Crystal Anniversary for the Wedge Document

Posted 6 February 2014 by Matt Young

By Josh Rosenau.

Reposted from NCSE's Science League of America blog.

A Crystal disco ball to celebrate the crystal anniversary of the Disco. 'tute's entry into the creationism business.

Fifteen years ago yesterday, a mail clerk in Seattle was handed a document to copy. As the Seattle Weekly reported, the packet was labeled "TOP SECRET" and "NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION," and the cover sported an Illuminati-esque triangular design and a copy of Michelangelo's "Creation of Adam." The title: "The Wedge"; the author: a newly-created division of the conservative Discovery Institute, the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC). Later, the Center would drop "renewal" from its title to escape the religious reference, and also switched its logo from the Creation of Adam to a picture of God creating DNA, then to a more secular galactic nebula, and now a mashup of Leonardo's Vitruvian man and a DNA strand.

The Wedge Document, as the packet came to be known, laid out a bold plan by which the Center would "re-open the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature," and "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." From its first sentence, the document proclaimed its sectarian goals, stating: "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences."

In order to achieve this religious revival, the creators of the CRSC proposed a five-year plan, with three phases: "Research, Writing and Publication," "Publicity and Opinion-making," and "Cultural Confrontation and Renewal." Of these, they insisted that the first was most crucial: "Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade."

On this fifteenth anniversary of that five-year plan, it's worth asking just what the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture has accomplished. They promised at the time, "we can accomplish many of the objectives of Phases I and II in the next five years (1999-2003), and begin Phase III (See 'Goals/Five Year Objectives/Activities')."

The Five Year Goals:

To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.

To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.

To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.

Of these, the first has certainly not happened within science. The second is immeasurable, but hasn't happened in any obvious way, and to the extent there are new debates in the fields described in the third item, the CRSC seems to have no role to play (aside from sitting on the sidelines and carping).

And the Five Year Objectives covered seven topics, beginning with:

A major public debate between design theorists and Darwinists (by 2003)

While there have been public events staged in which ID creationists and evolution's defenders squared off, any grand debate died off long ago, and was ended for good with the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling.

Thirty published books on design and its cultural implications (sex, gender issues, medicine, law, and religion)

Unless one really stretches the meaning of those "cultural implications," or includes the heaps of books written to debunk ID creationism, I don't think they can claim success here, either.

One hundred scientific, academic and technical articles by our fellows

Unless you count articles published in the various unimpressive and intellectually incestuous ID journals that have come and gone over the years, or include papers that have nothing to do with ID creationism, they haven't met this standard, either. Even the CRSC's own list of publications only hits about 75 items, and most of those are not in credible journals, or don't mean what the Center claims they mean.

Again, the Wedge document opened by insisting that "Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade." By their own standard, the ID creationists have to be judged as engaged in "just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade."

Significant coverage in national media:

Cover story on major news magazine such as Time or Newsweek

PBS show such as Nova treating design theory fairly

Regular press coverage on developments in design theory

Favorable op-ed pieces and columns on the design movement by 3rd party media

While ID creationism has gotten its share of media coverage, and even some cover stories, I wouldn't say that coverage has been especially favorable. A skim through the CRSC's media complaints division suggests that they don't think so either. Certainly no favorable NOVA documentaries--although NOVA's Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial did treat ID creationism (IDC) fairly--and since there is no "design theory" to make advances in, there's been no media coverage either.

Spiritual & cultural renewal:

Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism

Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s) Darwinism

Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions

Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God

Many mainline Protestant churches (and their seminaries) have issued policy statements in favor of evolution in recent years, and against IDC, while the CRSC's allies in the older creationist organizations have backed away from IDC since its failure in the Dover trial. Public opinion polls show increasing acceptance of marriage equality, views on abortion are quite stable, and belief in God is declining.

Ten states begin to rectify ideological imbalance in their science curricula & include design theory

No state science standards cover creationism, not even in the deracinated form of ID creationism, nor does any textbook from a major publisher. Coverage of evolution has increased since the '90s.

Scientific achievements:

An active design movement in Israel, the UK and other influential countries outside the US

Ten CRSC Fellows teaching at major universities

Two universities where design theory has become the dominant view

Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences

Legal reform movements base legislative proposals on design theory

There's a group in the UK promoting IDC with little success, but no such movement in Israel or any other country. The CRSC fellows are not to be found at major universities; a couple are at UT Austin, and some at Baylor, but before you'd need two hands to keep count, you'd have to stretch the definition of "major university" beyond any meaning. "Design theory" doesn't exist, and isn't a dominant view at any university, nor is it relevant in social science research (except for sociologists interested in why people deny science). Nor do any lawyers seem interested in ID creationism, except for civil liberties lawyers.

In short, on this crystal anniversary of the Wedge Document, it appears that the C(R)SC staff's crystal-gazing skills were awful; they essentially achieved none of their goals. The document also promised that:

Paul Nelson...CRSC Fellow will very soon have [a] book published by...The University of Chicago Press...Nelson's book, On Common Descent, is the seventeenth book in the prestigious University of Chicago "Evolutionary Monographs" series and the first to critique neo-Darwinism.

Fifteen years later, Nelson's book remains unpublished, to the point that it became a running joke among anticreationist activists of a certain vintage.

By the way, the Wedge Document also offered these "Twenty Year Goals," which we can revisit in five years:

To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.

To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts.

To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

I am willing to wager a bottle of single-malt scotch that they fail. And unlike some people, I'll even pony up if I lose.

72 Comments

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 6 February 2014

It looked so unpromising in the beginning, too.

Nothing like sticking to the script.

Glen Davidson

Karen S. · 6 February 2014

At least they made the world safe for the bacterial flagellum, even if they failed to patent it.

John Pieret · 6 February 2014

... the C(R)SC staff’s crystal-gazing skills were awful; they essentially achieved none of their goals.

To be as fair as they deserve, the Wedge was never a prediction; it was a fund raising appeal intended only for their most generous contributors. It was, in fact, hocum intended to extract as much money as possile from rich people made gullible by their religion by promising pie in the sky.

It is hardly surprising that they were willing to deceive rich gullible people just as much as they are willing to deceive not-so-rich gullible people.

Scott F · 6 February 2014

...to see its [design theory's] influence in the fine arts.

Okay. That's a new one on me that I hadn't noticed before. Could someone explain what "influence" "intelligent design theory" could possibly have on the fine arts? "Someone, somewhere, at some unknown time, in some unknown manner, for some unknown reason, designed … this piece of music"?? Or, "… this painting", or "… this sculpture". Perhaps 15 years ago they felt that "fine art" wasn't "designed", or that it needed more "design"? Sure, I might had agreed with them about some "paintings" that I've seen (rather, canvasses with paint on them), but were they really uncertain about how music, paintings, and sculpture were designed? Or what "intelligence" was needed? And how it was "made", for that matter?

Karen S. · 6 February 2014

To be as fair as they deserve, the Wedge was never a prediction; it was a fund raising appeal intended only for their most generous contributors.

They need another appeal to help k-ham build his ark.

diogeneslamp0 · 7 February 2014

Scott F said:
...to see its [design theory's] influence in the fine arts.
Okay. That's a new one on me that I hadn't noticed before. Could someone explain what "influence" "intelligent design theory" could possibly have on the fine arts?

Less scribble scrabble and stuff that makes you think. More blonde girls holding daisies, genteelly faded old churches, and patriotic battle scenes. You know... like Hitler used to paint. Or Robert Kinkade. 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other. I am reminded of old Adolf actually kicking holes in "degenerate" paintings he couldn't understand. Look, this is what it's all about: a cadre of fascist intellectuals with the usual all-encompassing metanarrative based on rigid historical/religious determinism and raw lust for power, who really DO believe that atheists can't create beauty, and can't appreciate it either. Thus, they really do believe atheists are to blame for all ugliness in the world. And yes, it is the same as Hitler (read Mein Kampf or the Table Talk) except that that failed painter blamed Jews or degenerate liberal intellectuals for the ugliness of modern art (and he accused both groups of being materialists.) And so he promised his country "renewal." Renewal. As in CRSC. When we look at a sunset, we think, "Beautiful, I'm lucky to be alive." When they look at a sunset, they think, "Atheists cannot appreciate beauty; we must eliminate them on the road to utopia." Or as the Wedge put it: the consequences of materialism have been devastating for society. Or their egos. Same thing.

ksplawn · 7 February 2014

Some people might have looked back on 15 years of abject failure to create any semblance of a research program and thought, "You know, maybe I was chasing a wild goose the whole time."
But the DI has kept the cash flowing into its fellows' pockets, so that doesn't seem likely to happen.

eric · 7 February 2014

they insisted that the first was most crucial: “Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade.”

What makes me curious about this language is that they surely didn't need it to get Ahmanson's money; he's a straight up evangelist who (IMO) would've been perfectly happy with a strategy document laying out a plan to do all PR all the time. And he, frankly, is where they get all their money. So it makes me wonder who they were targeting when they decided to write up this 'do sound science first' language.

diogeneslamp0 · 7 February 2014

Does anybody know how the WD got leaked? DI says it was stolen.

Joe Felsenstein · 7 February 2014

diogeneslamp0 said: Does anybody know how the WD got leaked? DI says it was stolen.

See the Seattle Weekly account which is the first link in the post (above). Apparently a contractor's employee was asked to make copies of it, skimmed through it, and then made the requested copies but also made one more for himself. Then he later showed that to a friend who was internet-savvy. Their names are in the article.

Doc Bill · 7 February 2014

The Tooters have a couple of articles on their swamp-blog about the Wedge Document, along the lines of "who cares" and "oh, that old thing."

However, they have never refuted it. Sure they explain that it was a "fundraising" document and a "planning" document but it's clear even today that they are trying to follow the script:

Op ed pieces, influencing politicians and school boards, creating and publishing their own "journal," starting a research center (however pitiful it is) and continuing to drive the wedge through "teach the controversy," "academic freedom," "viewpoint discrimination," "Darwinian Pressure Group (go, Delta Pi Gamma!) bullying," and so forth.

They are clearly failing on getting ID introduced in schools at any level and even in Louisiana what we have there is old fashioned creationism which even the Tooters try to avoid. Gonzo is their latest great hope at Ball State. We'll see how that unfolds in due time.

But, even the Old Guard has become moribund. Dembski has all but vanished having been EXPELLED from his Bible college; Behe should be retiring any day now, but seems to have no influence. The Tooters blog is rapidly becoming another Uncommon Descent (into madness) with most postings coming from Dense O'Leary, Klinkleklopper, the Gerbil, Egnorance and a sprinkling of random Loons. It's really pitiful, if I was capable of pity, that is.

Ron Okimoto · 7 February 2014

John Pieret said: ... the C(R)SC staff’s crystal-gazing skills were awful; they essentially achieved none of their goals. To be as fair as they deserve, the Wedge was never a prediction; it was a fund raising appeal intended only for their most generous contributors. It was, in fact, hocum intended to extract as much money as possile from rich people made gullible by their religion by promising pie in the sky. It is hardly surprising that they were willing to deceive rich gullible people just as much as they are willing to deceive not-so-rich gullible people.

You don't have to be fair. They had the same claims in their mission statement that was up on their web page when they still had God and Adam as their logo. You have to use Wayback to look up the old mission statement from around 1998 or 1997.

Mike Elzinga · 7 February 2014

Doc Bill said: But, even the Old Guard has become moribund. Dembski has all but vanished having been EXPELLED from his Bible college; Behe should be retiring any day now, but seems to have no influence. The Tooters blog is rapidly becoming another Uncommon Descent (into madness) with most postings coming from Dense O'Leary, Klinkleklopper, the Gerbil, Egnorance and a sprinkling of random Loons. It's really pitiful, if I was capable of pity, that is.

Given all the yowling self-pity we see over there, perhaps the Wedge Document has become a painful “Wedgie Document” for them.

shebardigan · 7 February 2014

Reading the document again after all these years, the voice I hear from the Center For the Removal of Science From Culture is that of one or more authors who really believed that this could happen.

That is rather poignant.

Rikki_Tikki_Taalik · 7 February 2014

Thirty published books on design and its cultural implications (sex, gender issues, medicine, law, and religion)

I'm working on a few outlines, maybe I can pull down a few bucks in the lucrative ID market. Sex - No homos. Gender Issues - Women are designed to be pregnant and in the kitchen making us a sandwich. Medicine - Did you know that the likelyhood of your kidneys existing is 10 to the really huge number. Oh, by the way they are failing and you need a transplant. Religion - We don't know who the designer is, what the designer did, when he did it, or how he did it, but shhhh here's a Bible.

harold · 8 February 2014

eric said:
they insisted that the first was most crucial: “Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade.”
What makes me curious about this language is that they surely didn't need it to get Ahmanson's money; he's a straight up evangelist who (IMO) would've been perfectly happy with a strategy document laying out a plan to do all PR all the time. And he, frankly, is where they get all their money. So it makes me wonder who they were targeting when they decided to write up this 'do sound science first' language.

A very rare disagreement with Eric here - I think this is wrong. People keep saying that creationists "believe" creationism. But creationism isn't quite a "belief", it's a self-serving bias. Ahmanson does "believe" in his science denial, but NOT the way I believe that the earth is approximately spherical in shape rather than a two-dimensional plane. My belief that the earth is round is 100% evidence-based. If it would benefit me tremendously for it to be flat, tough, it's still round. I didn't start out wishing it was round and selectively paying attention to ostensible evidence that it is round. Nor is there substantial evidence that it is flat, to which I respond with denial, and cognitive dissonance expressed in the form of inappropriate anger toward the evidence. It's just round and that's that. And that's how a true, rational, calm, confident belief works. And this is why you have never heard, and will never hear, a creationist openly say that they simply reject science. It's also why creationists will often state reasons that they wish creationism was true, as evidence that creationism is true. You may hear a professor of philosophy at an overpriced liberal arts college with a beautiful campus for partying rich kids say that science is invalid and should just be ignored or rejected. You won't hear a creationist say it. Because they damn well get that the methods of science are the methods that humans find instinctively credible. Creationism is wishful thinking. They wish that there was a god who would say that their lust for harsh, bigoted, authoritarian, superficially self-serving social and economic policy was "good". They "believe" it quite strongly, but that "belief" can be troubled by conflicting evidence. This is simply the way ALL incorrect self-serving biases work. They are consciously perceived as a belief, but it isn't a calm, rational, confident belief, like my belief that the earth is approximately spherical. It's a an emotional bias superficially perceived as a belief. No, they won't be convinced to drop it, except in rare cases. When you cause them cognitive dissonance, they respond by doubling down on the mechanisms that support the denial and the bias. No mere internet comment is going to change that. But evidence against the bias does cause emotional distress. If some guy were to say "Hey, let's face it, the made up religion we use to rationalize our political preferences really is at odds with scientific evidence, so let's just admit that we don't care at all about scientific evidence!", that guy would be despised and reject by them. The money is raised by insisting that "real scientists" and "true science" support the bias, not by admitting that they do not.

Scott F · 8 February 2014

harold said: And this is why you have never heard, and will never hear, a creationist openly say that they simply reject science. It's also why creationists will often state reasons that they wish creationism was true, as evidence that creationism is true. You may hear a professor of philosophy at an overpriced liberal arts college with a beautiful campus for partying rich kids say that science is invalid and should just be ignored or rejected. You won't hear a creationist say it. Because they damn well get that the methods of science are the methods that humans find instinctively credible. ... But evidence against the bias does cause emotional distress. If some guy were to say "Hey, let's face it, the made up religion we use to rationalize our political preferences really is at odds with scientific evidence, so let's just admit that we don't care at all about scientific evidence!", that guy would be despised and reject by them. The money is raised by insisting that "real scientists" and "true science" support the bias, not by admitting that they do not.

Hi harold. I'm interested in better understanding the distinction that you're trying to draw. How would you classify Representative Paul Broun, and his comment that scientific theories are "lies straight from the pit of Hell"? He doesn't seem to fall into the "professor of philosophy" clade. He doesn't appear to have any "emotional distress". And, he doesn't appear to be "despised and rejected" by other creationists for advocating the rejection of scientific evidence. In fact, he seems quite popular for saying such things.

Starbuck · 8 February 2014

I love the cries of "censorship" but you can't comment on any of their articles. The ones you can comment on are heavily moderated and get closed when the heat is on.

harold · 8 February 2014

Scott F said:
harold said: And this is why you have never heard, and will never hear, a creationist openly say that they simply reject science. It's also why creationists will often state reasons that they wish creationism was true, as evidence that creationism is true. You may hear a professor of philosophy at an overpriced liberal arts college with a beautiful campus for partying rich kids say that science is invalid and should just be ignored or rejected. You won't hear a creationist say it. Because they damn well get that the methods of science are the methods that humans find instinctively credible. ... But evidence against the bias does cause emotional distress. If some guy were to say "Hey, let's face it, the made up religion we use to rationalize our political preferences really is at odds with scientific evidence, so let's just admit that we don't care at all about scientific evidence!", that guy would be despised and reject by them. The money is raised by insisting that "real scientists" and "true science" support the bias, not by admitting that they do not.
Hi harold. I'm interested in better understanding the distinction that you're trying to draw. How would you classify Representative Paul Broun, and his comment that scientific theories are "lies straight from the pit of Hell"? He doesn't seem to fall into the "professor of philosophy" clade. He doesn't appear to have any "emotional distress". And, he doesn't appear to be "despised and rejected" by other creationists for advocating the rejection of scientific evidence. In fact, he seems quite popular for saying such things.

He's a 100% perfect example of what I'm saying. He does not advocate open rejection of all of science. Instead he does the exact standard thing. He attacks the selected parts of science which are at odds with his superficially self-serving ideology, and says or implies that "real" science, i.e. all of science that doesn't threaten him, supports his views. People try to make this false dichotomy between strongly supported, emotionally neutral beliefs, and conscious, deliberate falsehood. If we employ this false dichotomy, we can then pretend to read creationist minds, claim that we know they aren't being deliberately, consciously dishonest (which is probably true, but we can't be sure in individual cases), and then incorrectly conclude that the "other alternative" must be the case - that they must "believe" their claims in the same way that we "believe" well-supported scientific claims. That dichotomy is false. There is much more to the human brain than that. In fact, to employ that dichotomy is in itself profoundly unscientific. A bedrock principle of science is that we consciously strive to avoid bias. Therefore, the very existence of the scientific method is an intuitive concession that emotional biases can cause us to experience incorrect ideas as "beliefs". Otherwise we would have no need to consciously strive for objective, unbiased observation in the first place. This intuition is supported by virtually every field of science that studies human cognition and behavior. We all, though, have self-serving biases. Far from being unique to creationists, this is universal. Some people are "better" able to "believe" their self-serving biases than others, but we all have them, and we all give evidence that seems to favor them excess weight. Yet, because in the end they are biases, we are all vulnerable to the uncomfortable sensation of seeing evidence that conflicts with them. We all often react to this by seeking reassurance that the self-serving bias is true, which we do by over-weighting evidence in its favor and unfairly rejecting evidence against it. We all do this, but creationists do it about certain parts of science which intimidate them, especially the theory of evolution, while you and I don't do that.

DavidK · 9 February 2014

Interesting OpEd in today's Seattle Times.

http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2022861463_michaelzimmermanopedreligionscience09xml.html

Mike Elzinga · 9 February 2014

harold said: We all do this, but creationists do it about certain parts of science which intimidate them, especially the theory of evolution, while you and I don't do that.

One of the characteristics I see most often in the leaders of these anti-evolution/anti-science movements is that they want political power and control over the lives of others. They are mainly narcissists; large egos who want to be seen as major figures in history. It is actually a bit unnerving to think what these people would do if they actually achieved their political goals. I have been in the presence of some of them; they don’t like being questioned. There are others – such as the many crackpots one can find challenging the “authority” of science - who want to be seen as great inventors who are being repressed by an establishment cabal that is keeping them from becoming rich and famous with their “inventions” that have “humiliated” the science community. It’s always them against the “establishment;” a favorite con game in our history. I don’t believe I have ever seen a humble ID/creationist or pseudoscientist just doing his job and hoping for the best; they already believe they are the best and are being persecuted for it. These are people who see themselves as being at the top of the heap one way or another. While the ID/creationist movement is unique in its sectarian roots, there are characters like this that show up at seminars and colloquia at major research universities and at professional conferences around the country. They will latch onto and dog relentlessly anyone who pays them any attention whatsoever. Out of all these, the uniqueness of the ID/creationist movement has been its active sectarian political agenda of taking over all of public education, especially science education. That has made them a threat in the past. Given the egomaniacal mindset of some of its leaders, while its influence may ebb at times, I am not convinced that it will ever go away completely. They are always looking for the favorable political winds and voter apathy that will put them in power. Most successful scientists are capable of dogging an issue until it is understood. The process may take decades and even a lifetime of work. The line between dogged determination and obsessive compulsive madness has been material for novelists for centuries. Sometimes it is hard to find that line; but sectarian obsessive/compulsiveness over sectarian dogma is easy to spot because of the centuries of blood wars among sectarians. While some of them have tried in recent years to conceal their motives – because of the secular laws and backlash they will most certainly encounter – nevertheless their motives are clear; especially when they refer to science and secularism as “religions.” These people are perpetually at war with “evil and deceit everywhere” and they must win at all costs because it is they who are the “good ones.”

phhht · 9 February 2014

Mike Elzinga said:
One of the characteristics I see most often in the leaders of these anti-evolution/anti-science movements is that they want political power and control over the lives of others.
Here's what can happen when they get that power.

stevaroni · 9 February 2014

Mike Elzinga said:
One of the characteristics I see most often in the leaders of these anti-evolution/anti-science movements is that they want political power and control over the lives of others.
Here's what can happen when they get that power.

Or, more subtly here's what happens when Ham and his ilk get their way. (By the way, I was blissfully unaware that back in his native Australia, before he hit it big in creationist circles, Ham was... and I quote, a "science teacher").

harold · 9 February 2014

harold said: We all do this, but creationists do it about certain parts of science which intimidate them, especially the theory of evolution, while you and I don't do that.
One of the characteristics I see most often in the leaders of these anti-evolution/anti-science movements is that they want political power and control over the lives of others. They are mainly narcissists; large egos who want to be seen as major figures in history. It is actually a bit unnerving to think what these people would do if they actually achieved their political goals. I have been in the presence of some of them; they don’t like being questioned. There are others – such as the many crackpots one can find challenging the “authority” of science - who want to be seen as great inventors who are being repressed by an establishment cabal that is keeping them from becoming rich and famous with their “inventions” that have “humiliated” the science community. It’s always them against the “establishment;” a favorite con game in our history. I don’t believe I have ever seen a humble ID/creationist or pseudoscientist just doing his job and hoping for the best; they already believe they are the best and are being persecuted for it. These are people who see themselves as being at the top of the heap one way or another. While the ID/creationist movement is unique in its sectarian roots, there are characters like this that show up at seminars and colloquia at major research universities and at professional conferences around the country. They will latch onto and dog relentlessly anyone who pays them any attention whatsoever. Out of all these, the uniqueness of the ID/creationist movement has been its active sectarian political agenda of taking over all of public education, especially science education. That has made them a threat in the past. Given the egomaniacal mindset of some of its leaders, while its influence may ebb at times, I am not convinced that it will ever go away completely. They are always looking for the favorable political winds and voter apathy that will put them in power. Most successful scientists are capable of dogging an issue until it is understood. The process may take decades and even a lifetime of work. The line between dogged determination and obsessive compulsive madness has been material for novelists for centuries. Sometimes it is hard to find that line; but sectarian obsessive/compulsiveness over sectarian dogma is easy to spot because of the centuries of blood wars among sectarians. While some of them have tried in recent years to conceal their motives – because of the secular laws and backlash they will most certainly encounter – nevertheless their motives are clear; especially when they refer to science and secularism as “religions.” These people are perpetually at war with “evil and deceit everywhere” and they must win at all costs because it is they who are the “good ones.”

Needless to say I agree with all of this. I would like to emphasize once more the role of self-serving bias. Mike is describing people with pathologically intense self-serving biases. Maybe I should say "ego-serving bias". These biases don't necessarily always help the person who holds them. There's a lot of pointless confusion about whether creationists are "sincere" in their beliefs. The answer is that they usually consciously are, but are also aware, at some deeper level, of the need to defend that bias from reality. We all have some inability to overcome self-serving bias. In fact some level of self-serving bias is optimal. It's a question of degree. But we don't quite experience self-serving bias as we experience neutral belief. When our self-serving biases are challenged, we defend them, and if they are challenged by evidence and logic, we have to defend them emotionally. First, we often use the defense that we have always held them, so they must "obviously" be true, and it is "ridiculous" to contemplate otherwise. On the internet, this defense is often expressed with the use of "LOL" and similar expressions. That initial defense is not very successful, in most cases, though. The next line of defense is usually to attack the source of disturbing evidence (technically, every creationist who refers to "secularists" or "atheists" is indulging in the ad hominem fallacy). Another common defense is the straw man fallacy - mis-state the disturbing evidence or argument so that it is no longer threatening. Another common defense is to be insulting, provoke the other person, and then declare victory because the other person responds to insult with insult. To accomplish this, the original insult is often a thinly veiled jeer. (The strategy of using a jeer to provoke an overt emotional response is also common in many other situations.) Creationists want creationism to be true; it's a system that defines a world in which they are special and privileged, and others must obey them. If we could measure whether they are consciously deceptive when they proclaim their beliefs, we would probably not detect any deliberate deceptiveness. But, as with all biased "beliefs", it must be emotionally defended. So, when presented with evidence that should dispel their self-serving bias, they respond with emotional techniques. They believe because they want to believe, and are able to shield themselves from evidence and logic with emotional techniques.

MichaelJ · 9 February 2014

I can understand (soft of) why the DI crowd still push their barrow. This is their livelyhood and they have no other marketable skills. What I think is really sad is the denizens of places like UD who will still argue for ID and defend the DI. They must realise that ID has not produced anything for years and science still keeps marching forwards.

harold · 9 February 2014

MichaelJ said: I can understand (soft of) why the DI crowd still push their barrow. This is their livelyhood and they have no other marketable skills. What I think is really sad is the denizens of places like UD who will still argue for ID and defend the DI. They must realise that ID has not produced anything for years and science still keeps marching forwards.

One thing that makes a self-serving bias hard to get rid of is the emotional stress of admitting an error. They loved ID when they first heard about it because they are social/political ideologues. They wanted to "win" over scientists by getting some form of evolution denial into public schools. Remember, Ken Ham has nothing to do with the DI or UD. The UD gang is on a different level. It's still self-serving bias, but their self-serving bias is in favor of disguising creationism. They loved it, they wanted it to be true, they convinced themselves that it makes sense, and they've been reinforcing that self-serving bias for years. In my observation the UD crowd are much more pathological, as well as much less numerous, than typical home-schooling YEC types. Many of them have insecurity issues about their intelligence as well. Their self-serving bias is that they are geniuses who recognize the brilliance of ID, and by a coincidence, ID seems to confirm the ad hoc post-modern religion that tells them they are special and deserve to rule. It's hard enough for anyone to admit they were wrong about anything, and these are a bunch of emotionally immature fragile egos playing genius and pretending that they are smarter than all the world's mainstream scientists combined. This bias has only modest negative impact on their daily life. Of course babbling nonsense on the most obscure site on the internet for many hours per day can't help their lives, but they may well have relationships and/or jobs, at least in some cases. It would probably take inhumane and illegal "deprogramming" techniques to get them to stop parroting ID slogans. The parroting is their defense mechanism, and the more obscure, forgotten, and ruled out ID becomes, the more they need that defense mechanism. Conceivably some of them might drift away from it on their own some day. Nothing you or I could do could ever convince them of reality.

Scott F · 9 February 2014

MichaelJ said: I can understand (soft of) why the DI crowd still push their barrow. This is their livelyhood and they have no other marketable skills. What I think is really sad is the denizens of places like UD who will still argue for ID and defend the DI. They must realise that ID has not produced anything for years and science still keeps marching forwards.

Upton Sinclair: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

Doc Bill · 9 February 2014

What does it take to run Toot Central? We've seen their tax reports. Most of their donations go to salaries, travel and promotion. They spend a few grand on lab supplies but it's a pitiful amount.

How many cats are in Toot Central? You've got Klinger, the Gerbil, the Young guy, Westy, Crowfoot, Axelrod, Blanche and a couple of office workers. Let's say they support, through charity, Sterno, Dumbski and throw a few clams to the hangers on like Egnorance and Stupinski. Can't be much.

What a bunch of clowns, scrambling for all the crumbs they can sweep up!

But, from another standpoint, and, please, don't accuse me of pity, think about what OTHER job the Gerbil or Klinger could get? Who'd hire them, Alex Jones? They've wasted their careers on this junk and their only alternative is to KEEP IT GOING! Drive that ID train! Otherwise they are out of business, kaput with no pot to pee in. Roadkill.

I wonder if Gerb and Kling have looked at their retirement prospects recently. Probably not.

Scott F · 9 February 2014

harold said: In my observation the UD crowd are much more pathological, as well as much less numerous, than typical home-schooling YEC types. Many of them have insecurity issues about their intelligence as well. Their self-serving bias is that they are geniuses who recognize the brilliance of ID, and by a coincidence, ID seems to confirm the ad hoc post-modern religion that tells them they are special and deserve to rule. It's hard enough for anyone to admit they were wrong about anything, and these are a bunch of emotionally immature fragile egos playing genius and pretending that they are smarter than all the world's mainstream scientists combined.

Yeah, but. "cdesign proponentsists". ID was conceived as a politically motivated legal deception, plain and simple. A lie to get creationism into schools. As far as I can tell, that has never changed. I'll spot you the self-serving emotional biases of the YEC crowd. But I think you're over analyzing the ID crowd. The followers of ID? Maybe. There's that mental dissonance you mention, and they really want it to be true. But the ID leaders? It's a scam, all the way down. I'd even go so far as to say the YEC leaders know it to be a scam too. Maybe they really believe it themselves, but that doesn't mean they aren't scamming the flock. I'm no psychologist, but isn't the ability to believe your own scam one hallmark of a successful sociopath? Does Neil deGrasse Tyson ask you to tithe to the Hayden Planetarium in every speech? Did Nye or Sagan solicit donations for PBS at every opportunity? (Sure, they would like you to donate, they might want you to buy their latest book, but it isn't their primary purpose.) But from the likes of Ken Ham? I think the YEC leaders get used to the joys of having followers who have been taught from birth to tithe to anyone waving a Bible around.

Doc Bill · 10 February 2014

There is no question that the "leaders" of the movement are in on the scam. Speaking of "leaders," just how many "ID theorists" are there, anyway? I count two: Dembski and Behe.

Reviewing the terms -

Complex specified Information - whatever that is. Oh, sometimes it's Functional SCI.
Irreducible complexity - can't evolve
Nixplainatory Filter - when nothing else works, punt. Even Dembski gave up on it.

And ... that's about it, I think.

What these guys actually do, mostly Meyer Behe, is carefully trivialize evolutionary research so as to cast doubt. That's the scam. Behe's "edge of evolution" is nothing more than his bald-headed opinion followed by a magical unicorn. And that's from a LEADING "ID theorist."

But, hey, it puts food on the table!

Karen S. · 10 February 2014

What these guys actually do, mostly Meyer Behe, is carefully trivialize evolutionary research so as to cast doubt. That’s the scam.

That's exactly what AiG does.

harold · 10 February 2014

Scott F said:
harold said: In my observation the UD crowd are much more pathological, as well as much less numerous, than typical home-schooling YEC types. Many of them have insecurity issues about their intelligence as well. Their self-serving bias is that they are geniuses who recognize the brilliance of ID, and by a coincidence, ID seems to confirm the ad hoc post-modern religion that tells them they are special and deserve to rule. It's hard enough for anyone to admit they were wrong about anything, and these are a bunch of emotionally immature fragile egos playing genius and pretending that they are smarter than all the world's mainstream scientists combined.
Yeah, but. "cdesign proponentsists". ID was conceived as a politically motivated legal deception, plain and simple. A lie to get creationism into schools. As far as I can tell, that has never changed. I'll spot you the self-serving emotional biases of the YEC crowd. But I think you're over analyzing the ID crowd. The followers of ID? Maybe. There's that mental dissonance you mention, and they really want it to be true. But the ID leaders? It's a scam, all the way down. I'd even go so far as to say the YEC leaders know it to be a scam too. Maybe they really believe it themselves, but that doesn't mean they aren't scamming the flock. I'm no psychologist, but isn't the ability to believe your own scam one hallmark of a successful sociopath? Does Neil deGrasse Tyson ask you to tithe to the Hayden Planetarium in every speech? Did Nye or Sagan solicit donations for PBS at every opportunity? (Sure, they would like you to donate, they might want you to buy their latest book, but it isn't their primary purpose.) But from the likes of Ken Ham? I think the YEC leaders get used to the joys of having followers who have been taught from birth to tithe to anyone waving a Bible around.

1) I'm not over-analyzing anything. Self-serving bias superficially perceived as belief is an extremely simple and common phenomenon. 2) You've obviously seen me point out hundreds of times that ID is just creationism taking the fifth, so please don't "correct" me by repeating a point I've made many times. Everyone, including all "ID advocates", gets that. It's a contrived, deceptive, euphemistic, coded version of creationism. Literally everyone gets that. 3) Nevertheless, even most of the "leaders", even when they're blazingly deceptive in our observation, aren't consciously scamming. Casey Luskin and Klinghoffer don't throw back they're heads back and let out a peal of evil laughter after they write something. 4) Does this matter? Yes. You fight against them more effectively if you understand them. If you model them as totally sincere religious people taking time off from volunteer work with lepers in Bangladesh to spread the word, you model them wrong. They aren't like that. If you model them as total con men, akin to an email scammer trying to get access to someone's bank account, you also model them wrong. They DON'T think of themselves as scammers, despite the obvious fact that, objectively, they are. They are authoritarians with an ideological agenda who consciously perceive their own self-serving bias as the "truth", but experience cognitive dissonance, and react emotionally, when presented with the evidence. That isn't complicated, it isn't over-analysis, it isn't hard to understand.

DS · 10 February 2014

Harold wrote:

"They are authoritarians with an ideological agenda who consciously perceive their own self-serving bias as the “truth”, but experience cognitive dissonance, and react emotionally, when presented with the evidence."

Absolutely. That's why you must present them with the evidence at every opportunity. That's why you must force them to confront the evidence. That's why you must point out when they get the science wrong. The very worst thing you can do is to be nice because you don't want to upset them. You shouldn't just assume that they are really kind hearted and misguided. They are self-serving egomaniacs, the kind who could never survive in any real field of science. Because in science, such biases are not tolerated. The peer review process ruthlessly weeds out such pernicious nonsense. That is why creationists avoid it like the plague. They know, at least on some level, that their views are completely unsupportable, so they must avoid every chance of being told so. If they honestly thought that science would vindicate them, they would do science, but they don't. That tells you all you need to know about their motives and their honesty. They all claim to love science, but deep down it scares and disturbs them. How could it be otherwise, when they claim to already have all the answers? They need to be illuminated by the spotlight of reason and laid bare for all to see.

daoudmbo · 10 February 2014

harold said: You may hear a professor of philosophy at an overpriced liberal arts college with a beautiful campus for partying rich kids say that science is invalid and should just be ignored or rejected.

Were you thinking of this NYtimes op-ed perchance? I think it's absolutely awful http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/is-atheism-irrational/?ref=opinion His conclusion: "So if you’re an atheist simply because you accept materialism, maintaining your atheism means you have to give up your belief that evolution is true. Another way to put it: The belief that both materialism and evolution are true is self-refuting. It shoots itself in the foot. Therefore it can’t rationally be held." !!!!

Joe Felsenstein · 10 February 2014

daoudmbo said: [Alvin Pantinga's] conclusion [from the fallibility of evolved nervous systems]: "So if you’re an atheist simply because you accept materialism, maintaining your atheism means you have to give up your belief that evolution is true. Another way to put it: The belief that both materialism and evolution are true is self-refuting. It shoots itself in the foot. Therefore it can’t rationally be held." !!!!

I am astonished that a philosopher who argues this way is taken seriously by anyone. The conclusions our nervous systems come to are of course fallible (mine are, anyway). But 1. We can talk to others and argue with them, and their fallibility and ours can cancel each other out, and if we talk to, and argue with, enough people, then our mutually agreed-upon conclusions can be much less fallible than those of any one person. (This is, for example, why most of us end up concluding that the Earth isn't flat). 2. We can lay out our arguments step and by step and see whether they are logical. Combined with point 1, we can end up with much better conclusions. Furthermore Plantinga's triumphal conclusions leave unsaid exactly how people who are not materialists, and do not think evolution happened, are able to do better. If I conclude that my nervous system is fallible, then I certainly think that Plantinga's is too. I will draw the conclusion that his arguments are just as likely as mine to be fallible.

phhht · 10 February 2014

Joe Felsenstein said:
daoudmbo said: [Alvin Pantinga's] conclusion [from the fallibility of evolved nervous systems]: "So if you’re an atheist simply because you accept materialism, maintaining your atheism means you have to give up your belief that evolution is true. Another way to put it: The belief that both materialism and evolution are true is self-refuting. It shoots itself in the foot. Therefore it can’t rationally be held." !!!!
I am astonished that a philosopher who argues this way is taken seriously by anyone. The conclusions our nervous systems come to are of course fallible (mine are, anyway). But 1. We can talk to others and argue with them, and their fallibility and ours can cancel each other out, and if we talk to, and argue with, enough people, then our mutually agreed-upon conclusions can be much less fallible than those of any one person. (This is, for example, why most of us end up concluding that the Earth isn't flat). 2. We can lay out our arguments step and by step and see whether they are logical. Combined with point 1, we can end up with much better conclusions. Furthermore Plantinga's triumphal conclusions leave unsaid exactly how people who are not materialists, and do not think evolution happened, are able to do better. If I conclude that my nervous system is fallible, then I certainly think that Plantinga's is too. I will draw the conclusion that his arguments are just as likely as mine to be fallible.

And 3. We can often test the conclusions we reach from untrustworthy sense data. We can appeal to objective reality to see whether our conclusions are realistic or not.

Mike Elzinga · 10 February 2014

I suspect that Plantinga realizes that a blatant statement that his sectarian beliefs make him morally superior and intellectually more reliable in his assessments of “TRUTH” is a bit gauche in today’s modern world. After all, it is no longer permitted to cull “unreliable” heretics from the herd by fire.

Much of the sectarian apologetics from this segment of religion has placed a bizarre twist on the once bald assertion that “proper belief and reading of scripture” allow one to get to TRUTH because one is in direct contact with the proper deity. Those that don’t adhere to proper doctrine are heretics.

Ken Ham and a number of the sectarian apologists argue that reason is possible only because of their deity. Therefore anyone using reason but who doesn’t adhere to their sectarian dogma is being inconsistent. The idea is that one cannot do science without the proper deity and sectarian dogma; and if you do science or reason in any way, you are validating the existence of their deity even as you deny it.

This of course doesn’t explain why it has to be their particular deity and their particular sectarian belief about the deity. And there are thousands of deities and sectarian beliefs from which to choose.

It’s all sectarian bigotry in cheap academic regalia.

Joe Felsenstein · 10 February 2014

phhht said: And 3. We can often test the conclusions we reach from untrustworthy sense data. We can appeal to objective reality to see whether our conclusions are realistic or not.

Well I'm a theoretician so that was not foremost in my mind ...

eric · 10 February 2014

Joe Felsenstein said: I am astonished that a philosopher who argues this way is taken seriously by anyone. The conclusions our nervous systems come to are of course fallible (mine are, anyway). But 1. We can talk to others and argue with them, and their fallibility and ours can cancel each other out, and if we talk to, and argue with, enough people, then our mutually agreed-upon conclusions can be much less fallible than those of any one person. (This is, for example, why most of us end up concluding that the Earth isn't flat).

I'm not that astonished. At the risk of making an insulting generalization, I find that philosophers don't tend to like mathematically or engineering(ly?) complex solutions to problems. Things like feedback and feed-forward loops, iterative methods, math involving infinities such as calculus or set theory, they either find them aesthetically displeasing or don't understand them. Either way, they don't seem to employ them or recognize them when others employ them. The classic example would be the chicken-and-egg issue: not a big deal when you understand incremental evolution, but I think a lot of philosophically-minded people are (still?) searching for a definitive either/or answer. Pointing out that a group of flawed individuals may, through recursive review of each others' work, develop a less-flawed picture of the world than any one of them is capable of developing, is likely to provoke a sniff and accusation of bootstrapping. (Which may be technically true - I suppose that iterative algorithms are a form of bootstrapping - but the fact is, they work and need to be considered as a possible method that occurs in nature).

John Harshman · 10 February 2014

eric said: Pointing out that a group of flawed individuals may, through recursive review of each others' work, develop a less-flawed picture of the world than any one of them is capable of developing, is likely to provoke a sniff and accusation of bootstrapping. (Which may be technically true - I suppose that iterative algorithms are a form of bootstrapping - but the fact is, they work and need to be considered as a possible method that occurs in nature).

Don't worry. I'm pretty sure Joe wouldn't consider "bootstrapping" a pejorative term.

phhht · 10 February 2014

Joe Felsenstein said:
phhht said: And 3. We can often test the conclusions we reach from untrustworthy sense data. We can appeal to objective reality to see whether our conclusions are realistic or not.
Well I'm a theoretician so that was not foremost in my mind ...

heh heh

Mike Elzinga · 10 February 2014

eric said: Pointing out that a group of flawed individuals may, through recursive review of each others' work, develop a less-flawed picture of the world than any one of them is capable of developing, is likely to provoke a sniff and accusation of bootstrapping. (Which may be technically true - I suppose that iterative algorithms are a form of bootstrapping - but the fact is, they work and need to be considered as a possible method that occurs in nature).

The peculiar “rebuttal” to this from these sectarians - and even from some of the post-modernist “sociologists of science” - is that scientists are locked as a group into a self-validating community with a world view that doesn’t allow “alternative explanations.” In other words, they are accusing the science community of being just like many sectarians. Coming from sectarians, that accusation is pure projection. It’s what they do, so they think that is what everybody else does. But it does raise the question about why some people are “wired” so differently when it comes to their “interpretations” of the natural world. I suspect it has something to do with being able to exist in a culture that allows them to essentially escape from being confronted with the realities of raw nature and having to figure out how to control it. If one never hypothesizes and checks repeatedly about how the natural world behaves, one can sit comfortably in the cocoon of a protecting society and imagine anything one wishes. On the other hand, the stress of the prospects of immediate starvation and death for lack of resources and education from early childhood doesn’t allow much time for reflection about how the world works. That milieu can also result in ignorance and superstition that can be exploited by ruthless dictators. And children raised in a subculture of a relatively safe society can be bombarded with fearful stories about “others” and what those “others” will do to them and their minds. And what of the “klutz” for whom the universe seems to always be a pernicious enemy? Fear quickly sets in. What hope does such a person have of being able to check anything unless there is some friendly intervention that changes the klutz’s perspective? I’m not completely sure what makes the difference in how one gets “wired” with respect to relating to the external world, but I suspect fear plays a major role. Fear can come from bad experiences and from other humans using it deliberately to set the course of the lives of children.

Rhazes · 10 February 2014

An active design movement in Israel, the UK and other influential countries outside the US

I'm not sure if you'd count the Middle East as influential (scientifically, it certainly isn't), but the ID Creationists' biggest allies are actually in the Islamic world. Most Muslims are old earth creationists, and like many ID Creationists here in the U.S. they have no problem admitting some forms of evolutionary change (i.e. micro-evolution). Recently, I noticed that the Muslim creationists were working on translating Jonathan Wells' Icons of Evolution. And they are also using and recycling the same old tired arguments that we see in Stephen Meyer's writings about protein evolution and the Cambrian explosion. I haven't heard of any direct communication between the two parties, but they certainly have a common interest. Both view science as eroding their religious beliefs, and they are expending as much energy as they can in keeping it away from the minds of their children.

harold · 11 February 2014

daoudmbo said:
harold said: You may hear a professor of philosophy at an overpriced liberal arts college with a beautiful campus for partying rich kids say that science is invalid and should just be ignored or rejected.
Were you thinking of this NYtimes op-ed perchance? I think it's absolutely awful http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/is-atheism-irrational/?ref=opinion His conclusion: "So if you’re an atheist simply because you accept materialism, maintaining your atheism means you have to give up your belief that evolution is true. Another way to put it: The belief that both materialism and evolution are true is self-refuting. It shoots itself in the foot. Therefore it can’t rationally be held." !!!!

Well, this is actually worse than what I was thinking of. I couldn't get through the whole thing. I immediately noted a glaring logical error, and a major straw man issue. I've emphasized logical, because the point of the whole thing was to use logic to rebut the writer's definition of "materialism" (a straw man, as it turns out), so a major logical error makes the whole thing worthless. The straw man is that he's apparently arguing against some exaggerated version of "materialism" that incorporates categorical denial, rather than concession of lack of evidence for, any sort of god. Well, that's an argument against the old official stance of the Soviet Union, I guess, but not against my views, since I don't categorically deny the hypothetical possibility of an undetectable (to me) and irrelevant (to me) deity. Then he even gets an argument against his own straw man wrong. He uses a false analogy for something we "don't know". He says we don't know whether the number of stars in the universe is odd or even. Okay, assuming it's meaningful to postulate a finite integer number of stars in the universe, we don't know if that number is odd or even. But we do know that it can only be one or the other, and it should be equally likely to be either. How does that relate to the question of gods? The analogy is completely false. There may be no gods. There may be the god or gods of some past or present human religion. There may be gods that have never been worshiped by humans. There is no possible way to accurately assign probabilities to these alternatives. Except one. If Plantinga could show objective evidence for the existence of some deity, that would imply a much higher probability for such existence, than if he can't. So rather than obsessively and illogically attack straw men of his own creation, why doesn't he just show some positive evidence to support his stance?

Pierce R. Butler · 11 February 2014

Rhazes said: ... I haven't heard of any direct communication between the two parties...

If you search the archives of this site for "Adnan Okhtar" or "Harun Yahya" and "Kansas", you will find accounts of attempts about a decade ago to bring creationism to the Kansas state educational standards, centered around a notorious set of hearings in which Christian creationists brought in a Muslim spokesperson for a notorious Turkish creationist (somehow getting the taxpayers to cover all expenses).

Frank J · 11 February 2014

Ahmanson does “believe” in his science denial, but NOT the way I believe that the earth is approximately spherical in shape rather than a two-dimensional plane.
— harold

And maybe not even the way you and ~99.9% of “Darwinists” think he believes it. Which I interpret to mean “on faith,” not caring whether evidence supports it, but still cherry picking evidence to fool people into thinking that he does carefully consider evidence. That certainly could be the case, and probably is for many activists, but there’s another option that almost no one dares mention, even as a possibility. He certainly rejects science – the very method, if not necessarily any conclusions (e.g. age of life, common descent) and explanations (e.g. mechanisms of species change). And so does every anti-evolution activist, from the common-descent-admitting Behe to flat-earth and geocentric YECs. But the (unanswerable) question is what, if anything, do they believe instead of the conclusions and explanations of science? The only thing we can be certain of is that they believe that the “masses” must reject the method, and deny at least the explanations, or more accurately, their caricature of it. For people like Ken Ham, Hugh Ross and Michael Behe, it certainly looks at first glance that believe (in the way you think) their 3 different alternate origins accounts. They at least expose testable positive claims, and those embarrassing contradictions with the others’ claims, to potential critical analysis. So a case could be made that they have at least a little confidence to risk that potential backfire. But it also could be that their only confidence could be that they are convinced that theirs is the best way to promote evolution-denial. In other words, the only thing they believe about it is that it will sell. If anyone can be reasonably suspected of privately knowing that all the mutually-contradictory Biblical creationist accounts, and the design-based “method” (what the Curmudgeon calls "Oogity Boogity") that is central to all of them as well as to ID, are completely bogus, it is the ID peddlers who evade questions on their own conclusions. That indicates at best a lack of confidence, not only of evidence, but even of their own faith in those conclusions. Sure that would mean full awareness that they’re misleading people, but also that they genuinely believe that it’s in their audience’s best (eternal) interests. They certainly have a Reason to be that way.

harold · 11 February 2014

And maybe not even the way you and ~99.9% of “Darwinists” think he believes it. Which I interpret to mean “on faith,” not caring whether evidence supports it, but still cherry picking evidence to fool people into thinking that he does carefully consider evidence.

And I would only add that one of the people, indeed the primary person, he is trying to fool that way, is himself. The human mind is odd. Observed objectively, these guys are deceitful. Even among themselves, they are conscious of acting in some ways that WE would consider deceitful, but which they don't see as deceitful, in order to advocate for their view. But they almost all have a strong self-serving bias that scientist are wrong about evolution. They all believe in the basic ideology, and that scientists are wrong about evolution. They all have strong emotional defenses that permit them to selectively under-weight the evidence against their nonsense, and massively over-weight "evidence" in its favor. It's true that they use the techniques of propaganda rather than reasoned discourse. All authoritarians do. I'll use a relatively mild example of an authoritarian here (that's "relatively"; relative to other famous authoritarians) to avoid being charged with Godwinism - it would be silly to say that, just because Fidel Castro used propaganda and force to promote communism, that he didn't "believe" in communism. They aren't evil-laughing satanists who secretly understand the science and deceive for money with total awareness of what they're doing. They aren't even nihilistic neo-cons who secretly understand the science, but oppose it because they believe the masses must be kept ignorant. They experience their self-serving bias as a "belief". Not to endorse the quasi-scientific field of polygraph testing, but hook them to a polygraph and they will likely pass while adamantly claiming that the theory of evolution must be false. Their intense self-serving bias is that it must be false, and they experience that bias as a "belief". They are, however, affected by evidence against their bias. The main form of evidence that bothers them is the undeniable fact that most scientfically educated people don't believe what they say. They can plug their ears and label us all "materialists" but our existence causes them cognitive dissonance. So they react with defensive emotional denial mechanisms. Over and over again.

air · 11 February 2014

Pierce R. Butler wrote: If you search the archives of this site for “Adnan Okhtar” or “Harun Yahya” and “Kansas”, you will find accounts of attempts about a decade ago to bring creationism to the Kansas state educational standards, centered around a notorious set of hearings in which Christian creationists brought in a Muslim spokesperson for a notorious Turkish creationist (somehow getting the taxpayers to cover all expenses).

The link between Harun Yahya and American YEC is quite direct and bidirectional. Here is a link to a picture from Yahya's first Turkish Creationism Conference - among the guests seated at the dais is Duane Gish. http://lamp-of-diogenes.blogspot.com/2010/03/creationists-gone-wild-sex-slavery-and.html

CJColucci · 11 February 2014

There may be no gods. There may be the god or gods of some past or present human religion. There may be gods that have never been worshiped by humans. There is no possible way to accurately assign probabilities to these alternatives. Except one. If Plantinga could show objective evidence for the existence of some deity, that would imply a much higher probability for such existence, than if he can’t.

If I understand Plantinga correctly, never a good bet, he thinks there is objective evidence. In his view, a properly-functioning human being has the capacity to perceive God directly, through a sensus divinatus, in much the same way that a properly-functioning human being can directly perceive the computer monitor on one's desk or a jolt of delight in one's loins.
Make of it what you will; I'm merely reporting.

DS · 11 February 2014

CJColucci said: There may be no gods. There may be the god or gods of some past or present human religion. There may be gods that have never been worshiped by humans. There is no possible way to accurately assign probabilities to these alternatives. Except one. If Plantinga could show objective evidence for the existence of some deity, that would imply a much higher probability for such existence, than if he can’t. If I understand Plantinga correctly, never a good bet, he thinks there is objective evidence. In his view, a properly-functioning human being has the capacity to perceive God directly, through a sensus divinatus, in much the same way that a properly-functioning human being can directly perceive the computer monitor on one's desk or a jolt of delight in one's loins. Make of it what you will; I'm merely reporting.

There might have been gods in the past, but you can never know, because you were not there!

harold · 11 February 2014

CJColucci said: There may be no gods. There may be the god or gods of some past or present human religion. There may be gods that have never been worshiped by humans. There is no possible way to accurately assign probabilities to these alternatives. Except one. If Plantinga could show objective evidence for the existence of some deity, that would imply a much higher probability for such existence, than if he can’t. If I understand Plantinga correctly, never a good bet, he thinks there is objective evidence. In his view, a properly-functioning human being has the capacity to perceive God directly, through a sensus divinatus, in much the same way that a properly-functioning human being can directly perceive the computer monitor on one's desk or a jolt of delight in one's loins. Make of it what you will; I'm merely reporting.

Well, it isn't objective evidence for me if I can't perceive it. He's got some circular reasoning going on. Define "properly functioning" as "agree with me about God". If you don't already agree with me, I can't convince you, because if you were properly functioning, you'd already agree with me! Kind of like "If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know". Or the punk era version "If you don't already know about (band or trend or whatever) you don't deserve to know". The problem is, that would be exactly what someone would say, either if that stance were correct, OR if it weren't, but they themselves couldn't show evidence for God or explain what jazz is. So we can't differentiate. Either Plantinga can sense God and I can't, or Plantinga says this in order to deal with requests for objective evidence that he can't produce. It's one or the other but I have no way of telling which.

Paul Burnett · 11 February 2014

harold said: He says we don't know whether the number of stars in the universe is odd or even.

It's even. Prove I'm wrong.

Doc Bill · 11 February 2014

Oddly, I think Paul is right!

stevaroni · 12 February 2014

Doc Bill said: Oddly, I think Paul is right!

Eh. I'd give him 50-50 odds.

Scott F · 12 February 2014

harold said:
And maybe not even the way you and ~99.9% of “Darwinists” think he believes it. Which I interpret to mean “on faith,” not caring whether evidence supports it, but still cherry picking evidence to fool people into thinking that he does carefully consider evidence.
And I would only add that one of the people, indeed the primary person, he is trying to fool that way, is himself. The human mind is odd. …etc… They are, however, affected by evidence against their bias. The main form of evidence that bothers them is the undeniable fact that most scientfically educated people don’t believe what they say. They can plug their ears and label us all “materialists” but our existence causes them cognitive dissonance. So they react with defensive emotional denial mechanisms. Over and over again.

Hi harold. I'm not sure how we ended up disagreeing earlier, but I would agree about 95% with your statements here. The only part I might disagree with is your penultimate paragraph. I'm not convinced that the existence of people who disagree with them causes any of them cognitive dissonance. It just doesn't seem to be part of their make up. I don't see them as being that self aware, or capable of recognizing the point of view of the "other" as being worth considering, let alone even noticing. (The "other" being anyone not part of their "group" or clade.) The quantity and depth of projection and self-blind hypocrisy doesn't sound like mere "bias", even self-reinforcing bias. You say (figuratively) that they plug their ears to ideas outside their "bias". I'm not sure that's an accurate analogy. It's as though they are completely deaf to outside ideas, as though they don't even have a concept that there could be ideas different from their own. An example of that is the simple statement that, "Atheists hate God", or are "denying God", or some such. They simply cannot conceive of the concept that someone does not believe in God. They hear the words, but the meaning doesn't register. They are "plugging their ears", so much as they are hearing what they expect to hear. Hmm… Maybe that's part of your concept of "bias"? When someone says something (such as "I don't believe in gods), the creationist hears what they expect to hear despite the normally clear meaning of the words?

Rolf · 12 February 2014

I see that as a mental Scotoma

harold · 12 February 2014

Scott F said:
harold said:
And maybe not even the way you and ~99.9% of “Darwinists” think he believes it. Which I interpret to mean “on faith,” not caring whether evidence supports it, but still cherry picking evidence to fool people into thinking that he does carefully consider evidence.
And I would only add that one of the people, indeed the primary person, he is trying to fool that way, is himself. The human mind is odd. …etc… They are, however, affected by evidence against their bias. The main form of evidence that bothers them is the undeniable fact that most scientfically educated people don’t believe what they say. They can plug their ears and label us all “materialists” but our existence causes them cognitive dissonance. So they react with defensive emotional denial mechanisms. Over and over again.
Hi harold. I'm not sure how we ended up disagreeing earlier, but I would agree about 95% with your statements here. The only part I might disagree with is your penultimate paragraph. I'm not convinced that the existence of people who disagree with them causes any of them cognitive dissonance. It just doesn't seem to be part of their make up. I don't see them as being that self aware, or capable of recognizing the point of view of the "other" as being worth considering, let alone even noticing. (The "other" being anyone not part of their "group" or clade.) The quantity and depth of projection and self-blind hypocrisy doesn't sound like mere "bias", even self-reinforcing bias. You say (figuratively) that they plug their ears to ideas outside their "bias". I'm not sure that's an accurate analogy. It's as though they are completely deaf to outside ideas, as though they don't even have a concept that there could be ideas different from their own. An example of that is the simple statement that, "Atheists hate God", or are "denying God", or some such. They simply cannot conceive of the concept that someone does not believe in God. They hear the words, but the meaning doesn't register. They are "plugging their ears", so much as they are hearing what they expect to hear. Hmm… Maybe that's part of your concept of "bias"? When someone says something (such as "I don't believe in gods), the creationist hears what they expect to hear despite the normally clear meaning of the words?

Actually, I think we now agree completely. Let me explain. Cognitive dissonance is not caused by self-awareness, it is caused by lack of self-awareness. We all experience it to some degree. It occurs when something that we don't accept or register consciously interferes with our preferred bias. I can virtually prove to you that almost all creationists experience cognitive dissonance, with two words - "straw man". When did you ever see a creationist start by accurately describing the theory of evolution and the major lines of evidence for it, and then say, "Despite this, I will propose and defend the following alternate scenario"? That's right, never. And here's a safe prediction - you never will. Are they "too dumb" to do this? Not all of them. Even Casey Luskin should be able to. Anyway, you also never hear them say "I admit that I can't understand the theory of evolution" either. They all always claim to be perfectly familiar with it, and they all always created distorted simpleton straw man versions of it. They cannot stand to state it accurately. Many or most of them lack the background to do so, but they cannot stand to go get the background, either. The actual real evidence does cause them emotional discomfort. This simply isn't pure, conscious deceptiveness. They perceive their self-serving bias - the theory of evolution must be wrong - as a "belief". When things cause momentary doubts, they respond with defensive tactics. But to look too much doubt in the eye too intensely is unbearable. You have to understand that it's part of a rationalizing ideology. To doubt their ideology is to lose their identity.

daoudmbo · 12 February 2014

Scott F said: An example of that is the simple statement that, "Atheists hate God", or are "denying God", or some such. They simply cannot conceive of the concept that someone does not believe in God. They hear the words, but the meaning doesn't register. They are "plugging their ears", so much as they are hearing what they expect to hear.

Actually, I don't think that example quite works, because they *know* God exists. Referring to an earlier example, I know jazz exists, if someone comes along and says "well I don't believe in jazz", I would simply write them off as hating or disliking jazz, not "disbelieving in jazz" because jazz obviously exists. I'm just trying to think from their perspective btw, I'm not going to try and defend the assertion that they know God exists! :)

harold · 12 February 2014

daoudmbo said:
Scott F said: An example of that is the simple statement that, "Atheists hate God", or are "denying God", or some such. They simply cannot conceive of the concept that someone does not believe in God. They hear the words, but the meaning doesn't register. They are "plugging their ears", so much as they are hearing what they expect to hear.
Actually, I don't think that example quite works, because they *know* God exists. Referring to an earlier example, I know jazz exists, if someone comes along and says "well I don't believe in jazz", I would simply write them off as hating or disliking jazz, not "disbelieving in jazz" because jazz obviously exists. I'm just trying to think from their perspective btw, I'm not going to try and defend the assertion that they know God exists! :)

I'm not sure why this point is so difficult to get across. Words like "know" and "believe" have a range of meaning. I "know" that the square root of two is an irrational number in a completely dispassionate way. I can provide a mathematical proof for that if I need to defend the point. Very little emotion is involved. However, almost all of us also "know" or "believe" that certain self-serving, not perfectly accurate biases are "true". It makes us feel good to "believe" these biases and it makes us feel bad when they are challenged, especially challenged in a way that would look credible to us, if the challenge were directed toward something other than our bias. When they are challenged we are inclined to defend them. But if the challenge has logic and evidence on its side, we must use emotional mechanisms to defend them. What Scott F describes in the paragraph you quote is the common ad hominem defense. It is used by biased people all the time, including but not exclusively creationists. This is a very common creationist defense mechanism. Label the source of disturbing evidence as "atheist" or "materialist". This is an obvious example of ad hominem, since a "materialist" could still be right about something. The creationist issue is not with whether or not God exists. Another thing they commonly do is to bring up evolution, and then quickly change the subject, arguing against "atheism" or about "the origin of life". Although it has proven impossible, historically, to logically compel the existence of gods, many people calmly defend belief in a god in a way that does not directly confront science. The problem for creationists is that their ideology includes a rigid, obsessive need to deny biological evolution. It is evolution denial, evolution denial, evolution denial (*and an associated social/political ideology*) that is their specific self-serving bias, which they experience consciously as a "belief", but which causes them cognitive dissonance and emotional reaction due to its being frequently challenged. Why on earth do you think they are obsessed with evolution in public schools? It's because they know it makes sense, and the thought of it being taught, and students learning about it, challenges their emotional bias.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 12 February 2014

It is evolution denial, evolution denial, evolution denial (*and an associated social/political ideology*) that is their specific self-serving bias, which they experience consciously as a “belief”, but which causes them cognitive dissonance and emotional reaction due to its being frequently challenged. Why on earth do you think they are obsessed with evolution in public schools? It’s because they know it makes sense, and the thought of it being taught, and students learning about it, challenges their emotional bias.

Maybe some, but the fact is that when I was a creationist kid we had virtually the same conversations about "evolutionists" in reverse. Well, do they really know better and deny God (for sundry reasons), just want there not to be any God, or are they actually fooled into believing that things can "just happen"? The consensus was more or less that a number really did "buy into evolution," and if they just knew better they'd give up something so unreasonable. I gave it up once I wasn't just a kid any more, so I can't give an adult account of being a creationist, but my sense is that it really was pretty much just the reverse of how we think of them, without much, anyway, cognitive dissonance about creation/evolution among church members. I don't deny that some have cognitive dissonance, especially if they've encountered a lot of the arguments and evidence. Most church folk simply haven't done so, though, and I think they don't have much cognitive dissonance. The one caveat I have is that most of them do seem to shy away from learning the evidence, something that did bother me, even as a kid, so there might be some concern about learning what many don't want to know, among even the rank and file. But aside from leaving alone matters that might confuse or "delude" them, I think that most of the creationists I knew weren't much afflicted by doubts, and genuinely wondered how anyone could "believe evolution," except that they "want to sin" or simply were "taught wrong" about the issue. Glen DAvidson

daoudmbo · 13 February 2014

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:
It is evolution denial, evolution denial, evolution denial (*and an associated social/political ideology*) that is their specific self-serving bias, which they experience consciously as a “belief”, but which causes them cognitive dissonance and emotional reaction due to its being frequently challenged. Why on earth do you think they are obsessed with evolution in public schools? It’s because they know it makes sense, and the thought of it being taught, and students learning about it, challenges their emotional bias.
Maybe some, but the fact is that when I was a creationist kid we had virtually the same conversations about "evolutionists" in reverse. Well, do they really know better and deny God (for sundry reasons), just want there not to be any God, or are they actually fooled into believing that things can "just happen"? The consensus was more or less that a number really did "buy into evolution," and if they just knew better they'd give up something so unreasonable. I gave it up once I wasn't just a kid any more, so I can't give an adult account of being a creationist, but my sense is that it really was pretty much just the reverse of how we think of them, without much, anyway, cognitive dissonance about creation/evolution among church members. I don't deny that some have cognitive dissonance, especially if they've encountered a lot of the arguments and evidence. Most church folk simply haven't done so, though, and I think they don't have much cognitive dissonance. The one caveat I have is that most of them do seem to shy away from learning the evidence, something that did bother me, even as a kid, so there might be some concern about learning what many don't want to know, among even the rank and file. But aside from leaving alone matters that might confuse or "delude" them, I think that most of the creationists I knew weren't much afflicted by doubts, and genuinely wondered how anyone could "believe evolution," except that they "want to sin" or simply were "taught wrong" about the issue. Glen DAvidson

Yeah, this is what I'm thinking. They're probably obsessed with teaching evolution in school because whatever they might truly think deep-down about science and evolution, they, like everyone, know the most important step in disseminating and maintaining beliefs of any kind (whether FSM, YEC, Islam, rational world view etc) is teaching it to children. And actually, reading Scott F's post and my response to it, I think I was wrong to think his example wasn't quite accurate, I think I'm basically saying the same thing as he did.

harold · 13 February 2014

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:
It is evolution denial, evolution denial, evolution denial (*and an associated social/political ideology*) that is their specific self-serving bias, which they experience consciously as a “belief”, but which causes them cognitive dissonance and emotional reaction due to its being frequently challenged. Why on earth do you think they are obsessed with evolution in public schools? It’s because they know it makes sense, and the thought of it being taught, and students learning about it, challenges their emotional bias.
Maybe some, but the fact is that when I was a creationist kid we had virtually the same conversations about "evolutionists" in reverse. Well, do they really know better and deny God (for sundry reasons), just want there not to be any God, or are they actually fooled into believing that things can "just happen"? The consensus was more or less that a number really did "buy into evolution," and if they just knew better they'd give up something so unreasonable. I gave it up once I wasn't just a kid any more, so I can't give an adult account of being a creationist, but my sense is that it really was pretty much just the reverse of how we think of them, without much, anyway, cognitive dissonance about creation/evolution among church members. I don't deny that some have cognitive dissonance, especially if they've encountered a lot of the arguments and evidence. Most church folk simply haven't done so, though, and I think they don't have much cognitive dissonance. The one caveat I have is that most of them do seem to shy away from learning the evidence, something that did bother me, even as a kid, so there might be some concern about learning what many don't want to know, among even the rank and file. But aside from leaving alone matters that might confuse or "delude" them, I think that most of the creationists I knew weren't much afflicted by doubts, and genuinely wondered how anyone could "believe evolution," except that they "want to sin" or simply were "taught wrong" about the issue. Glen DAvidson

I completely agree here. What you are describing is the process of creating and reinforcing bias. As a kid you were taught that creationism is true, and also, importantly, that it is good for you that creationism is true. You were taught that your group were special righteous people who would be rewarded by a favoring god, due in part to your acceptance of the idea that creationism is true. As a kid, you didn't experience cognitive dissonance. Of course you didn't. Kids generally accept what they are taught. Later, as we become more independent, some of us may note that our biases are being challenged and experience cognitive dissonance. Some adults may be sheltered and dull enough to avoid it, as well. However, your story clearing indicates that some members of your community experienced substantial cognitive dissonance. That's why you were taught all those invalid, emotion-based, pseudo-rational defenses against "evolutionists". There are a lot of elements there - ad hominem, they must be wrong because they are atheists and atheists are always wrong; false generalization ("they're all atheists" when they aren't); conspiracy hypothesis, and of course, a major dose of projection. You were inculcated with objectively incorrect self-serving biases, and then extensively inculcated with pseudo-rational defense mechanisms to use on that possible day when your biases might be challenged. Now, self-serving biases are NOT always at odds with reality. Most, plausibly all, of mine, are not contradicted by science. Doesn't mean they're "right", doesn't mean you can't make a strong case against them, it's just that I don't have any self-serving biases that are contradicted directly by scientific reality. If I ever did I got rid of them long ago. However, the creationist self-serving bias is contradicted by reality, and many or most creationists are aware that their beliefs are challenged, challenged in a way they would find credible if the challenge were to something other than their bias. And that does cause cognitive dissonance and emotional defenses.

harold · 13 February 2014

daoudmbo said:
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:
It is evolution denial, evolution denial, evolution denial (*and an associated social/political ideology*) that is their specific self-serving bias, which they experience consciously as a “belief”, but which causes them cognitive dissonance and emotional reaction due to its being frequently challenged. Why on earth do you think they are obsessed with evolution in public schools? It’s because they know it makes sense, and the thought of it being taught, and students learning about it, challenges their emotional bias.
Maybe some, but the fact is that when I was a creationist kid we had virtually the same conversations about "evolutionists" in reverse. Well, do they really know better and deny God (for sundry reasons), just want there not to be any God, or are they actually fooled into believing that things can "just happen"? The consensus was more or less that a number really did "buy into evolution," and if they just knew better they'd give up something so unreasonable. I gave it up once I wasn't just a kid any more, so I can't give an adult account of being a creationist, but my sense is that it really was pretty much just the reverse of how we think of them, without much, anyway, cognitive dissonance about creation/evolution among church members. I don't deny that some have cognitive dissonance, especially if they've encountered a lot of the arguments and evidence. Most church folk simply haven't done so, though, and I think they don't have much cognitive dissonance. The one caveat I have is that most of them do seem to shy away from learning the evidence, something that did bother me, even as a kid, so there might be some concern about learning what many don't want to know, among even the rank and file. But aside from leaving alone matters that might confuse or "delude" them, I think that most of the creationists I knew weren't much afflicted by doubts, and genuinely wondered how anyone could "believe evolution," except that they "want to sin" or simply were "taught wrong" about the issue. Glen DAvidson
Yeah, this is what I'm thinking. They're probably obsessed with teaching evolution in school because whatever they might truly think deep-down about science and evolution, they, like everyone, know the most important step in disseminating and maintaining beliefs of any kind (whether FSM, YEC, Islam, rational world view etc) is teaching it to children. And actually, reading Scott F's post and my response to it, I think I was wrong to think his example wasn't quite accurate, I think I'm basically saying the same thing as he did.

See my reply to Glen Davidson above. What you're saying is of course true, but they do NOT just try to have their belief taught directly. In fact they are already easily able to teach their ideas directly, in Sunday School, in private schools, through home schooling, etc. In 1999 in Kansas the creationist policy was merely to remove evolution from the curriculum. Same thing in South Carolina right now. A Republican Senator is trying to have a very basic statement about evolution removed from the curriculum. They don't just want their kids to learn creationism, they want all kids to be prevented from learning about evolution.

DS · 13 February 2014

From my own experience, being raised in a creationist home, there was no cognitive dissonance at all. Everyone claimed to love science. I was encouraged to study science. I was absolutely convinced that when I did study science for myself, it would confirm everything I had been taught. Nobody ever even seemed to think that there could be any other possible outcome. Of course, that turned out not to be true. But nobody seemed to have any idea that all of the evidence was actually against creationism. Nobody realized that a critical and honest examination of the evidence would lead inevitably to one and only one conclusion. Nobody thought that having been raised to be honest was going to backfire when exposure to the evidence finally happened. I will always be grateful for the moral guidance and wisdom that my parents taught me as a child. But I will always regret that they didn't tell me the truth about evolution, even if it was because they had carefully insulated themselves from the truth.

This is why I have no sympathy for those who choose to remain ignorant. This is why I cannot believe those who claim to have examined the evidence and yet deny the obvious conclusion. This is why it is so disappointing and frustrating to see someone claim to love science and then state that no evidence would ever change their mind. This is the kind of fundamental dishonesty that drives people away from faith and religion.

Helena Constantine · 13 February 2014

I happen to be reading a book now, from which a quotation is actually appropriate to this thread. Its The Mystery of Mar Saba, written by J.H Hunter (a religious magazine editor) in 1940 (I'm reading it in relation to the controversy over Morton Smith and The Secret Gospel of Mark but that's another matter). The genre is a Nazi spy thriller, so given the date of publication it became a best seller. But the real purpose of the book is to preach fundamentalist propaganda. In the first place Hunter has it figured out that all criticism of the literal historical truth of the Bible is a Nazi Plot (going back to the late 18th century, evidently). But the interesting statement is made by the main character right after he is born again. He talks about what he had been taught in college:

"The theory of evolution. That the world came into being as a result of cosmic forces, gradually cooled down through aeons of time, generated life in a low form, from which came all the innumerable and various varieties we see around up. I will admit it does not seem a very satisfactory explanation, and to my way of thinking now it appears incredible that I could have accepted such drivel without question. And yet, that is what multitudes of young people are being fed today. To me know it seems the crime of the century."

To which his girlfriend replies, "It is a terrible thing to destroy a human soul through unbelief. Some of our universities have a great sin to answer for."

The real problem with this is that it is all just a cover to justify the most horrible kind of fascist, racist, imperialism. If the converts became peace loving hippies, it wouldn't be so bad. But the book argues that Palestine ought to be handed over to the Jews on the basis of their biblical claim (this is in 1940 remember). The Palestinians, because they are culturally backward compared to the Jews (the author seems oblivious to the fact that his beloved British had been running the place for 20 years and done nothing to provide universal education for the Palestinians--he is certain that the Arabs are innately inferior to the Jews, not just that they lack the Western style education the Jewish immigrants benefit from) are to be swept away the same way the Americans did the American Indians. He is advocating genocide in other words, justified by his fundamentalist beliefs. Needless to say the few Arabs that are shown converting to Christianity (Protestantism, not not that wicked Catholicism) are presented as good characters and are generally murdered by those low, devious Muslims.

daoudmbo · 13 February 2014

Helena Constantine said: The real problem with this is that it is all just a cover to justify the most horrible kind of fascist, racist, imperialism. If the converts became peace loving hippies, it wouldn't be so bad. But the book argues that Palestine ought to be handed over to the Jews on the basis of their biblical claim (this is in 1940 remember). The Palestinians, because they are culturally backward compared to the Jews (the author seems oblivious to the fact that his beloved British had been running the place for 20 years and done nothing to provide universal education for the Palestinians--he is certain that the Arabs are innately inferior to the Jews, not just that they lack the Western style education the Jewish immigrants benefit from) are to be swept away the same way the Americans did the American Indians. He is advocating genocide in other words, justified by his fundamentalist beliefs. Needless to say the few Arabs that are shown converting to Christianity (Protestantism, not not that wicked Catholicism) are presented as good characters and are generally murdered by those low, devious Muslims.

A bit of a tangent, but ironic considering there was and still is a significant minority of Arab Christians in Palestine/Israel.

harold · 13 February 2014

DS said: From my own experience, being raised in a creationist home, there was no cognitive dissonance at all. Everyone claimed to love science. I was encouraged to study science. I was absolutely convinced that when I did study science for myself, it would confirm everything I had been taught. Nobody ever even seemed to think that there could be any other possible outcome. Of course, that turned out not to be true. But nobody seemed to have any idea that all of the evidence was actually against creationism. Nobody realized that a critical and honest examination of the evidence would lead inevitably to one and only one conclusion. Nobody thought that having been raised to be honest was going to backfire when exposure to the evidence finally happened. I will always be grateful for the moral guidance and wisdom that my parents taught me as a child. But I will always regret that they didn't tell me the truth about evolution, even if it was because they had carefully insulated themselves from the truth. This is why I have no sympathy for those who choose to remain ignorant. This is why I cannot believe those who claim to have examined the evidence and yet deny the obvious conclusion. This is why it is so disappointing and frustrating to see someone claim to love science and then state that no evidence would ever change their mind. This is the kind of fundamental dishonesty that drives people away from faith and religion.

I'm not saying that every creationist is 100% consumed with cognitive dissonance. I'm saying cognitive dissonance is what they experience when they somehow look at the evidence. There are two ways to resolve it. Give up creationism and go with the evidence - as you did. Or indulge in emotional, pseudo-rational obsessing - as the creationist we deal with do. I'm going to reiterate and reinforce my original point, because it's an important one. Creationism is a self-serving bias. Your parents "knew" that they were right. But they were wrong. Why did they "know" something so obviously wrong? They were taught to believe it, they wanted to believe it, and emotionally they experienced it as a belief. They certainly weren't cackling with evil glee that they were tricking little DS when they privately knew perfectly well that the theory of evolution is valid. But neither did they really "know" what they felt as if they knew. It was a bias, not objective knowledge, and if they had been challenged, then they would have experienced and emotional response.

DS · 13 February 2014

Agreed.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 13 February 2014

As a kid you were taught that creationism is true, and also, importantly, that it is good for you that creationism is true. You were taught that your group were special righteous people who would be rewarded by a favoring god, due in part to your acceptance of the idea that creationism is true.

But aren't Darwinists taught that they are right because they accept certain assumptions, and take man's word over God's? (Nonsense, really, but it's sort of the "argument")

As a kid, you didn’t experience cognitive dissonance. Of course you didn’t. Kids generally accept what they are taught. Later, as we become more independent, some of us may note that our biases are being challenged and experience cognitive dissonance.

I didn't have much cognitive dissonance, because it occurred to me at one point that, gee, scientists probably have heard the creationist "arguments," and might very well have answers that I should consider. I'd been too much into science to think that a substantial part of it was some special apologetics for atheism.

Some adults may be sheltered and dull enough to avoid it, as well.

Quite a few, so far as I can ascertain. However, your story clearing indicates that some members of your community experienced substantial cognitive dissonance.
Some most likely did, but, between natural human tendencies to protect one's own ego and the tendency of religion to be "on guard" against deceivers and ill-doers anyway, it often needn't get to a very high level of cognitive dissonance.

That’s why you were taught all those invalid, emotion-based, pseudo-rational defenses against “evolutionists”.

Don't Darwinists do the same thing? And I'm only half kidding here, since I think a lot on our side are pretty much sticking with the "right side," rather than understanding the arguments. It's inevitable, probably, for a social species such as ours. My point, really, is that they typically see our rhetoric as "othering," illegitimately ruling out religious explanations (non-materialist explanations for IDiots), attacking creationism/ID for not being the Harvard answer, etc. And it's not altogether wrong, since we have no choice but to point out that "they" have a low chance of being right (we can't just argue the data, most people don't think that way), we do rule out religious explanations (actually, evidence-free explanations, religious explanations being only a subset of these--but they don't notice that because they're starting with religion, and can't see why anyone shouldn't), and yes, the elite institutions end up accepting the science, too bad. Unfortunately, since arguing these matters is a social interaction, it's easy for less knowledgeable people to focus on the propaganda (yes, we engage in it as well, but with a core of small-t truth, and we'd be happy to stick to dry, dispassionate expositions if those worked on very many people), atheists who argue illegitimately, and incorrect views of science as something that's supposed to be infallible by noting this or that (Piltdown Man!) which supposedly destroys evolutionism, yet intransigent atheists and their theistic lackeys won't accept such "facts."

There are a lot of elements there - ad hominem, they must be wrong because they are atheists and atheists are always wrong; false generalization (“they’re all atheists” when they aren’t); conspiracy hypothesis, and of course, a major dose of projection.

Yes, of course, but even though I wrote of "atheists," the typical other, it's not like there was no acknowledgement that theists accepted it, too. There were some things that could be used to make it look like life evolved, after all, like comparative anatomy, but a Common Designer explained it just as well--a superficially pleasing response that tended to undermine that argument for me well after I'd given up on creationism (a common designer might explain stylistic similarities, it hardly explains why a designer chose terrestrial forelimbs to modify into wings, when it might have chosen other wings--while evolution has to use the terrestrial forelimbs). And all of these kids were taught wrong, so of course even many theists end up accepting it (plausible response). Conspiracy theories? Well, wasn't the whole world a place of Satanic conspiracy? It didn't take a purported 9/11-type conspiracy to "explain" how sin and sinners preferred not to acknowledge God, or some such thing. Projection? What's super easy for those projecting is to assume that it's the others who are projecting. It's as simple as to say that it takes a lot of faith to think that something comes from nothing. Wrong (certainly with respect to biology), a caricature of evolutionary thought, and oblivious to the fact that their theism is about miracles, but it seems to appeal psychologically (probably even cognitively) to unsophisticated thinkers, those to whom creationism is pitched. The fact is that both sides do much the same things in order to promote their respective beliefs (understanding that "beliefs" mean very different things to science than to religion), except for one thing--we present good evidence (and we tell the truth, frequently, with respect to evidence, which the creationists/IDists can't and don't do). That makes all of the difference, yet for those who can't or don't deal with the evidence, everything else can be used to ignore it. And clearly, many opt to focus on everything else as an excuse to ignore the evidence. It's not that difficult for those who are told to be on their guard against "deception." Glen Davidson

harold · 13 February 2014

Glen Davidson - I completely agree with your comment.

Some most likely did, but, between natural human tendencies to protect one’s own ego and the tendency of religion to be “on guard” against deceivers and ill-doers anyway, it often needn’t get to a very high level of cognitive dissonance.

I need to clarify something here. Cognitive dissonance is mainly unconscious. People do experience it as a sensation of stress and emotional agitation. They don't usually experience it as a conscious "choosing this versus that" decision. They experience it when they have committed to one option, and something provokes discomfort with that option. I am NOT referring to a conscious thought "maybe those 'Darwinists' are right!". On the contrary, I am referring to the unconscious defenses that work overtime to prevent such a thought from being consciously experienced, to as much an extent as possible.

harold · 13 February 2014

Oops, meant to include this -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

harold · 13 February 2014

One final closing note.

I don't think there is any major disagreement here.

We all notice a seeming paradox. To put it bluntly, we all notice that creationists use the techniques of fraud and deception, yet while seeming to believe themselves.

Are they deliberate conscious con men, or are they completely sincere?

In my opinion, neither. They are just very, very biased, and reacting to challenges to their biases with pseudo-rational defenses.

The same techniques they use, are also used by real, completely conscious, calculating con men, but most creationists, even the ones who make money from their status, a not so much deliberate cons but badly biased.