Reed A. Cartwright posted Entry 1220 on July 16, 2005 08:11 AM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1218

Some of you may recall that the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, publisher of the creationist textbook, Of Pandas and People, wants to intervene in the Dover, PA lawsuit to protect its intellectual property.  Their textbook is central to the case that the school board violated the separation of church and state.  In fact, the plaintiffs have subpoenaed FTE’s records about the textbook to help demonstrate its religious nature.

However, the publisher believes that their sales will be hurt if their textbook is found to be a leading cause of a first amendment violation.  Therefore, FTE is trying to intervene in the case to convince the court that its textbook is something other than what it is.

Yesterday, the York Dispatch reported on some developments in the case: “Textbook publisher wants to join lawsuit - Says company is not a religious organization”.

Buell said his organization is “not at all” Christian or religious in nature. But attorney Eric Rothschild with the Philadelphia-based law firm Pepper Hamilton pointed out that the not-for-profit organization’s Internal Revenue Service tax exemption form says their primary purpose is “promoting and publishing textbooks presenting a Christian perspective.”

Buell blamed the “error” on a new accountant who was “not even from the state of Texas.”

He said he had never seen the form until Rothschild pointed out that his initials were on the bottom of one page.

The organization’s Articles of Incorporation from the state of Texas also mention religion, Christianity and the Bible.

Buell blamed that on the attorney who filed the papers.

“So the accountant got it wrong and the attorney got it wrong?” Rothschild asked.

“That’s true,” Buell said.

Rothschild also brought forth several other examples of the foundation’s possible religious ties, including an early draft of the book, which in its infant stages was titled “Biology of Origins.”

The draft mentioned “creationism” frequently. But in the final copy of the book, after the title was changed, the word creationism was replaced with the phrase “intelligent design.”

Buell said the word creationism was a “placeholder term.” The definition of creationism changed to include a religious context after the draft was written, so the writers changed the word, he said.

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #38254

Posted by JohnK on July 16, 2005 8:40 AM (e)

“Creationism” = “placeholder term”. LOL.

Comment #38255

Posted by qetzal on July 16, 2005 9:01 AM (e)

Lying for Jesus. Halleluiah!

Comment #38256

Posted by Hiero5ant on July 16, 2005 9:22 AM (e)

Evangelical creationists can’t be blamed for their complete lack of morals – after all, once gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, the whole moral fabric of the country fell apart, just like they warned.

So, following in the footsteps of another protean creationist organization, they can drop the “E” from their name. And given the content of their miserable texbook, the “T” should probably go, too. The remainder of their name will thus be ripe for a lawsuit by the estate of Isaac Asimov, thereby proving that great minds can wreak vengeance even from beyond the grave.

Comment #38257

Posted by Engineer-Poet on July 16, 2005 9:48 AM (e)

Between Car Talk and Hiero5ant I’ve just scored my first belly laugh of the day.

Comment #38259

Posted by Stan Gosnell on July 16, 2005 10:40 AM (e)

The words ‘perjury’ and ‘tax evasion’ come to mind…

Comment #38260

Posted by Brian on July 16, 2005 11:02 AM (e)

Oh wow. Here’s a place holder- liar.

Comment #38262

Posted by SEF on July 16, 2005 11:10 AM (e)

they can drop the “E” … the “T” should probably go, too

Hmm… Foundation for hought and thics. ;-) I favour a couple of substitution and insertion mutations as well as those deletion ones: Foundation for Haught and Thicks.

Comment #38263

Posted by pough on July 16, 2005 11:30 AM (e)

“Foundation for Thought and Hics”

Comment #38264

Posted by Tim on July 16, 2005 11:44 AM (e)

For anyone who has seen Austin Powers, I am reminded of the Swedish-made penis enlarger pump sequence from the beginning. I can’t believe this guy is serious, and I still can’t stop laughing. Wow.

Comment #38265

Posted by bill on July 16, 2005 11:50 AM (e)

Well, well, well. What have we here? Someone thinks the judge is an idiot. As an officer in my own company it is I who am responsible for the name of the company, tax status and all that. Lawyers and CPA’s do the heavy lifting, but it is my signature on the bottom line. I’m responsible.

And as Founder and President of FTE, Jon Buell is responsible.

So, that makes Mr. Buell a big fat liar, don’t it? Of course, from the YDR report I have no indication that Jon is either big or fat.

Comment #38266

Posted by Hick on July 16, 2005 11:53 AM (e)

Hey, don’t knock the hicks, I was one once. The real problem is in the suburbs anyway.

Rather, keep your eye on the ball. Remember what Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture Associate Director John G. West told us back in 2002, in “Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren’t the Same“:

Recent news accounts about controversies over evolution in Ohio and Georgia have contained references to the scientific theory of “intelligent design.” Some advocates of Darwinian evolution try to conflate “intelligent design” (ID) with “creationism,” sometimes using the term “intelligent design creationism.” (1) In fact, intelligent design is quite different from “creationism,” as even some of its critics have acknowledged. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he “agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID movement.” Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to identify ID with creationism?

Leaving aside whether or not Numbers was being accurately represented here (I have my doubts), if it turns out that Of Pandas and People, the very first book that used the term “intelligent design” consistently, originally said “creationism” instead, as this news article reports:

Rothschild also brought forth several other examples of the foundation’s possible religious ties, including an early draft of the book, which in its infant stages was titled “Biology of Origins.”

The draft mentioned “creationism” frequently. But in the final copy of the book, after the title was changed, the word creationism was replaced with the phrase “intelligent design.”

Buell said the word creationism was a “placeholder term.” The definition of creationism changed to include a religious context after the draft was written, so the writers changed the word, he said.

…then it means that those evil conspiratorial paranoid Darwinists were, in fact, precisely right all along, and “intelligent design” really is just creationism with a new name, in a very literal sense.

Comment #38271

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on July 16, 2005 12:52 PM (e)

Buell said the word creationism was a “placeholder term.” The definition of creationism changed to include a religious context after the draft was written, so the writers changed the word, he said.

Oops, what Buell MEANT to say was that the courts ruled that creationism was nothing but religious doctrine and was illegal to teach, after the draft was written, so the writers changed the word in their, uh, “textbook” to avoid and evade that legal ruling.

This is the sorriest and stupidest load of cow cakes that I’ve ever heard from a fundie. And I’ve heard lots. PLEASE put this guy on the stand. PLEASE PLEASE.

The nutters certainly do seem awfully determined to lose this case, don’t they …. .

Ah, as I’ve always said … let a fundie talk long enough, and he’ll always shoot himself in the head, every single time. They are by far their own worst enemies.

Comment #38272

Posted by Arden Chatfield on July 16, 2005 12:57 PM (e)

As hilarious as this is, as long as there are creationists this friggin stupid, science still has a chance.

Comment #38273

Posted by Moses on July 16, 2005 12:58 PM (e)

The draft mentioned “creationism” frequently. But in the final copy of the book, after the title was changed, the word creationism was replaced with the phrase “intelligent design.”

Buell said the word creationism was a “placeholder term.” The definition of creationism changed to include a religious context after the draft was written, so the writers changed the word, he said.

lol… They are their own worst enemies.

Comment #38274

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on July 16, 2005 1:02 PM (e)

Buell said his organization is “not at all” Christian or religious in nature. But attorney Eric Rothschild with the Philadelphia-based law firm Pepper Hamilton pointed out that the not-for-profit organization’s Internal Revenue Service tax exemption form says their primary purpose is “promoting and publishing textbooks presenting a Christian perspective.”

Odd, isn’t it, that Buell is willing to confess to what may very well be tax evasion and fraud, in order to, uh, “help” the IDers in court …

Since FTE isn’t a charitable religious group after all, I’m quite sure that Buell wouldn’t mind, then, if the IRS were to yank his tax-exempt status and take a cut for Uncle Sam from all these “science textbooks” …. along with all those back-taxes.

Right?

Comment #38275

Posted by shiva on July 16, 2005 1:15 PM (e)

Teachers wouldn’t want to buy the book, and scientists and authors wouldn’t want to work with the group to create books in the future, he said.>>

Correction - no self respecting teacher or scientist would want to be caught dead with such bilge.

Liar, liar, pants on fire!

Wonder what the leading lights of IDoC are doing when one of their own is being taken apart in Court. Phil Johnson isn’t to be seen around. Wells is busy spinning a yarn as usual that even he must find diffiocult to read with a straight face. And Bill D mustbe scratching his head and summoning his flunkies to go forth and battle once again. Hey Sal where are you?

Comment #38276

Posted by Moses on July 16, 2005 1:17 PM (e)

One more thing. Having filled out the Form 1023 Application for Recognition of Exemption under Section 501©(3) of the Internal Revenue Code for many educational and religious organizations, you (as the accountant) don’t make the decisions to the nature of the organization.

In fact, what you do is fill out a form (F-1023) that POINTS TO AREAS OF THE CHARTER (Organizing Article) that are germane for the IRS to use in determining exemption status. As the accountant, you don’t make anything up, nor do you make decisions. You simply refer to parts of the pre-existing charter.

There is NO WAY the “accountant” could have made a “mistake” to the nature of the organization. His answer MUST COME DIRECTLY FROM THE CHARTER AND REFER TO THE PAGE and PARAGRAPH(s) from which his answer is taken. In fact, the best way to look at the application is to realize it’s just a reference form to help the IRS navigate the Charter.

There is other stuff on the form. But that’s to prevent phoney charitiable organizations, like “The Church of Moses” to which I donate half my earnings to myself… And is, otherwise, not relevant to this discussion.

Comment #38277

Posted by Moses on July 16, 2005 1:24 PM (e)

Buell blamed the “error” on a new accountant who was “not even from the state of Texas.”

Another thing. THis is a ****ing FEDERAL ISSUE!!! It has NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY STATE. Who cares where the accountant was from. It’s irrelevant!

He could be licensed in any State or US Territory and prepare that form. Heck, he could prepare the form and not be licensed at all.

Arrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggggggg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I HATE IT when people blame the accountant for their own mendacity.

Comment #38280

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on July 16, 2005 2:01 PM (e)

Correction - no self respecting teacher or scientist would want to be caught dead with such bilge.

I’ve got my copy right here, want to see it? Now when the topic comes up, I can say “Yes, I’ve read it, and boy does it stink. It’s chock full of really really bad science, such as here and here and here, and any school board member who recommends it for use is demonstrating their incompetence”.

I will say that I am proud to have purchased it at a used book sale, so none of my funds went to the authors or publishers.

Comment #38282

Posted by Ed Darrell on July 16, 2005 3:33 PM (e)

So, Buell is arguing that his book isn’t trying to advance religion, that it’s bad just becaause his writers and editors are incompetent?

BTW, it’s not necessary to be a religious group to get a 501©(3). But I cannot imagine why anyone would not state the real reasons they wished to be thought of as an educational organization in talking to the IRS.

Comment #38283

Posted by mark duigon on July 16, 2005 3:34 PM (e)

Most notable quotes:

“Buell blamed…”
followed by
“Buell blamed…”

Why are these remarkable? Because Buell wants to claim his organization is not religious in nature; so first a new accountant was responsible for the IRS tax-exemption form stating their primary purpose is “promoting and publishing textbooks presenting a Christian perspective,” and second, the attorney who filed papers for Articles of Incorporation mistakenly mentioned religion.

Those zany Creationists–they do seem to have difficulty handling truth and responsibility.

Comment #38285

Posted by Hick on July 16, 2005 4:08 PM (e)

Looks like FTE wasn’t happy about giving up a drafts of Pandas: Denyse O’Leary at Post-Darwinist has put up an angry fundraising letter from FTE: Publisher compelled to turn over manuscript of ID-friendly textbook.

Comment #38287

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on July 16, 2005 4:46 PM (e)

Hick wrote:

Looks like FTE wasn’t happy about giving up a drafts of Pandas: Denyse O’Leary at Post-Darwinist has put up an angry fundraising letter from FTE: Publisher compelled to turn over manuscript of ID-friendly textbook.

From O’Leary’s blog:

Somehow, I don’t think carpet-bombing will work. I predict a showdown instead, between the ID theorists and groups that have clearly begun to act as enemies of the open society.

Hoo boy, check it out! Because the NCSE and the ACLU asked for drafts of a book they are labeled “enemies of an open society” by someone who wants to have their religious views taught in public schools and stamped as ‘official science’. I feel like I’m reading 1984 again.

BTW, having read Of Pandas amd People, I can say that it obvious that the word Creationists was ripped out and replaced with Intelligent design advocates.

Comment #38288

Posted by bill on July 16, 2005 4:46 PM (e)

I have a difficult time following Denyse O’Leary’s blog because it’s so poorly written.

What does she do for a job anyway?

Comment #38289

Posted by darwinfinch on July 16, 2005 4:51 PM (e)

Rememeber MP&TFC’s skit “Upper Class Twit of the Year Competition”? A nice sequel could now be done, pitting the American Creationist community against those simple twits of the U.K. As in the original version, none would survive, which would be terrically funny.

Comment #38291

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on July 16, 2005 5:44 PM (e)

I think now that the original manuscript has been handed over and ID is being exposed all over by the media, they are now in the deepest hottest water they could ever find themselves in.

I wouldn’t want to be Dembski et al.

Comment #38292

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on July 16, 2005 5:45 PM (e)

Incidently, since when did Creationists EVER have any credibility?

Comment #38293

Posted by RBH on July 16, 2005 5:59 PM (e)

Bill remarked

I have a difficult time following Denyse O’Leary’s blog because it’s so poorly written.

What does she do for a job anyway?

According to this entry on ARN and other sources, she’s a journalist. (!)

RBH

Comment #38296

Posted by bill on July 16, 2005 6:48 PM (e)

RBH,

Unemployed, I assume.

Or, perhaps, unemployable.

Comment #38300

Posted by Ron Zeno on July 16, 2005 8:51 PM (e)

I guess Buell couldn’t figure out how to use the excuse that it was an “early fundraising proposal” ;)

Comment #38302

Posted by jpf on July 16, 2005 8:59 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'url'

Comment #38303

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on July 16, 2005 9:06 PM (e)

RBH wrote:

According to this entry on ARN and other sources, she’s a journalist. (!)

Anyone can call themselves a “Christian”. That state of affairs led G.K. Chesterton to the witticism, “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.”

Anyone can call themselves a “journalist”.

Whether the person doing the self-proclamation in either case actually fits the bill must be judged on their actions.

Journalists are only rarely domain experts. A journalist on the track of the story, though, isn’t satisfied with the realization that they don’t know what’s going on; they take steps to get the story from those who are likely to know what’s going on. That’s one thing that separates journalists from smug ignoramuses.

Comment #38310

Posted by natural cynic on July 16, 2005 10:41 PM (e)

Following the original quotes from Buell - did the cock crow three times?

Raise your hands if you get it.

Comment #38311

Posted by RBH on July 16, 2005 11:09 PM (e)

Hand up. (I was raised evangelical.)

RBH

Comment #38312

Posted by Don on July 16, 2005 11:40 PM (e)

Wasn’t it three denials before the cock crowing twice? But if you transposed the two intentionally, then, Hand Up, I get it. :-)

Oh, and about this:

Wonder what the leading lights of IDoC are doing when one of their own is being taken apart in Court. Phil Johnson isn’t to be seen around. Wells is busy spinning a yarn as usual that even he must find diffiocult to read with a straight face. And Bill D mustbe scratching his head and summoning his flunkies to go forth and battle once again. Hey Sal where are you?

And hey, Bill Dembski, how’s that “Vice Strategy” coming along? What was that again? Something about how you can’t wait to see how scientists squirm when they’re up on the stand in a “real” trial? That vice of truth seems to be clarifying everything just fine in Dover, eh?

Comment #38313

Posted by Air Bear on July 16, 2005 11:58 PM (e)

Another hand up. I, too was raised by evangelicals.

BTW, many early Christian saints chose martyrdom rather than deny their faith.

Comment #38314

Posted by Air Bear on July 17, 2005 12:02 AM (e)

mark duigon wrote:

Those zany Creationists–they do seem to have difficulty handling truth and responsibility.

You can see the same thing among their counterparts in the secular political realm.

Comment #38319

Posted by Steve J. on July 17, 2005 1:28 AM (e)

Teaching Darwin splits Pennsylvania town
3/27/05
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1548&ncid=1548&e=1&u=/afp/20050327/lf_afp/uspoliticsreligion

But pastor and parent Ray Mummert, 54, explained their point. “If we continue to indoctrinate our young people with non-religious principles, we’re headed for an internal destruction of this society,” he said. “Evolution is just a theory and there are other theories,” Mummert explained, smiling through his beard.

“We’ve been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture,” he said, adding that the school board’s declaration is just a first step.

:-)

Comment #38320

Posted by Ed Darrell on July 17, 2005 2:33 AM (e)

jpf said: I went to the FTE website (linked to in the O’Leary post) to see if they made any mention of their religious affiliation, since that’s in question here. Of course, their site is clean of any “Christian perspective” talk.

FTE hasn’t purged it’s site of everything relating to Christianity yet. They still have a link to the transcripts of the 1992 SMU conference they cosponsored with the C. S. Lewis Society (a Christian group)and Dallas Christian Leadership, which gave rise to the public relations campaign spreading “intelligent design,” and, if I recall correctly, the Wedge Document, which laid out the p.r. campaign upon which the Discovery Institute relies.

And the exploration of the other books offered suggests the difficulty. They offer a revisionist history text disowning the influences on the founding of the U.S. expressed by the Supreme Court’s and the U.S. House of Representatives’ respective bas relief tableaus of the influences on U.S. law, stressing instead tenuous links to Christianity. And they offer a sex education book.

Disowning evolution, disowning U.S. history, and sex education – three of the favorite activities of the most radical and militant far end of the spectrum of Christian ideas unshared by scientists, historians, educators and parents.

(An earlier poster suggested dropping the “T” and “E” from FTE – looking at this stable of books, perhaps the “F” should be dropped, too, except as the prepositional and actually intended victim of “Sledgehammer at.”)

Comment #38321

Posted by RBH on July 17, 2005 2:58 AM (e)

Ed Darrell wrote

FTE hasn’t purged it’s site of everything relating to Christianity yet. They still have a link to the transcripts of the 1992 SMU conference they cosponsored with the C. S. Lewis Society (a Christian group)and Dallas Christian Leadership, which gave rise to the public relations campaign spreading “intelligent design,” and, if I recall correctly, the Wedge Document, which laid out the p.r. campaign upon which the Discovery Institute relies.

Interestingly, FTE has blocked the Wayback Machine from archiving past incarnations of its site. Denial sure comes easy to some folks.

RBH

Comment #38322

Posted by SEF on July 17, 2005 3:19 AM (e)

FTE’s pages don’t load very well for me at all. However, after repeated page not found messages I did manage to get both the about and the root pages to load. “about” is pretty much condemned by having Dembski on it (unless someone has ever seen a decent site anywhere which would want Dembski on it), though the others could still just be gullible fools. However, the main page with its “Symposium on Darwinism” clinches it. No-one who isn’t part of the ID/creationist reality-denying brigade (or a willing dupe of them) refers to Darwinism (other than to point out those religionists who do of course!).

Darwinism
dated 1992

Comment #38323

Posted by RBH on July 17, 2005 3:27 AM (e)

Some early FTE resources:

1. A 1990 NCSE analysis. Quotes from Buell’s application for 501©3 status in which Buell characterizes FTE as a “Christian think-tank”.

2. The Proceedings of the 1992 SMU conference Ed Darrell mentioned.

3. An advertisement for a 1994 Buell co-authored book under the general heading “An Introduction to the Task of Intergrating the Christian Faith into the Academic Disciplnes”.

More recent resources:

4. An entry in Focus on the Family’s list of “related web sites”.

5. Of Pandas and People on Creation Answers’ Creationism Resources List.

RBH

Comment #38337

Posted by ts on July 17, 2005 8:14 AM (e)

The definition of creationism changed to include a religious context after the draft was written, so the writers changed the word, he said.

He should have been asked to present a dictionary with this prior definition.

Comment #38338

Posted by ts on July 17, 2005 8:17 AM (e)

“We’ve been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture”

Fancy that.

Comment #38342

Posted by ts on July 17, 2005 8:32 AM (e)

As hilarious as this is, as long as there are creationists this friggin stupid, science still has a chance.

Science has a chance because it is an effective means of obtaining knowledge, making accurate predictions, and building mechanisms that work; our society depends upon it. It doesn’t depend upon the stupidity of creationists. American technical dominance, however, is at risk.

Comment #38357

Posted by Ediacaran on July 17, 2005 10:00 AM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'b'

Comment #38358

Posted by Pierce R. Butler on July 17, 2005 10:24 AM (e)

No-one who isn’t part of the ID/creationist reality-denying brigade (or a willing dupe of them) refers to Darwinism (other than to point out those religionists who do of course!).

Richard Dawkins speaks regularly of Darwinism, and describes himself as a Darwinian: see for example
this 2004 article from Free Inquiry:

But that’s not good Darwinism, because the dominance hierarchy is a group-level phenomenon.

Comment #38359

Posted by bill on July 17, 2005 10:57 AM (e)

Buell would have better luck raising money if he claimed he was a Nigerian Treasury Minister.

Comment #38360

Posted by Jason on July 17, 2005 11:35 AM (e)

There is no greater feeling for a lawyer than to realize that the guy talking to you doesn’t realize that he knows you’re lying. You can dig him a huge pit and he will gladly leap into it. The choices are clear: admit you’re a fraud or admit your books are Christian religious books. They never would have gotten themselves in this bind if they were the tiniest bit honest.

Comment #38369

Posted by qetzal on July 17, 2005 12:37 PM (e)

But it’s OK for them to lie, Jason. They’re lying for Jesus, so God will protect them….

Comment #38370

Posted by SEF on July 17, 2005 12:39 PM (e)

Pierce R. Butler, that linked page is dated 2005 and has no mention of “Darwinism” or even “Dawkins” on it. Perhaps you meant something else instead.

Comment #38387

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on July 17, 2005 2:30 PM (e)

They want the High Court to declare that it is “religion,” thus insuring that no public school student will be allowed to learn about the subject.

Except perhaps in a course on comparative religions or religious history.

The NCSE has kept a file on FTE for decades. It is this vigilante-style advocacy group out of Berkeley, CA that instigated the attempt to censor these books, and militantly opposes even the most basic freedoms for proponents of intelligent design.

Vigilante-style? How about even one example to back up that assertion. In the current situation, he is complaining about legal moves, which are the very anti-thesis of vigilantism. What are these ‘most basic freedoms’ Buell seeks to protect? Do they include the right to perjure oneself?

Comment #38389

Posted by Dave Carlson on July 17, 2005 2:50 PM (e)

SEF -

I don’t have a link for you on-hand, but I’ve seen Dawkins, Gould and Mayr all speak of “Darwinism.”

Comment #38429

Posted by Pierce R. Butler on July 17, 2005 7:16 PM (e)

… that linked page is dated 2005 and has no mention of “Darwinism” or even “Dawkins” on it. Perhaps you meant something else instead.

That was the URL the Dawkins article, “What Use Is Religion?”, was found on when I copied the whole article into my archives in August of ‘04; fwiw, it was (according to said archive) “from Free Inquiry magazine http://www.secularhumanism.org/fi/index.htm>, Volume 24, Number 5.”
Email me directly if you would like the entire text.

Comment #38431

Posted by Pierce R. Butler on July 17, 2005 7:19 PM (e)

Oops, I overlooked that this board does not display email addresses as such. The offer stands, for those who query via pbutler[at]igc.org.

Comment #38432

Posted by Pierce R. Butler on July 17, 2005 7:25 PM (e)

Oops again: try http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_24_5.htm

Comment #38459

Posted by Arden Chatfield on July 18, 2005 2:51 AM (e)

Vigilante-style? How about even one example to back up that assertion. In the current situation, he is complaining about legal moves, which are the very anti-thesis of vigilantism. What are these ‘most basic freedoms’ Buell seeks to protect? Do they include the right to perjure oneself?

You know how fundies are. They just love fantasizing about how persecuted they are.

Comment #38460

Posted by SEF on July 18, 2005 3:13 AM (e)

OK I see Dawkins using “Darwinian” now. It becomes more obvious further on that he’s not using it to mean a religion (even contrasts all religion to Darwinism though as an object of study) but for a method/framework of thought or of posing/answering questions (and as such might be seen as analagous to Platonic ;-) or Aristotlean or Newtonian) but I do still find it ill-advised and even offensive, since Darwin wasn’t really the first or only person to be thinking that way - more the most publicised. I thought Dawkins might be playing up to the ID/creationists but I suppose now that he couldn’t come up with a more elegant and instantly recognisable/comprehensible alternative, eg referring to evolutionary thinking would set off wrong associations too.

Comment #38512

Posted by Pierce R. Butler on July 18, 2005 3:45 PM (e)

I suppose now that he couldn’t come up with a more elegant and instantly recognisable/comprehensible alternative, eg referring to evolutionary thinking would set off wrong associations too.

“Evolutionism”? Pure creationist-speak. “Natural selectionism” just doesn’t make it past the focus groups, either. “Scientism” is already spoken for, and a good thing, too.

Steveism?

Comment #38523

Posted by ts on July 18, 2005 5:25 PM (e)

OK I see Dawkins using “Darwinian” now. It becomes more obvious further on that he’s not using it to mean a religion (even contrasts all religion to Darwinism though as an object of study) …

None of this is relevant, because you claimed that

No-one who isn’t part of the ID/creationist reality-denying brigade (or a willing dupe of them) refers to Darwinism (other than to point out those religionists who do of course!).

and your claim has been shown to be false. Don’t act like the IDists (as common as it is to do so here); buck up and admit you were wrong, instead of rationalizing.

Comment #38526

Posted by Alan on July 18, 2005 5:41 PM (e)

It’s a fair cop, SEF

Comment #38539

Posted by ts on July 18, 2005 7:11 PM (e)

Here’s the first google hit for “Darwinism”, which should be a final nail in that plank. Denizens of PT would do well to stop claiming that only creationists use the term, when even Ernst Mayr treats “Darwinism” as a synonym for “Darwin’s theory”, “Darwin’s conceptual framework of evolution”, and “Darwin’s evolutionary paradigm”:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html

Comment #38540

Posted by ts on July 18, 2005 7:15 PM (e)

Another good page on Darwinism:

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

Darwinism is a term used for various processes related to the ideas of Charles Darwin, particularly concerning evolution and natural selection. Darwinism in this sense is not synonymous with evolution, but rather with evolution by natural selection. Modern biology suggests a number of other mechanisms involved in evolution which were unknown to Darwin, such as genetic drift.

Also, Darwinism may be used to contrast it with other, discredited mechanisms of evolution that were historically thought possible, such as Lamarckism or mutationism.

Comment #38543

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on July 18, 2005 7:25 PM (e)

However, scientists rarely use the term “Darwinism” to refer to the science of evolution (evolutionary biology) or atheism as creationists always use the term.

The usage of the terms “Darwinism” and especially “neo-Darwinism” when the term “evolutionary biology” should be used is a hallmark of creationism.

Comment #38547

Posted by Flint on July 18, 2005 7:38 PM (e)

It’s usually but not always evident from context whether “Darwinism” is being used in the sense of relative reproductive success and when it is used as another “ism” ideology. Even the term “macroevolution” isn’t always a giveaway; I’ve seen it used in entirely scientific treatments. Where the DI excels is in carefully fudging and blurring these lines, so as to manage these terms as though they were science in their proximate usage, but ideological by implication. Words having specific meanings are the DI’s enemy and target.

Comment #38549

Posted by ts on July 18, 2005 7:47 PM (e)

The usage of the terms “Darwinism” and especially “neo-Darwinism” when the term “evolutionary biology” should be used is a hallmark of creationism.

Much as you may want it to be, it’s not when people like Mayr, Dawkins, and Dennett (25 page references in DDI) use it.

Words having specific meanings are the DI’s enemy and target.

Quite so. I think we would do better not to let the creationists turn Darwinxxx into a dirty word.

Comment #38558

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on July 18, 2005 8:33 PM (e)

You know how fundies are. They just love fantasizing about how persecuted they are.

It’s part of that massive martyr complex they all have.

Comment #38639

Posted by EmmaPeel on July 19, 2005 1:53 PM (e)

Teaching Darwin splits Pennsylvania town
3/27/05
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1548&ncid=15…

But pastor and parent Ray Mummert, 54, explained their point. “If we continue to indoctrinate our young people with non-religious principles, we’re headed for an internal destruction of this society,” he said. “Evolution is just a theory and there are other theories,” Mummert explained, smiling through his beard.

We’ve been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture,” he said, adding that the school board’s declaration is just a first step.

BTW, this article rolled off Yahoo, but Creation/Evolution: The Eternal Debate still has it cached for all eternity. (3517 cached articles & growing!)