thing as a circulatory system, simple cells contained all the genetic material to create the mammalian clotting cascade, not to mention the fish clotting cascade, the insect clotting cascade, etc., etc.

DavidK said: So doesn't that mean that amoebae, lizards, even monkeys, etc., are just little people waiting to happen, that a nudge in their DNA will change them into humans? Or a lizard into a monkey and vice versa, or any one living "kind" into any other living "kind?" So then there's really no missing link, only Behe's turn-on/off mechanism for the DNA?

Scott F said:

DavidK said: So doesn't that mean that amoebae, lizards, even monkeys, etc., are just little people waiting to happen, that a nudge in their DNA will change them into humans? Or a lizard into a monkey and vice versa, or any one living "kind" into any other living "kind?" So then there's really no missing link, only Behe's turn-on/off mechanism for the DNA?

I'd have to guess that it's all degenerated. Remember, mutations destroy information; there is no such thing as a "positive" mutation. So, humans "lost" all of the information from the ancestral form except for the parts that make us human. Dogs "lost" all of the information from the ancestral form except for the parts that make them dogs. Amoebae "lost" all of the non-amoebae information. Etc. Who knows? Maybe that's what all the "junk" DNA is: "mutated" ancestral "information" that is now garbled by mutations and "lost". At least, that would be my guess how a proponent of Front Loading might answer your question.

phhht said:

DS said: You could go one better and start uplifting chimps to sentience! David Brin would be so proud.

The oldest work I know of which postulates intelligent apes is Ape and Essence, by Aldous Huxley. However, I don't think (not having read it) that the story imagines an uplift process. It looks like La Planete des singes (Planet of the Apes), by Pierre Boule (1963) does suggest some sort of uplift. Does anyone know of an earlier use of the trope? I ask because I use it in my own stories.

apokryltaros said: The very moment an alliance becomes inconvenient or unprofitable, a Creationist will abandon their allies quicker than if they were covered in radioactive ants. Like, look what happened at Dover: Bill Dembski went out of his way to avoid testifying about Intelligent Design for the very real fear of making himself look like a moron (i.e., what Michael Behe did to himself there). And in the aftermath, the Dover School District was stuck with all those bills and lawsuit payouts.

harold said:

Henry said:

Henry said: No wonder the evolutionary historian Gilman Ostrander, in his history of the rise of evolutionism in this country, started out by saying: The American nation had been founded by intellectuals who had accepted a worldview that was based upon Biblical authority as well as Newtonian science. They had assumed that God created the earth and all life upon it at the time of creation and had continued without change thereafter. Adam and Eve were God’s final creations and all of mankind had descended from them.8 http://www.icr.org/article/6889/

I should have referenced this article. My mistake. http://www.icr.org/article/6898/

It's important for us all to understand that in addition to being biased, most people also rely on heuristics - shortcuts to a conclusion that provide a correct answer "often enough". One of the most common and important heuristics is to turn to trusted sources to guide us when issues are too complex for us to reason through on our own. We need to do this for survival for an extended period of our lives, known as "childhood". We also usually do it when we need medical care, legal advice, dental care, accounting advice, etc. Unfortunately, it only works when the trusted source is accurate, and has our best interest at heart. It probably isn't practical for Henry to try to learn US history or evolutionary biology in a rigorous way, so he uses the heuristic of turning to a summarizing source. Unfortunately, the source Henry trusts is ICR. There's probably not much anyone can do to persuade him otherwise. The problem with this heuristic of trusting a source is that for it to work at all, you have to be able and willing to evaluate whether or not the source is trustworthy.

Henry,

no comments on Morris' fake quote of George Washington or Barton's dozen fake quotes? Do you have any creationist authorities who are not pathological liars? Any at all? Hello?

No comment, Henry. It's unexceptionable. In 1776, practically everyone was a creationist. So were the founders of the USA. So what?

Henry again

Didn't you call Ostrander an evolutionary historian? I asked already: is he also a gravitationary historian?

When Ostrander says the founders believed in the authority of the Bible, is your best example of that Tom Jefferson cutting it up with scissors?

Or is your best example Jefferson denying the Global Flood in Notes on the State of Virginia?

diogeneslamp0 said: Henry again Didn't you call Ostrander an evolutionary historian? I asked already: is he also a gravitationary historian?

When Ostrander says the founders believed in the authority of the Bible, is your best example of that Tom Jefferson cutting it up with scissors?

Or is your best example Jefferson denying the Global Flood in Notes on the State of Virginia?

In 1776 would YOU have believed in 'television' if someone described it to you? Or in the Global Positioning System? Or that humans could land on the moon and return? Or in atoms? Or that what distinguishes you from a grape is a single sub-microscopic strand of DNA?

Henry said: No comment on Dr. Morris' quote from Ostrander's "The Evolutionary Outlook 1875-1900. Clio, MI: Marston Press"?

diogeneslamp0 said: Henry again Didn’t you call Ostrander an evolutionary historian? I asked already: is he also a gravitationary historian?

Henry J said:

diogeneslamp0 said: Henry again Didn’t you call Ostrander an evolutionary historian? I asked already: is he also a gravitationary historian?

Does Ostrander know how the Founding Fathers were able to know of and reject the Theory of Evolution decades before its founder was conceived? Although, they may have known nearly as much about it as some of those who go around loudly denying it today.

Well, I've done a bit of research on Gilman Ostrander and "The Evolutionary Outlook 1875-1900" (Marston Press, Clio, MI, 1971).

It's a slight pamphlet, 81 pages. Dr Gilman M Ostrander (1923-1986) was professor of history at Waterloo University, Ontario. He was not an "evolutionary historian" - that's just Henry Morris putting his own little spin on it, and it is, of course, mendacious. Dr Ostrander's main professional interest was the historical development of American intellectual political life. His major works include "Republic of Letters: The American Intellectual Community, 1776-1865" (Madison, Wis.: Madison House, 1999) (Yes, that's correct, thirteen years posthumously), "A Profile History of the United States" (McGraw Hill, 1972) and "American civilization in the first machine age: 1890-1940" (Harper and Rowe, NY, 1970)

To say that Marston Press is obscure is to say the least of it. It apparently no longer exists. There is a British outfit of the same name, but it is plain that they are not related.

The "evolutionary outlook" referred to in this work was slow change in American intellectual politics and its approach to governance. The main thesis seems to have been that American political life was always more strongly influenced by a small number of committed intellectuals, rather than being a mass movement. One wonders what Dr Ostrander would have made of the Tea Party.

Although Dr Ostrander was certainly a respectable academic historian, he has now suffered the indignity of being mostly cited by creationists following the despicable Morris, always with those words. Academic citation of his works is, alas, far less frequent.

But of course Ostrander's words, as quoted by Morris, are perfectly true. The founders of the United States accepted special creation, which was hardly to be wondered at, there being no intellectually convincing alternative at the time. What is despicable is the implication Morris gives this, that they had considered and rejected evolution. This is another example of a creationist dishohestly attempting to co-opt the words of an actual scholar and academic for the purpose of misrepresenting them.

Dave Luckett said: No comment, Henry. It's unexceptionable. In 1776, practically everyone was a creationist. So were the founders of the USA. So what?

Barton says that the founders of the United States were evangelical, Bible-believing Christians who intended that the nation be founded on the Christian religion. That's the lie, Henry. Some were Christian, but many were not, and they erected a wall of separation between Church and State of deliberate purpose, so as to set up an avowedly secular state. They wanted no part of Barton's preferred theocracy.

Morris's implication that they were creationists out of conviction is another lie. They were creationists because that was all there was, then. If they'd been presented with "The Origin of the Species", a book not published until upwards of eighty years after independence, they'd have accepted evolution, because they were rational, and led by evidence and reason.

Or that what distinguishes you from a grape is a single sub-microscopic strand of DNA?

It’s unexceptionable. In 1776, practically everyone was a creationist.

They were creationists because that was all there was, then.

Henry said:

Dave Luckett said: No comment, Henry. It's unexceptionable. In 1776, practically everyone was a creationist. So were the founders of the USA. So what?

When you say it, it's unexceptionable.

When Barton says it, everybody screams lies, lies,lies.

Henry,

The founding fathers didn't believe in black holes or DNA, therefore they were all Mormons. Does that about sum up your argument?

DS said: Henry, The founding fathers didn't believe in black holes or DNA, therefore they were all Mormons. Does that about sum up your argument?

And explain away all of the contrary evidence and gaping logic holes, too, that is.

One problem with calling the founders creationists without qualification is that today's creationists are usually anti-science bigots (compartmentalized or not), and the founders were not. Generally they were quite pro-science, and while I wouldn't say that they'd necessarily all accept evolution today, their general outlook suggests that they should, and at least many probably would.

Still, Barton's big lapse of honesty is not in calling the founders creationists, even though he equivocates if he doesn't at least qualify that term. It's in claiming that they'd had the debate over evolution, as if we claimed that they'd had the debate over relativity and quantum mechanics based on the fact that they largely rejected non-Newtonian physics. It all goes back to fundamental lies of creationism/ID, the false dilemmas, the pretense that evolution is accepted in order to reject Genesis or "non-material causes," and that basically because liars claim that evolution is somehow intended to be anti-God and the founders were not anti-God, they must have been anti-evolution.

Barton may even believe such stark nonsense (and thus may not be a liar in the usual judicial sense), but these are extreme distortions of history, including the history of science, and no one who claims to be doing history has any right to cling to such a dishonest worldview, if that is what he has done.

Glen Davidson

Barton may even believe such stark nonsense (and thus may not be a liar in the usual judicial sense)

It's not correct to say that there was no alternative to some sort of creationism circa 1776. It was possible to believe in the eternity of the world and consequently to deny the need for any doctrine, religious or scientific, on how the Earth or the living things on it came into existence. The eternity of the world was not an obscure opinion. Aristotle held it as did many of his Medieval and Renaissance followers, some of whom got in trouble with the church for doing so. It wasn't just an old idea either. Geologists of the Revolutionary era such as Hutton claimed to find in the record of the rocks "no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end."

In a wide context, Evolutionary thinking is a form of creationism, as pointed out by the classicist David Sedley's in his book Creationism and its Critics in Antiquity.

I don't agree that we should designate the Founding Fathers as creationist just because we assume it to be true. We need evidence.

Barton tried to "back that up" with a bunch of quotes from the Founding Fathers that he MISREPRESENTED. In Barton's quotes none of the founding fathers rejected evolution or embraced creationism. The one exception might be Thomas Paine, not generally considered a Founding Father, who expressed agreement with the argument from design.

The rest of Barton's presented quotes (besides Paine) he just lied about. We should not concede his point on this. Those were more lies from Barton.

Moreover, some of Barton's quotes indicate just the opposite-- exactly how heterodox the Founders were.

In one of the quotes, John Adams considers the possibility that the universe might be infinitely old. This was a position that at that time, was associated with atheists. It's a position considered in detail in David Hume's "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion." Hume's point was that if the universe were infinitely old, sooner or later an "ordered" configuration must result, without divine intervention necessary-- not exactly Adams' point.

But I emphasize: Barton lied about this. Barton misrepresented his "Creationist Founding Father" quote list. We should not concede his point.

Jim said: It's not correct to say that there was no alternative to some sort of creationism circa 1776. It was possible to believe in the eternity of the world and consequently to deny the need for any doctrine, religious or scientific, on how the Earth or the living things on it came into existence. The eternity of the world was not an obscure opinion. Aristotle held it as did many of his Medieval and Renaissance followers, some of whom got in trouble with the church for doing so. It wasn't just an old idea either. Geologists of the Revolutionary era such as Hutton claimed to find in the record of the rocks "no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end." In a wide context, Evolutionary thinking is a form of creationism, as pointed out by the classicist David Sedley's in his book Creationism and its Critics in Antiquity.

In summary -

1) None of the founding fathers were aware of modern cosmology, geology or the theory of evolution. Therefore, they were not denialists of these things.

2) There is no evidence that the well known founding fathers were "Biblical literalists", and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Therefore Barton's claims are false.

We can dispute whether or not it is fair to call them "creationists". I think not, mainly for the reasons I have outlined above. Others may argue that if they merely accepted the broadest consensus of their day, they may have passively accepted the idea of a recent special creation of individual species, and that on that basis they could be called "creationists".

Regardless of that, we can all agree that Barton's claims are absurd.

While this is somewhat off the topic, I thought I should inform you all about Michael Zimmerman's latest excellent Huffington Post essay:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-zimmerman/why-battling-creationism-matters-learning-to-question_b_1804307.html

Michael's excellent post inspired a Huffington Post Live segment which aired over an hour ago, but which you can access here:

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/50337c9d2b8c2a042f0009b4

I was invited to participate but I declined since I needed to have access to a webcam which I don't have, and because there were other, better people to speak out in such a discussion, including Ken Miller who does appear on that podcas, as well as Michael Zimmerman. (That invitation was extended to me because of an early comment I posted at Michael's latest blog posting.)

I've been in contact with several people over at Huffington Post Science regarding James A. Shapiro's abysmal blog. If you want to message me at Facebook, feel free and I will give you the e-mail addresses of those to contact. I think they may be taking seriously my complaints and concerns with regards to allowing Shapiro to continue with his blog.

Let us not become the prisoners of words. Closer definition of terms is needed.

I use the word "creationist" to mean "one who believes that the species were created separately in their 'kinds', as described in Genesis". Almost anyone in the eighteenth century held this belief, with a few rare exceptions, who did not have any rigorous alternative theory to it.

A belief in the eternity of the world - or the Universe - is orthagonal to this, and in any case is also mistaken. The world and the Universe are not eternal, merely far older than nearly everyone thought, in the eighteenth century.

I avoid the term "evolutionist" altogether, simply because it makes it sound as if acceptance of evolution were some sort of idealogical or political stance. Of course, this is what modern creationists would like to make it, while modern "creationism" is an idealogical and political stance. As we have seen here, for current creationists, "evolutionism" or "Darwinism" means every moral turpitude they can think of, up to and including genocide, but taking in cruelty, promiscuity, rape, force majeur and the triumph of atheism.

I like harold's term "denialist" for current creationism, because current creationism necessarily involves denying the observed facts. Of course the founding fathers were not denialists. As I remarked above, had they had access to the organised data as assembled by Darwin and the Theory underpinning it, they would have at once accepted it. They were intelligent and often learned, by the standards of the day. At least one, Benjamin Franklin, was a leading scientist, although that term had not yet been coined. But the data had not been assembled and organised, and there was then no rigorous alternative to separate special creation of the species by fiat.

Therefore, I propose this: consider that I withdraw the term "creationist" for the founding fathers. But what word shall I use to characterise their views on the origin of the species? They had no knowledge of evolution. Nobody did. Not even Erasmus Darwin or Lamarck were yet published in 1776. Only vague hints had surfaced elsewhere. They accepted special fiat creation, or at the very least were offered nothing with better credentials. Only to that extent were they "creationist". I very much doubt that there was a man among them who would have denied the facts, had they been known - but they were not known.

The founding fathers were rational, humane, and although some were conventionally religious, others were either unreligious or unconventionally religious; but they wanted no part of a theocracy, and were at great pains to prevent one from arising in the nation they founded so gloriously. It is the current creationist theocrats and dominionists who insult their memory and would tear down their brilliant achievement, and who would do so while hypocritically invoking their great names.

So I am open to suggestions - what shall we call the acceptance of the idea of fiat creation of the species, prior to 1859, to distinguish it from denial of it, afterwards?

So I am open to suggestions - what shall we call the acceptance of the idea of fiat creation of the species, prior to 1859, to distinguish it from denial of it, afterwards?

Obligate creationist?

An obligate carnivore has no choice but to eat meat. In 18th Century European culture, educated people had no reasonable alternative but a default creationism.

Unlike 21st Century creationists, who have a far superior alternative, but perversely reject it. That would make them voluntary creationists. Not unlike people who voluntarily starve themselves into illness or death (anorexics), or voluntarily set themselves on fire (suicides).

I prefer to refer to modern, evolution-denying folks as anti-evolutionists. Sometimes "evolution denialists." I do this mainly because confusion between theists that merely believe in a creator and the denialists that believe in Capital-C-Creationism-As-Opposed-To-Modern-Cosmology-And-Biology is often instigated by one side or the other in half the debates I come across. Today's evolution denialists have something against which to react, so they are explicitly anti-evolution, as opposed to merely subscribing to a religious Creation myth and being "creationists."

Not to change the subject, but if Dave Luckett knows that the universe is not eternal, he's a better man than I am. I guess the many cosmologists who currently believe in the eternity of the universe are obviously wrong. (For the record, I personally incline to the rather meta position, similar to that of Kant, that the question of the eternity of the world may be undecidable in principle.)

Snark aside, it is true that the older versions of the eternity of the world (universe) implied the eternity of the Earth, which, so far as I know, nobody believes in now. There were people who believed it in 1775 however. It's become an alien idea to us, perhaps because of its thermodynamic implausibility; but thermodynamics wasn't around at the time of the Revolution.

The standard model of cosmology still puts the original expansion of the singularity at 13.75 billion years ago, I believe. That's a very long time, but not eternity.

Or is it being suggested that the Universe will never end? Again, we must not be the prisoners of words. A Universe that has a beginning is not eternal, to my mind, but I am perfectly willing to define "eternal" as "unending" if that is what is meant.

Dave Luckett said: The standard model of cosmology still puts the original expansion of the singularity at 13.75 billion years ago, I believe. That's a very long time, but not eternity. Or is it being suggested that the Universe will never end? Again, we must not be the prisoners of words. A Universe that has a beginning is not eternal, to my mind, but I am perfectly willing to define "eternal" as "unending" if that is what is meant.

Jim said: ...thermodynamics wasn't around at the time of the Revolution.

Therefore, I propose this: consider that I withdraw the term “creationist” for the founding fathers. But what word shall I use to characterise their views on the origin of the species? They had no knowledge of evolution. Nobody did. Not even Erasmus Darwin or Lamarck were yet published in 1776. Only vague hints had surfaced elsewhere. They accepted special fiat creation, or at the very least were offered nothing with better credentials. Only to that extent were they “creationist”. I very much doubt that there was a man among them who would have denied the facts, had they been known - but they were not known.

Dave Luckett said: The standard model of cosmology still puts the original expansion of the singularity at 13.75 billion years ago, I believe. That's a very long time, but not eternity.

1820 Edinb. Mag. 7 545/1 The writer..has launched the full force of his derision against that formidable corps of sages.., the creationists, who seem to believe that they possess, in their laboratories, the anima mundi, corked up and sealed, like Asmodeus in the magician's bottle, and who, if you take them at their own word, must have been of counsel during the whole of the six days' work.

...perforce creationist ?

Naahhh, obligate creationist

From WIKI: Obligate anaerobes are microorganisms that live and grow in the absence of molecular oxygen; some of these are killed by oxygen.

How about (for people pre-Darwin) "naïve creationist", as they had not been presented with any alternative? Ordinary creationists these days have had a choice of views.

Unfortunately, I have the feeling that for most Americans, calling the founding fathers "naive" would be an insult worse than calling them "creationist".

Many were of course very sophisticated people for their time. But they have been elevated into demigods who were always right about everything. So when Barton invokes them in support of creationism he wins that exchange, unless it can be shown that they believed that evolution happened.

The idea that they were fallible people who were working within the limitations of their time is not acceptable to lots of people in our society. In fact the Founding Fathers even disagreed with each other about a lot of things (shock! horror!). I scarcely dare say that ...

IMNSHO, If they were unaware that there was a question to be decided, then no label is needed.

Dave Luckett said: Barton says that the founders of the United States were evangelical, Bible-believing Christians who intended that the nation be founded on the Christian religion. That's the lie, Henry. Some were Christian, but many were not, and they erected a wall of separation between Church and State of deliberate purpose, so as to set up an avowedly secular state. They wanted no part of Barton's preferred theocracy. Morris's implication that they were creationists out of conviction is another lie. They were creationists because that was all there was, then. If they'd been presented with "The Origin of the Species", a book not published until upwards of eighty years after independence, they'd have accepted evolution, because they were rational, and led by evidence and reason.

Dave Luckett said: Barton says that the founders of the United States were evangelical, Bible-believing Christians who intended that the nation be founded on the Christian religion. That's the lie, Henry. Some were Christian, but many were not, and they erected a wall of separation between Church and State of deliberate purpose, so as to set up an avowedly secular state. They wanted no part of Barton's preferred theocracy. Morris's implication that they were creationists out of conviction is another lie. They were creationists because that was all there was, then. If they'd been presented with "The Origin of the Species", a book not published until upwards of eighty years after independence, they'd have accepted evolution, because they were rational, and led by evidence and reason.

Courtesy of a former student of his who is a friend, I was alerted to this interview in which Richard Dawkins does weigh in on the Founding Fathers:

http://www.playboy.com/playground/view/playboy-interview-richard-dawkins?page=1

Here's Dawkins getting it right on the founding of the USA as a democratic republic:

DAWKINS: They were deists. They didn’t believe in a personal god, or one who interferes in human affairs. And they were adamant that they did not want to
found the United States as a Christian nation.

(MEMO TO FELLOW REPUBLICANS AND CONSERVATIVES: The USA was never founded as a "Christian" nation. Even a famous Briton like Dawkins knows this.)

John said: Courtesy of a former student of his who is a friend, I was alerted to this interview in which Richard Dawkins does weigh in on the Founding Fathers: http://www.playboy.com/playground/view/playboy-interview-richard-dawkins?page=1 Here's Dawkins getting it right on the founding of the USA as a democratic republic: DAWKINS: They were deists. They didn’t believe in a personal god, or one who interferes in human affairs. And they were adamant that they did not want to found the United States as a Christian nation. (MEMO TO FELLOW REPUBLICANS AND CONSERVATIVES: The USA was never founded as a "Christian" nation. Even a famous Briton like Dawkins knows this.)

Jefferson firmly believed that the First Amendment, with its metaphoric "wall of separation," prohibited religious establishments by the federal government only.

"They had no intention of privileging your religion, Henry, or anyone’s."

Indeed, they went out of their way to DE-privilege all organized religions. That was one of the main points of having a new constitution: to completely divorce the new country from the British system of a priveleged, government sanctioned and supported religion.

The genius of the founding fathers was that they weren't petty: they could have disestablished the Anglican church and replaced it with something else (as Henry VIII had done). But they had a grander view. The problem with a state-sponsored religion is not the nature of that particular religion--it's the power of the state behind ANY religion, to the detriment of other faiths or lack of faith.

What could be more UNAMERICAN than seeking to again privilege one type of religion over all others? (And it's always fundamentalist/evangelical Protestantism that seeks that goal.)

Henry said:

Dave Luckett said: Barton says that the founders of the United States were evangelical, Bible-believing Christians who intended that the nation be founded on the Christian religion. That's the lie, Henry. Some were Christian, but many were not, and they erected a wall of separation between Church and State of deliberate purpose, so as to set up an avowedly secular state. They wanted no part of Barton's preferred theocracy. Morris's implication that they were creationists out of conviction is another lie. They were creationists because that was all there was, then. If they'd been presented with "The Origin of the Species", a book not published until upwards of eighty years after independence, they'd have accepted evolution, because they were rational, and led by evidence and reason.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/06/the-mythical-wall-of-separation-how-a-misused-metaphor-changed-church-state-law-policy-and-discourse

Dave Luckett said: Well, I've done a bit of research on Gilman Ostrander and "The Evolutionary Outlook 1875-1900" (Marston Press, Clio, MI, 1971). It's a slight pamphlet, 81 pages. Dr Gilman M Ostrander (1923-1986) was professor of history at Waterloo University, Ontario. He was not an "evolutionary historian" - that's just Henry Morris putting his own little spin on it, and it is, of course, mendacious. Dr Ostrander's main professional interest was the historical development of American intellectual political life. His major works include "Republic of Letters: The American Intellectual Community, 1776-1865" (Madison, Wis.: Madison House, 1999) (Yes, that's correct, thirteen years posthumously), "A Profile History of the United States" (McGraw Hill, 1972) and "American civilization in the first machine age: 1890-1940" (Harper and Rowe, NY, 1970) To say that Marston Press is obscure is to say the least of it. It apparently no longer exists. There is a British outfit of the same name, but it is plain that they are not related. The "evolutionary outlook" referred to in this work was slow change in American intellectual politics and its approach to governance. The main thesis seems to have been that American political life was always more strongly influenced by a small number of committed intellectuals, rather than being a mass movement. One wonders what Dr Ostrander would have made of the Tea Party. Although Dr Ostrander was certainly a respectable academic historian, he has now suffered the indignity of being mostly cited by creationists following the despicable Morris, always with those words. Academic citation of his works is, alas, far less frequent. But of course Ostrander's words, as quoted by Morris, are perfectly true. The founders of the United States accepted special creation, which was hardly to be wondered at, there being no intellectually convincing alternative at the time. What is despicable is the implication Morris gives this, that they had considered and rejected evolution. This is another example of a creationist dishohestly attempting to co-opt the words of an actual scholar and academic for the purpose of misrepresenting them.

Yes, Henry, thank you for again confirming that Henry Morris quoted respectable historians in ways that misrepresented them.

Ostrander was not implying that educated Americans were wrong to change their thinking as the facts of evolution became plainly apparent; nor was he implying that the aged Jefferson's view of geology was correct. That's just Henry Morris trying to put a spin on it, in his usual dishonest fashion. So what else is new?

Dave Luckett said: Yes, Henry, thank you for again confirming that Henry Morris quoted respectable historians in ways that misrepresented them. Ostrander was not implying that educated Americans were wrong to change their thinking as the facts of evolution became plainly apparent; nor was he implying that the aged Jefferson's view of geology was correct. That's just Henry Morris trying to put a spin on it, in his usual dishonest fashion. So what else is new?

Henry, what the fuck is wrong with you? Are you some kind of psychotic or something? We have already shown that all your trusted creationist authorities are pathological liars. Why does this not trouble you?

It isn't just that Henry is a liar and weasel-- his true stupidity, his golden stupidity, is that he thinks his shitty hyperlinks dismay or disturb us, or weaken our confidence, maybe? No, asshole. Every single person on this thread knows how to demolish a quote mine.

Why do you not respond to the evidence that your creationist authorities are pathological liars-- particularly Henry Morris and David Barton? Why does this not bother you?

Henry, you want Henry Morris, Barton and the others to lie-- don't you? Isn't it true, Henry, that you cite them as your authorities BECAUSE they are pathological liars-- not despite that fact? They are your heroes, your idols, your gods. They are infallible to you, beyond criticism, because they make shit up and lie through their teeth. To you, that proves they love Jesus.

Henry Morris was a pathological liar responsible for promoting many frauds, like Paluxy, the Freiberg skull, Calaveras skeleton, etc., not to mention all his dishonest quote mines.

But Henry Morris is your hero and idol BECAUSE he is a pathological liar.

Barton promoted a dozen fake quotes from the Founders that were just made up, and his recent book was demolished as constructed of lies by Throckmorton and Rodda.

But David Barton is your hero and idol BECAUSE he is a pathological liar, too.

Why don't you just admit it, Henry-- you get away with lying, and citing your creationist heroes, when you present this shit to creationist audiences. And since you get away with it in front of creationist audiences, that's your moral justification for being a pathological liar.

I guess you think lying makes you superior because it proves you love Jesus enough to lie. But do you really think it's difficult for us to demolish your idiot quote mines?

We read "Notes on the State of Virginia" and we know Jefferson believed there was no Global Flood, ever, and we know he looked dismally upon Christianity.

So as for your quotes from Ostrander, so what? We know Ostrander was wrong on this point at least. We know because we can read what the Founding Fathers actually wrote.

Henry Morris probably looked through hundreds of history books until he found one that contained obvious errors. Henry Morris and the ICR never did scientific research-- all they did was search for quote mines. Look through enough history books, you'll find an error on any topic.

If Ostrander had had any evidence that Jefferson opposed the geological discoveries of his time, where is the quote or citation to Jefferson himself?

If that evidence had existed, Henry would have presented it. But Henry didn't present it, because it doesn't exist.

Henry cites Henry Morris and David Barton BECAUSE they are pathological liars-- to Henry, it's proof that they love Jesus very much.

Creationist assholes like Henry are incapable of shame, so we cannot shame them when they are caught lying through their teeth. But I have to wonder: why does Henry keep coming here and shitting on this thread? Dump some more shitty quote mines here, we know how to demolish them all.

But I will ask one more time: when you quote Ostrander saying the Founding Fathers believed in the authority of the Bible, is your best evidence:

1. Jefferson denying the Global Flood in "Notes on the State of Virginia", or

2. Jefferson cutting up the Bible with scissors.

Answer the question or fuck off, you lying POS.

John Adams wrote: “The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.” -- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88), from Adrienne Koch, ed, The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society (1965) p. 258

Thomas Jefferson wrote: "If it [inquiry] ends in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in this exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you.”

“Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because if there be one, it must surely more approve of the homage to reason than that of blindfolded fear. You will naturally examine first, the religion of your own country. Read the Bible, then as you would read Livy or Tacitus. The facts which are within the ordinary course of nature, you will believe on the authority of the writer, as you do those of the same kind in Livy & Tacitus. The testimony of the writer weighs in their favor, in one scale, and their not being against the laws of nature, does not weigh against them. But those facts in the Bible which contradict the laws of nature, must be examined with more care, and under a variety of faces. Here you must recur to the pretensions of the writer to inspiration from God. Examine upon what evidence his pretensions are founded, and whether that evidence is so strong, as that its falsehood would be more improbable than a change in the laws of nature, in the case he relates. For example, in the book of Joshua, we are told, the sun stood still several hours. Were we to read that fact in Livy or Tacitus, we should class it with their showers of blood, speaking of statues, beasts, [etc.] But it is said, that the writer of that book was inspired. Examine, therefore, candidly, what evidence there is of his having been inspired. The pretension is entitled to your inquiry, because millions believe it. On the other hand, you are astronomer enough to know how contrary it is to the law of nature that a body revolving on its axis, as the earth does, should have stopped, should not, by that sudden stoppage, have prostrated animals, trees, buildings, and should after a certain time gave resumed its revolution, [and] that without a second general prostration. Is this arrest of the earth's motion, or the evidence which affirms it, most within the law of probabilities?” [Letter from Jefferson to his nephew Peter Carr (1787)]

Does anyone else here notice how Henry conveniently neglected to explain how the Founding Fathers were able to magically know of and reject, yet do nothing to legislatively stop the theory of Evolution decades before the birth of its founder?

We know more about how Adolf Hitler felt about Jesus than we know about how George Washington or Abe Lincoln felt about Jesus. The first often mentioned Jesus as hero and Jew-fighter; the second two gentlemen almost never mentioned Jesus except very indirectly.

Thomas Jefferson wrote: "Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a Censor morum over each other. Is uniformity [of belief] attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned: yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” [Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1787.]

Thomas Jefferson wrote to Joseph Priestley: "...those who live by mystery & charlatanerie, fearing you would render them useless by simplifying the Christian philosophy, the most sublime & benevolent, but most perverted system that ever shone on man, endeavored to crush your well earnt, & well deserved fame." [Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, Washington, 21 March 1801]

“... In consequence of some conversation with Dr. Rush, in the year 1798-99, I had promised some day to write him a letter giving him my view of the Christian system. I have reflected often on it since, and even sketched the outlines in my own mind. I should first take a general view of the moral doctrines of the most remarkable of the ancient philosophers, of whose ethics we have sufficient information to make an estimate, say Pythagoras, Epicurus, Epictetus, Socrates, Cicero, Seneca, Antoninus. I should do justice to the branches of morality they have treated well; but point out the importance of those in which they are deficient. I should then take a view of the deism and ethics of the Jews, and show in what a degraded state they were, and the necessity they presented of a reformation. I should proceed to a view of the life, character, and doctrines of Jesus, who sensible of incorrectness of their ideas of the Deity, and of morality, endeavored to bring them to the principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform their moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice and philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state. This view would purposely omit the question of his divinity, and even his inspiration. To do him justice, it would be necessary to remark the disadvantages his doctrines had to encounter, not having been committed to writing by himself, but by the most unlettered of men, by memory, long after they had heard them from him; when much was forgotten, much misunderstood, and presented in every paradoxical shape. Yet such are the fragments remaining as to show a master workman, and that his system of morality was the most benevolent and sublime probably that has been ever taught, and consequently more perfect than those of any of the ancient philosophers. His character and doctrines have received still greater injury from those who pretend to be his special disciples, and who have disfigured and sophisticated his actions and precepts, from views of personal interest, so as to induce the unthinking part of mankind to throw off the whole system in disgust, and to pass sentence as an impostor on the most innocent, the most benevolent, the most eloquent and sublime character that ever has been exhibited to man...” [Thomas Jefferson (1803), H.A. Washington (1861), ed., "April 9, 1803 letter to Dr. Joseph Priestley", The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (New York: H.W. Derby)]

"[Jesus'] character and doctrines have received still greater injury from those who pretend to be his special disciples, and who have disfigured and sophisticated his actions and precepts, from views of personal interest, so as to induce the unthinking part of mankind to throw off the whole system in disgust..."

Now, why does that ring a bell?

Someone would have to be a real turd to do that kind of thing.

Just Bob said: "[Jesus'] character and doctrines have received still greater injury from those who pretend to be his special disciples, and who have disfigured and sophisticated his actions and precepts, from views of personal interest, so as to induce the unthinking part of mankind to throw off the whole system in disgust..." Now, why does that ring a bell?

John said:

Henry said:

Dave Luckett said: Barton says that the founders of the United States were evangelical, Bible-believing Christians who intended that the nation be founded on the Christian religion. That's the lie, Henry. Some were Christian, but many were not, and they erected a wall of separation between Church and State of deliberate purpose, so as to set up an avowedly secular state. They wanted no part of Barton's preferred theocracy. Morris's implication that they were creationists out of conviction is another lie. They were creationists because that was all there was, then. If they'd been presented with "The Origin of the Species", a book not published until upwards of eighty years after independence, they'd have accepted evolution, because they were rational, and led by evidence and reason.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/06/the-mythical-wall-of-separation-how-a-misused-metaphor-changed-church-state-law-policy-and-discourse

Even though I am a Conservative Republican, I am more inclined to agree with noted skepic Susan Jacoby's view as well as my college professors, Gordon Wood, widely viewed as the foremost historian on the American Revolution, the drafting of the United States Constitution and of the early history of the United States until the early 1820s. In plain English, I don't concur with the Heritage Foundation's point of view.

Henry said:

John said:

Henry said:

Dave Luckett said: Barton says that the founders of the United States were evangelical, Bible-believing Christians who intended that the nation be founded on the Christian religion. That's the lie, Henry. Some were Christian, but many were not, and they erected a wall of separation between Church and State of deliberate purpose, so as to set up an avowedly secular state. They wanted no part of Barton's preferred theocracy. Morris's implication that they were creationists out of conviction is another lie. They were creationists because that was all there was, then. If they'd been presented with "The Origin of the Species", a book not published until upwards of eighty years after independence, they'd have accepted evolution, because they were rational, and led by evidence and reason.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/06/the-mythical-wall-of-separation-how-a-misused-metaphor-changed-church-state-law-policy-and-discourse

Even though I am a Conservative Republican, I am more inclined to agree with noted skepic Susan Jacoby's view as well as my college professors, Gordon Wood, widely viewed as the foremost historian on the American Revolution, the drafting of the United States Constitution and of the early history of the United States until the early 1820s. In plain English, I don't concur with the Heritage Foundation's point of view.

Did you enjoy Romney's acceptance speech last night?

Thread drifting off topic, I see... time to close, eh? Get your last comments in, Pronto!