Nick Matzke posted Entry 2246 on April 27, 2006 08:39 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2241

Over on the DI’s new Declaring-Victory-in-Superficial-Public-Debates-Where-No-Federal-Judges-are- -Present-to-Enforce-Actual-Rules-of-Evidence-and-Keep-You-Honest blog, Bruce Chapman highlights a news story on a recent debate at North Carolina State University. Describing the four-person panel, Chapman writes,

North Carolina State University has shown, however, that the topic can be debated with the fairness and civility that ought to characterize academic discussions. On Thursday, April 20, before a crowd of some 200 people, a biologist and philosopher defended intelligent design, and a biologist and philosopher defended Darwinism.

The articles says that the two ID defenders were “Gerald Van Dyke, an NCSU botany professor, and Robert Hambourger, an NCSU associate professor of philosophy.” I was pretty sure I had heard of pretty much all publicly speaking ID supporters who had something resembling a biology PhD – it is easy to remember them, because it is a very short list. So who was this Gerald Van Dyke guy? It turns out he is indeed an honest-to-goodness Professor of Mycology at NCSU. He works on pathogenic fungi that attack agricultural crops.

Even though I didn’t remember him specifically, he seemed familiar for some reason.

A little googling turned up something on a draft page for the McLean vs. Arkansas Documentation Project, which is a website Wes Elsberry runs that accumulates the dispersed and hard-to-find records from the famous 1981 case that debunked “creation science”, McLean v. Arkansas. Google hit a PDF called “Defendants’ Second List of Witnesses”. This was a document declaring prospective expert witnesses for the creation scientists:

DEFENDANTS’ SECOND LIST OF WITNESSES

Pursuant to the Court’s instruction, Defendants submit the balance of witnesses whom they presently contemplate calling at trial. A brief description of the subject matter of each person’s testimony is also provided. In addition, each of the defendant’s scientific witnesses will testify as to what is and what is not science. In the event that additional subject areas are to be discussed by a witness at trial, defendants will notify plaintiffs’ counsel so as to ensure that counsel may adequately prepare for such testimony. Further, defendants reserve the right to supplement this list, and, if necessary, to delete one or more witnesses altogether.

The list is a who’s-who of creation science – for example, it includes ICR and CRS stalwarts such as John Moore (proposed witness #2), Larry Vardiman (#6), Wayne Frair (#12), and an old-earth creationist theologian, Norman Geisler (#16), who went on to fame in the case when he testified under oath that UFO’s were real, but they were sent by Satan. It also includes Edward Boudreaux (#3), a Louisiana chemist who testified in favor of the Louisiana bill mandating Equal Time for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science, and who was cited multiple times in the Supreme Court’s Edwards v. Aguillard decision to show that this “creation science” stuff really was fundamentally a specific religious view.

And guess who happens to be witness #10:

10. Dr. Gerald Van Dyke.

Dr. Van Dyke has studied extensively in the area of mycology fungi. He will discuss the results of his studies which show a lack of evidence for the evolution-science model in this area. Dr. Van Dyke received his Ph.D. in Plant Pathology from the University of Illinois. He is currently an Associated Professor of Botany and Plant Pathology at North Carolina State University. He has written extensively in the field of mycology fungi.

For a bit more, see here and here. It’s funny where these “intelligent design” proponents come from, no?

PS: Also make sure you see Ed Brayton’s post on the University of Oklahoma IDEA club, which between August 18, 2003 and October 5, 2003 changed from being the Creation Science Society into the Intelligent Design & Evolution Awareness Club. As they cheerfully explained on this archived homepage:

IDEA Club - Welcome to the University of Oklahoma IDEA Club website! We are no longer the Creation Science Society. Our new name is Intelligent Design & Evolution Awareness Club. That's IDEA Club for short!

Aw, isn’t that cute? It’s like the birth of intelligent design in miniature!

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 #98948

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 27, 2006 9:57 PM (e)

But ID isn’t creationism. No sirree Bob.

(snicker) (giggle)

Comment #98950

Posted by steve s on April 27, 2006 10:17 PM (e)

I’m a recent NCSU grad, and member of the ACLU in NC, I can tell you, there’s nothing to see here. There are some creationists in the Ag departments. Nothing unusual there. In fact, there’s some pretty badass research being done in support of evolution here.

Comment #98951

Posted by Jason on April 27, 2006 10:31 PM (e)

Damn, this is damning.

Comment #98952

Posted by Nick Matzke on April 27, 2006 10:43 PM (e)

And no, the “field of mycology fungi” in that list of witnesses doesn’t exactly make sense.

Comment #98954

Posted by Popper's Ghost on April 27, 2006 10:47 PM (e)

It’s funny where these “intelligent design” proponents come from, no?

Somewhere dank and dark?

Comment #98960

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on April 27, 2006 11:46 PM (e)

Gerald Van Dyke is also a director of the Triangle Association for the Science of Creation.

Comment #98968

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on April 28, 2006 1:12 AM (e)

I guess it just remains to be seen whether the DI takes official notice of the April 25th debate between Dr. Ray Bohlin and me at Southern Methodist University. The debate question was, “Should intelligent design be taught as science in public schools?” I took the negative. Dr. Bohlin’s positive, though, was a conditional, “Yes, but not yet.” Dr. Bohlin expects ID to become something worthy of being taught in public schools, but he was not going to make a defense of efforts to insert it now into public school curricula.

Comment #98997

Posted by Frank J on April 28, 2006 5:44 AM (e)

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:

But ID isn’t creationism. No sirree Bob.

Broken record time:

Whatever one wants to call the various anti-evolution strategies, the connection was well established by the time of Robert Pennock’s “Tower of Babel” (1999). New discoveries like the “Pandas” drafts and the IDEA sign, are just more “fossils” to support an already well-established “theory.” And yet, like the sensationalist media does with evolution, we keep treating it like news.

Given that we are competing against the masters of spin, simply saying “ID ‘is’ creationism,” much like saying “humans ‘are’ apes,” without clarifying, actually helps the anti-evolution scammers.

The ID-creationism connection is established, the reason to withhold the designer’s identity is well documented. But none of that explains the increasing “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach to what the designer did other than “macroevolution.” For that, the only reasonable explanation is that IDers, and probably most leading classic creationists, know that there is no other answer.

Comment #99035

Posted by wad of id on April 28, 2006 8:19 AM (e)

I love how Creationists simply can’t stop themselves drifting from science to apologetics in anything train of though. Which is why I find it terribly amusing to learn Creationists are now beginning to see that ID is simply not Christian enough for them. For once, banking on the ignorance of the masses backfires in a major way.

Comment #99048

Posted by Unsympathetic reader on April 28, 2006 9:18 AM (e)

Here’s a fun whopper from the Triangle Association for the Science of Creation.

The facts seem to indicate that UFOs are in reality intent on discrediting the only one that can really save this planet, the Lord Jesus Christ. No matter what some created creature from another planet or dimension may say, Jesus is Lord, and any spirit or being who does not reinforce this truth is not of God.

Wow! What a bunch of whackos.

Comment #99050

Posted by Erasmus on April 28, 2006 9:46 AM (e)

Also a recent grad of NCSU, I sat through Van Dykes general botany class as an undergrad. He’s a great teacher, in general, and has won several teaching awards. He did briefly mention his religious beliefs in class but I don’t remember making a big deal about it but that was 1998. I do remember that he spent a great deal of class time on his hobby, carving wooden duck replicas for some down east festival. I remember thinking that was pretty weird.

I remember dropping in on him as a grad student and discussing edible fungi. I wondered then and now about just how seriously I should take someone who doesn’t eat Chicken of the Woods (Laetiporus). Feller like that has got to be weird. Now I see the proof. great post!!! Someone dare him to debate Jim Gilliam!

Comment #99068

Posted by Frank J on April 28, 2006 11:18 AM (e)

wad of id wrote:

Which is why I find it terribly amusing to learn Creationists are now beginning to see that ID is simply not Christian enough for them.

Beginning? YEC and “classic” OEC leaders, if not the rank-and-file, have objected to ID for years. And YECs and OECs have criticized each other for years. The tone is usually polite, of course, especially from the IDers who are most interested in preserving an anti-evolution “big tent.”

The main problem as I see it is that we critics don’t exploit the differences nearly enough, and as a result, we help prop up the tent.

Comment #99070

Posted by Just Bob on April 28, 2006 11:24 AM (e)

By the way, just what exactly does “of God” mean, anyway? Since *everything* was supposedly made by him, wouldn’t everything be “of God”? Wouldn’t those nasty UFO aliens? Or did some other deity in their corner of the cosmos do a little counter-God creating? Wasn’t even Satan made by God? Or does “of God” mean just people and things your pastor approves of?

Comment #99088

Posted by Dick VanDyke on April 28, 2006 12:31 PM (e)

Hey “Just Bob” SHHHH! Ixnay on the uestionqay! They’re listening! They’ll hear you! SHHHH!

Comment #99127

Posted by Popper's Ghost on April 28, 2006 2:48 PM (e)

God created Satan to tempt and test us, and so it’s important to identify and root out his influence wherever we can.

It’s a powerful self-justifying meme.

Comment #99129

Posted by ben on April 28, 2006 2:56 PM (e)

God created Satan to tempt and test us, and so it’s important to identify and root out his influence wherever we can

If what you say is true, I agree completely. We should root out the influence of any being so evil as to create something like Satan on purpose.

Comment #99134

Posted by J-Dog on April 28, 2006 3:07 PM (e)

I think Poppers Ghost just advocated self-flagellation and immolation!

“God created Satan to tempt and test us, and so it’s important to identify and root out his influence wherever we can.”

I agree that a fun place to start eliminating Satan’s influence would be to root out the Satan-spawned knuckelheads at the DI. Then we swing over to visit Pat Robertson… make a call on Buffalo Bill Dembski, DaveScott… Golly, Poppers Ghost, I think you done declared war on yourself and your buddies!

Comment #99137

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on April 28, 2006 3:11 PM (e)

Er…J-Dog…

I think you might have just mistaken Popper‘s Ghost for Paley‘s Ghost…

Comment #99140

Posted by Just Bob on April 28, 2006 3:34 PM (e)

Then Satan IS “of God.” I rest my case.

Comment #99142

Posted by j-Dog on April 28, 2006 3:39 PM (e)

THANK YOU AUREOLA NOMINEE!
I was doing so good too… Total Abject Apologies to Poppers Ghost!

I mis-read, then mis-hought, mis-typed, = mistake.

I read comment #99127, and didn’t realize it referenced VanDyke’s comment, and was not a comment by Popper himself, DUH.

But I STILL like the idea of rooting out the DI!

Comment #99181

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 28, 2006 6:26 PM (e)

I love how Creationists simply can’t stop themselves drifting from science to apologetics in anything train of though.

I’ve said it before – but am always happy for any opportunity to say it again ;) – the reason why anti-evolutionism (no matter WHAT they call it) will fail is simple. In order to have any hope whatsoever of getting around the US Constitution, the anti-evolutionists MUST, absolutely MUST, have all their supporters shut their mouths and keep quiet about the one thing they care most about in the whole world —– their religious opinions.

They just can’t do it. They don’t WANT to do it. Ain’t NONE of them can go ten minutes without preaching and, therefore, giving the whole game away. Remember the dolt who was just here a little while ago blithering all about how ID is really SCIENCE and NOT religion — just before he condemned all of us as “atheist darwinists” … ?

They are, by far, their own worst enemies. Just let them talk long enough, and they will happily shoot themselves in the head every single time.

Comment #99184

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 28, 2006 6:34 PM (e)

“The facts seem to indicate that UFOs are in reality intent on discrediting the only one that can really save this planet, the Lord Jesus Christ. No matter what some created creature from another planet or dimension may say, Jesus is Lord, and any spirit or being who does not reinforce this truth is not of God.”

Wow! What a bunch of whackos.

Old news, my friend. Many creationists are obsessed with flying saucers. Dr Hugh Ross co-authored an entire book that explained how flying saucers are sent by the Devil to fool good Christians into the occult. “Dr” Kent Hovind says pretty much the same thing. And during the Arkansas creationism trial, creationist witness Dr Norm Geisler testified, under oath, on the stand, apparently with a straight face, that flying saucers were “Satanic manifestations” sent to deceive Christians. I have had three different creationuts tell me online, in all apparent seriousness, that flying saucers are actually time machines that atheist scientists use to travel back into the past and plant forged fossils as fake evidence for evolution.

Comment #99185

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 28, 2006 6:37 PM (e)

The main problem as I see it is that we critics don’t exploit the differences nearly enough, and as a result, we help prop up the tent.

I agree. What they all want to really do, deep down inside, is what fundies do best — wage holy war on anyone who disagrees with them.

I say, let’s encourage them. Let the blood flow in the pews. Let them slit each other’s throats. It saves *us* the trouble of doing it.

Comment #99186

Posted by Pierce R. Butler on April 28, 2006 6:38 PM (e)

For those seeking even more panel “debate” thrills:

LA MIRADA, Calif., April 27 /Christian Newswire/ – In a rare opportunity, leading proponents of the intelligent design movement have invited their critics to ask them the hard questions about the validity of intelligent design theory on Friday, May 12 at Biola University….

The event will be held in the format of a press conference. Panelists representing ID include Mike Behe, Professor of Biochemistry, Lehigh University and Senior Fellow Discovery Institute; Paul Nelson, Adjunct Professor, Biola University; Guillermo Gonzales, Assistant Research Professor of Astronomy, Iowa State University; Jonathan Wells, Senior Fellow, Discovery Institute; and Steve Meyer, Director and Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, Seattle.

Those cross-examining the panelists will include: Antony Flew, noted philosopher; Keith Morrison of Dateline NBC; and faculty from Cal State Fullerton: Bruce H. Weber, Ph.D. Professor of Biochemistry; James R. Hofmann, Ph.D. Professor and Chair, Liberal Studies Department; and Craig M. Nelson, Ph.D. Lecturer, Department of Comparative Religion.

The event will be held in Sutherland Auditorium at Biola University from 7:30 to 9:30 p.m. More than 1,000 attendees are expected.

For more information, call (562) 777-4061 or visit http//www.biola.edu/id

Comment #99200

Posted by Frank J on April 28, 2006 7:09 PM (e)

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:

I’ve said it before — but am always happy for any opportunity to say it again ;) — the reason why anti-evolutionism (no matter WHAT they call it) will fail is simple. In order to have any hope whatsoever of getting around the US Constitution, the anti-evolutionists MUST, absolutely MUST, have all their supporters shut their mouths and keep quiet about the one thing they care most about in the whole world ——- their religious opinions.

I take it you mean “fail” in the sense of never being taught in public school. In addition of course to its scientific failure (or more correctly classic creationism’s scientific failure - ID knows better than to even try).

But most anti-evolutionists don’t like public schools anyway, for other reasons, and (some of them at least) might be trying to further dumb down science education specifically to accelerate the destuction of the public school system.

Besides, their real favorite outlet is the media. And they are not failing there just yet. But we can help.

Comment #99206

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 28, 2006 7:30 PM (e)

leading proponents of the intelligent design movement have invited their critics to ask them the hard questions about the validity of intelligent design theory

Already happened. It was called “Kitzmiller v Dover”.

It was, uh, in all the papers.

Comment #99224

Posted by Henry J on April 28, 2006 9:26 PM (e)

Re “ask them the hard questions about the validity of intelligent design theory”

What’s the specific set of observations that’s relevant to their conjecture?

What specific pattern within those observations is supposed to be explained by their conjecture?

How does the likelihood of that pattern follow logically from their conjecture?

Why is said pattern unlikely in the absence of their conjecture?

Am I being picky?

Henry

Comment #99387

Posted by Just Bob on April 29, 2006 7:40 PM (e)

Why does your major ID organization accept major funding from anti-American, anti-democratic, Christian reconstructionists who want to abolish the Constitution and set up a theocracy that the Taliban would envy?

Comment #99552

Posted by Ron Okimoto on May 1, 2006 6:54 AM (e)

Ghost wrote:

It’s funny where these “intelligent design” proponents come from, no?

Somewhere dank and dark?

You wonder how many of the ID advocates are going to be claiming that they were given the mushroom treatment about the ID scam (kept in the dark and fed shit).

Really, when did the fellows at the Discovery Institute know that the Insitute had a change of direction and when did they buy into this change? Really, if West’s claim that the Discovery Institute had a change of direction back in 1999 isn’t just covering his butt, what have all the fellows been doing to support that change? When did they know about the change and why didn’t a single one say anything about it?

Somewhere else in this thread Bohlin is claimed to have started a shtick about teaching ID sometime in the future. When did he change his position?

Comment #99556

Posted by Renier on May 1, 2006 8:08 AM (e)

Ron wrote:
Really, when did the fellows at the Discovery Institute know that the Insitute had a change of direction and when did they buy into this change? Really, if West’s claim that the Discovery Institute had a change of direction back in 1999 isn’t just covering his butt, what have all the fellows been doing to support that change? When did they know about the change and why didn’t a single one say anything about it?

Truth is, they are all as consistant as bloody single minded, confused photons. I don’t think there is really anything called ID. It’s just bits and pieces of creo crap with a political goal. They don’t agree on anything, except of course, that evolution is evil. Heck, some of them even “believe” in 95% of evolution, and the rest outright deny it. If only Heisenberg knew… If you observed any statement of ID, you know it has changed, because you observed it.

Comment #99618

Posted by Sam on May 1, 2006 8:49 PM (e)

Those cross-examining the panelists will include: Antony Flew, noted philosopher;

Is this the same guy who took a few steps along the ID path recently. I heard rumours he’d racanted, but never saw anything (certainly nothing to the furor over his initial conversion to ID)

Comment #99629

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 1, 2006 10:15 PM (e)

Five seconds on Google turned up this statement from Flew:

“I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction.”

But I’m curious – since ID claims to be SCIENCE and claims to have NO religious aim, purpose, or agenda, I’m wondering what difference it makes whether Flew is an atheist or not.

Or are IDers just lying to us when they say ID isn’t about religion ….?

Comment #99631

Posted by Registered User on May 2, 2006 2:33 AM (e)

Is this the same guy who took a few steps along the ID path recently. I heard rumours he’d racanted, but never saw anything (certainly nothing to the furor over his initial conversion to ID)

He recanted. But then he flipped back. And then he recanted again.

Then he decanted. Then he back flipped. Then he kicked a can.

And in the meantime, the DI got their stupid propaganda campaign handed back to them in a 1000 itty bitty pieces by Judge Jones.

Comment #115088

Posted by elaine on July 27, 2006 12:58 AM (e)

my faviourte animal is a panda