Dave Thomas posted Entry 1646 on November 4, 2005 02:19 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1641

Mike Argento of the York Daily Record has a great column on Dover board member Bill Buckingham’s “Homer Simpson” moment at the Dover Kitzmiller v. DASD Trial, on October 27th.

Earlier this week, Family News In Focus interviewed Discovery Institute CRC Fellow Mark Hartwig about the Dover trial. Family News editor Pete Winn somehow missed seeing that Hartwig had a “D’Oh!” moment as well.

Here comes Homer (below the fold).

First, here’s Argento on Buckingham, from his Oct. 28th column:

Buckingham said he never read about his adventures on the school board in the newspapers and never talked to anyone about them. He also said he never mentioned creationism at school board meetings or in the press or anywhere, for that matter.
So at the time the board was talking about creationism, Buckingham granted an interview to a Fox 43 news reporter. I guess he forgot about that new-fangled invention, videotape.
On the tape, which you can see here, Buckingham, wearing the same lapel pin he wore in court Thursday, said he wanted to balance evolution in the classroom with something else, “such as creationism.”
Oops.
He said that the reporter “ambushed” him and that he was “like a deer in the headlights of a car” and that the newspapers were all reporting that he and the board were talking about creationism and that he thought to himself, “Don’t say creationism.”
Double oops.
It was like he had a Homer Simpson moment. He was thinking “Don’t say creationism. Don’t say creationism. Don’t say creationism.” And then he opens his yap and says “creationism.”
D’oh!

Oh, WWNFS? (What Would Ned Flanders Say?)

Moving on to the Family News interview, here’s DI’s Hartwig talking about Barbara Forrest’s Dover testimony:

The expert witness you mentioned, philosopher Barbara Forrest, is a longtime activist in the origins controversy. The bulk of her effort has gone toward trying to prove that ID is a “Trojan Horse” for sneaking fundamentalist religion into the public schools. Toward that end, she has been searching for any “incriminating” statements that ID proponents may have made at some point in their lives. Perhaps the most fitting term for this is “Borking.”
That’s where my article comes in. Her concern was not the substance of the article, which laid out the fundamentals of ID, but the way I described some of its major proponents. In some passages I referred to them as “Christians,” “Evangelicals” or “creationists.” And these were the “incriminating” passages Forrest highlighted for the court. Substance was apparently irrelevant.
Even worse, the article and the “incriminating” passages are taken out of context. Forrest claims that her work on ID is historical scholarship. But she missed things that should be no-brainers for genuine historians. For example, it never seemed to register that the article was written for a Christian magazine — a market that would naturally be interested in stories about Christians. And in fact, that was my assignment: to write about the latest trends in Christian thinking about origins.

I can’t sum up better than NM colleague Vance Bass already has:

Ha. That was a good one. He complains that he’s been misinterpreted and “Borked”, and that the substance of his article is ignored, then in the next breath he points out that ID is the latest trend in Christian thinking. Hey, dude, that’s exactly what Forrest was trying to show. Helllloooo?

Well said, Vance.

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 #55223

Posted by qetzal on November 4, 2005 3:20 PM (e)

This is your brain. This is your brain on ID.

Any questions?

Comment #55224

Posted by John on November 4, 2005 3:32 PM (e)

I fail to see the “D’oh” moment here. What Hartwig says is logical - his aim was to describe the current Christian thinking about origins, and here’s where Christian IDiots came into picture. It doesn’t mean or imply that ID is religious (it is religious for other reasons) or specifically Xian. It simply means that ID is compatible with Xianity.

Sorry, no cigar.

Comment #55225

Posted by Mike Syvanen on November 4, 2005 3:35 PM (e)

Just a little off topic but is there any organized efforts to boycott Domino’s Pizza. They are bankrolling this damn case

Comment #55227

Posted by Ed Darrell on November 4, 2005 3:49 PM (e)

Domino’s is paying for the case? Which side are they on? I mean, really – which side are they supporting? Much of the best stuff favoring the science side has come from the Thomas More Center’s defense.

(Actually, I think Thomas Monahan is the guy bankrolling the TMC, and I think he sold his last piece of Domino’s some time ago.)

Comment #55229

Posted by Aagcobb on November 4, 2005 3:56 PM (e)

Domino’s Pizza is such crap I can’t believe anyone still eats it; can you boycott something you wouldn’t buy anyway?

Comment #55232

Posted by Jeremy on November 4, 2005 4:08 PM (e)

Anybody with any sense defected to Papa John’s a LONG time ago. A boycott wouldn’t do anything.

Comment #55235

Posted by mark on November 4, 2005 4:29 PM (e)

As I understand it, some excellent recent evolution research is being conducted by people who consider themselves “Christian.” Hartwig seems to imply that “Christian” thinking about origins does not include any of this. Is it correct to conclude that someone from the Discovery Institute wrote an article that left out some relevant information or was somehow misleading?

Comment #55241

Posted by Tevildo on November 4, 2005 5:15 PM (e)

A-hem.

ID is _not_ compatible with true Christianity.

Exodus 20:16. “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour”.

Comment #55242

Posted by Dave Thomas on November 4, 2005 5:16 PM (e)

[Johnny Carson voice]I did not know that![/Johnny Carson voice]

But this page from the TMLC confirms:

Founded six years ago with seed money from conservative Catholic philanthropist Tom Monaghan, the Thomas More Law Center is named after the patron saint of lawyers. As Chancellor of England, More refused to condone the actions of King Henry VIII, who in seeking a divorce from Catherine of Aragon broke with the Catholic Church. Convicted of treason, More was executed in 1535 and is now regarded as a Catholic martyr.

Monaghan, who founded Domino’s Pizza, footed the law center’s operating costs for a number of years, shelling out as much as $1.5 million annually. Now the firm operates on its own at Domino’s Farms, supported by 50,000 donors, Thompson said.

Sounds like Monaghan/Domino’s is still supplying free rent, at least…

Comment #55248

Posted by mike Syvanen on November 4, 2005 5:56 PM (e)

can you boycott something you wouldn’t buy anyway?

Er that is a problem. I was hoping there was someone out here that ate the stuff.

Comment #55253

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 4, 2005 6:42 PM (e)

Just a little off topic but is there any organized efforts to boycott Domino’s Pizza. They are bankrolling this damn case

My pizza delivery boy says, “No —- the former owner of Domino’s is bankrolling the Thomas More Law Center. He has enough money now that he doesn’t need Domino’s any more.”

As for ID/DI, it has been, since the beginning, largely bankrolled by one guy, Howard Ahmanson. I’ve already posted plenty about him, but if any newbies missed it and want to know more, just say the word. Or Google “Howard Ahmanson Christian Reconstruction”.

It’ll scare the crap out of you.

Comment #55254

Posted by Andrew Mead McClure on November 4, 2005 6:44 PM (e)

I fail to see the “D’oh” moment here. What Hartwig says is logical - his aim was to describe the current Christian thinking about origins, and here’s where Christian IDiots came into picture. It doesn’t mean or imply that ID is religious (it is religious for other reasons) or specifically Xian. It simply means that ID is compatible with Xianity.

Really when it comes down to it I don’t see any conjunction of church and state that *couldn’t* be justified by this logic. Crosses aren’t religious or specifically Christian, they simply happen to be used by Christians. Talmudic kosher law isn’t Jewish, it just happens to be compatible with Jewish thinking.

Just because Christians talk about and perform baptisms doesn’t mean that baptism is an inherently Christian idea. It would be rediculous to claim that just because baptisms are promoted by some Christian churches, that the state shouldn’t be performing baptisms. What, next are we going to ban the Welfare system? After all, Christianity often talks about charity, and many charities are Christian. Does that mean the welfare system is a violation of church and state, since charity is a Christian concept? No, that’s rediculous. Charity is a secular concept that is coincidentally in line with Christian practice. Same with baptism. The state should be allowed, indeed encouraged, to perform the public service of baptisms, just like it is allowed to perform the public service of welfare.

What’s the secular purpose of a baptism, you ask? Oh, don’t worry about that. After the Alito confirmation is complete, I don’t think you’ll ever have to worry about that silly little “secular purpose” test ever again.

Comment #55255

Posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on November 4, 2005 6:46 PM (e)

Actually, I like Dominos pizza, but that’s only because I live 15 minutes from Dominos Farms and as a result, the ingredients are very fresh. I won’t eat it anywhere else, though.

Monaghan is definitely a creationist nut. But so are all the other good pizza joints in the area. Leaves me in a bit of a bind if I want to eat pizza.

Comment #55285

Posted by Ed Brayton on November 4, 2005 10:20 PM (e)

If he was doing an article on the latest in Christian thinking, and by that he only means what people who are Christians are thinking, about origins and the natural history of life on earth, why did he not include Ken Miller’s “Christian thinking” about origins? Or Howard Van Till’s? Or Francis Collins’? Or Keith Miller’s? Or any of the thousands of other Christians who advocate evolution and work in the field. By the same standard he claims to be determining “Christian thinking” - with the thinking being separate from the Christian - isn’t that also “Christian thinking”?

Comment #55288

Posted by Mike Plavcan on November 4, 2005 10:41 PM (e)

“I fail to see the “D’oh” moment here. What Hartwig says is logical - his aim was to describe the current Christian thinking about origins, and here’s where Christian IDiots came into picture. It doesn’t mean or imply that ID is religious (it is religious for other reasons) or specifically Xian. It simply means that ID is compatible with Xianity.”

C’mon! Fundamentalist evangelicals and religious conservatives invented it. It’s purpose is clearly stated as a support mechanism for those who believe that science challenges their belief that God has in some way created people. It has clearly been formulated to circumvent the separation of church and state. It is aggressively sold as a means to introduce God into public schools and undermine science. The fact that it is seriously discussed as a Christian topic clearly underscores this. Just because it is deliberately designed to be “compatible with Xianity” in no way detracts from the fact that it is designed for creationist Christians (of various flavors), as a topic of interest to Christians. The fact if its deliberate rhetorical utility should not be used to appologize for the reality of its origin and purpose.

Comment #55289

Posted by Zeno on November 4, 2005 10:43 PM (e)

There is a Simpsons episode in which Chief Wiggum and police officer Lou are conducting a stake-out in a car disguised with a pizza delivery sign on its roof. Wiggum says they won’t be disturbed. Lou asks what if their cover is blown by someone coming up to the car because he wants pizza. “I’m way ahead of you, Lou,” says Wiggum, and slaps a Domino’s sign on the side of the car. (I don’t think it actually said “Domino’s” on the sign, but it was quite recognizable.)

Comment #55293

Posted by Brian Ogilvie on November 4, 2005 11:12 PM (e)

Kevin–the only solution is to make it yourself! I recommend Mark Bittman, How to Cook Anything, for basic recipes. Easy and much better than Domino’s or any other delivery.

Comment #55315

Posted by Ron Okimoto on November 5, 2005 7:19 AM (e)

This is your brain. This is your brain on ID.

Any questions?

You forgot to make the allusion to eggs frying, but in the case of ID it would be water freezing. You can bring a beaker of water to 0 degrees C and then tap it on camera with a representative of the ID scam, like a Dembski doll, and it change phase to ice.

Comment #55319

Posted by Frank J on November 5, 2005 9:30 AM (e)

Mike Syvanen wrote:

Just a little off topic but is there any organized efforts to boycott Domino’s Pizza. They are bankrolling this damn case

I knew it! Lenny Flank’s pizza delivery boy was behind this all along. His is the “one true religion” you know. ;-)

Comment #55322

Posted by Freud wore a slip? on November 5, 2005 9:35 AM (e)

This may be old new here, but I just ran across “The Psychology of Christian Fundamentalism” here.

The author is a professor, which we know in itself proves nothing about the validity of his argument. but it’s a very interesting, if longish, read.

Comment #55331

Posted by JS on November 5, 2005 10:25 AM (e)

Looks to me like a Freudian hack. And ads in the sidebar aren’t encouraging either. Heck half of those titles would be considered far-out divorced-from-reality leftist propaganda in Scandinavia.

Why some psychologists still cling to Freud is beyond me… That guy was at least as much a fraud as the IDiots and Creationuts.

- JS

Comment #55453

Posted by the pro from dover on November 6, 2005 8:25 PM (e)

Finally there is a topic that both Lenny and his Pizza delivery boy can agree on which is What is the best delivery pizza? We have been boycottting Domino’s for many years because of their anti-choice stance although the owners of the local Domino’s protest that this isn’t their issue. Pizza hut can find our house but their pizza isnt very good. This leaves Blackjack and Papa johns. Ther’s also Nick’n’willys which requires some planning on our part which frequently is beyond our ken. Whats a working family to do?

Comment #55480

Posted by k.e. on November 7, 2005 3:19 AM (e)

Thanks Freud wore a slip for
http://www.counterpunch.org/davis01082005.html

The best exposition of the Fundamentalist mindset I’ve seen
They are indeed very sick puppies.

Read the endnotes if that doesn’t get you in nothing will

Freud has received some unwarrented PR but his main point was that we are all responsible for our own mindset.

He didn’t look into the mythic archetypes the same way Jung did or the “mind at large” that J. Campbell and Huxley did and so missed some important explanations for the human condition.

My favorite line :-

….the power of magical thinking to blow away inner reality

JS

you could have mentioned there were other references in the essay besides Freud

Kenneth Burke, Charles Strozier , Hegel, George W. Bush , Mel Gibson, Nietzsche, Falwell, Freud , Aristotle
Santayana,Jack Miles, Gorbachev, Saddam Hussein , Arafat , Bill Clinton, Islam, Bonhoeffer, Kafka, Milton,
Adam, Klein, Billy Graham, Oedipus, Keats, Ashcroft, Lacan , Wilfred Bion , James Watt, Gale Norton, Max Weber, Jim Jones ,David Koresh, Jimmy Swaggart ,Whitman ,Blake, Plato

Comment #55527

Posted by Lenny's Pizza Guy on November 7, 2005 2:39 PM (e)

Almost any community will have non-national franchise, locally-owned pizza restaurants that either makes timely deliveries or prepare pizza for pick-up. Visit the restaurants first to make an informed judgment on quality of ingredients and taste, then patronize the ones you like best.

Tell them Lenny’s Pizza Guy sent you. You may not get a discount, but the quizzical look will be, ahem, priceless.

If your community is utterly lacking in a free-standing pizza delivery business, please accept my deepest condolences…

Comment #56135

Posted by dooley on November 9, 2005 3:07 PM (e)

From the Davis article:

Fundamentalist readings of Revelations are an exercise in interpretive ingenuity in service to an ox-like stupidity. Every image in the text must be literalized and attached to a specific event or person. So that in the grandest feat of fundamentalist interpretation everything in Revelations squares with specific details of contemporary history. But of course this effort requires its own revisionism since this operation must be performed repeatedly, as it has been in America by fundamentalists since the 1840’s… In service to the fundamentalist dream: that grand day when it will all finally fall into place, no more disappointing prefigurements, but the real thing. The act of interpretation in such a framework is both mechanical and mad. The frantic search is always on for events that will tie down and confirm the bizarre images of Revelations since they provide the secret code to the meaning of history. Thus the fundamentalist as reader driven half-mad in the constant mental gymnastics required to puzzle the whole thing out then just as constantly revise the thing, as events dictate, with no way to stop playing this game.

Sounds like Dembski and ID to me.

Comment #56639

Posted by Mark Hartwig on November 11, 2005 7:08 PM (e)

John’s right: No cigar. When I write about “latest trends in Christian thinking about origins,” I’m writing about what Christians are thinking about origins. Hence the preceding unitalicized sentence: “For example, it never seemed to register that the article was written for a Christian magazine — a market that would naturally be interested in stories about Christians.” I guess this sentence didn’t register either, despite being included in the quotation.

With regard to statements about not mentioning other “notables” in the article, that is correct. It would have been redundant, given that they were the subject of its sister article and four sidebars.

Cheers