Ed Brayton posted Entry 2484 on July 31, 2006 10:32 AM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2479

One of the standard talking points from ID advocates these days is that us evolution advocates are just plum crazy to even suggest that policies requiring schools to teach “critical analysis of evolution” are a way to get intelligent design into the classrooms. DI shill Casey Luskin even coined a phrase in February when he claimed that those who think this way are suffering from “false fear syndrome” and exhibiting paranoia. I’m going to suggest that this is argument is transparently false and that the ID side knows it and is pushing it anyway. And I have proof in their own words.

Continue Reading at Dispatches from the Culture Wars. And don’t forget the follow up post, where Dembski’s research assistant admits the fraud.

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 #115873

Posted by steve s on July 31, 2006 11:23 AM (e)

If there’s any better entertainment than watching these Keystone Kreationists, I don’t know what it is.

Comment #115874

Posted by KL on July 31, 2006 11:27 AM (e)

It didn’t take long for Larry to show up to inform, in his infinite wisdom and expertise, this research assistant that he is wrong.

What is the blog version of hand-waving and shhhh-ing? “Ix-nay on the isguise-day!!”

Comment #115907

Posted by Tyrannosaurus on July 31, 2006 2:07 PM (e)

Nothing beats the extraordinarily talented creationist combination of foot and mouth. Man it just does not get any better than this.

Comment #115919

Posted by Michael Roberts on July 31, 2006 3:34 PM (e)

This is an excellent post. This whole “teach the Controversy” caper is as deceitful as they come and has been exported over here in Britain.

I have had it thrown at me by clergy supporters of the awful City Academy, Emmanuel College in Gateshead as how they teach students to think. My foot! He is a strong supporter of the Christian Institute and basically YEC (despite going to the same theological college as I did) Also quite a few Anglican clergy use it as a reason why we should listen to creationists of any sort.

Anyway how can you think critically if you read ID or YEC nonsense?

Comment #115922

Posted by Glen Davidson on July 31, 2006 3:48 PM (e)

When the “controversy” is about whether or not to use adequate standards of evidence, or is based upon inadequate standards of evidence, it is quite obviously ID.

To question “naturalism” (which can only mean evidence-based science if the term has any rigor) is the purpose of IDists, since there is only one set of “naturalistic” answers to the question of origins of the taxa. The Kansas science “standards” are more than a little opposed to the answers given by biologists, wishing to “question” those answers using the “appearance of design” for their “critical analysis” (not directly stated, but implied). Indeed, the whole point of ID is to circumvent critical analysis in order to present a false dichotomy and specious anti-evolution arguments so that children will accept their version of origins completely without honest critical analysis.

This has been the purpose of ID/”critical analysis” from the beginning, to sabotage attempts at teaching critical analysis of models and their supporting evidences at a critical stage in the lives of Americans, so that they will have no defenses against the faulty claims of IDists. ID has no means of critical analysis at their disposal, for they only criticize rules-based science for its denial of conclusions based on uncritically-assessed “appearances”.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #115974

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on July 31, 2006 9:56 PM (e)

The cowards have taken down the whole conversation! WIMPS! What’s the matter? A little too much truth for the self-appointed defenders of God’s (obviously, I mean Unnamed Intelligent Designer Who Might Be God’s) Word?

Comment #115977

Posted by RBH on July 31, 2006 10:11 PM (e)

Naw, it’s still up. It’s in the comments to the radio advertisement post.

Comment #116002

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on August 1, 2006 3:10 AM (e)

“Nothing beats the extraordinarily talented creationist combination of foot and mouth.”

Yes, critical analysis definitely reminds me most of the god of the gapes.

Comment #116005

Posted by misanthrope101 on August 1, 2006 3:40 AM (e)

Why would he come out and say “It really is ID in disguise” so blatantly? This movement has been characterized by rather savvy PR, and most proponents whose commentary I’ve read have very carefully said the right thing while avoiding saying the wrong thing. Even when the arguments are spurious, they at least make an effort to appear even-handed. It seems rather ham-handed to drop the ball like that. They don’t normally strike me as stupid, just epistemologically committed to biblical explanations, which would require a committment to unseat any scientific, materialistic explanation. Other than the Wedge Document, which was leaked, I think this is the first time I’ve seen in writing an admission that they’re lying about their motives. Not that he seems ashamed of it, but it still comes as a surprise.

Comment #116027

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on August 1, 2006 7:12 AM (e)

My computer must have hiccuped. OR they took it down and then put it back up to make me look foolish! :-)

Comment #116030

Posted by John B on August 1, 2006 7:14 AM (e)

Forgive me for posting here but I have a question for you. I am a creationist who doesn’t believe the world can only be 6000 years old. I come here because you have formal scientific training that I lack (one semester of chemistry doesn’t quite make it…)

My question is about radioactive isotopes, especially ones with relatively short half-lives like radium. If the earth is gazillions of years old, why haven’t these isotopes run down and become inert? I’m not trying to start an argument, I just really would like to know. Thanks, and again, sorry for barging in.

Comment #116032

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on August 1, 2006 7:26 AM (e)

Forgive me for posting here but I have a question for you. I am a creationist who doesn’t believe the world can only be 6000 years old. I come here because you have formal scientific training that I lack (one semester of chemistry doesn’t quite make it…)

My question is about radioactive isotopes, especially ones with relatively short half-lives like radium. If the earth is gazillions of years old, why haven’t these isotopes run down and become inert? I’m not trying to start an argument, I just really would like to know. Thanks, and again, sorry for barging in.

Since you asked so nicely:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Many creationist arguments have been made. Many ID arguments are rehashed creationist arguments. There are still a great deal of things we don’t know. But most, if not all, creationist conjecture can already be proven false by our current body of knowledge already.

That link will answer many of your questions with references should you chose to learn more.

Comment #116033

Posted by Christian on August 1, 2006 7:32 AM (e)

John B wrote:

Forgive me for posting here but I have a question for you. I am a creationist who doesn’t believe the world can only be 6000 years old. I come here because you have formal scientific training that I lack (one semester of chemistry doesn’t quite make it…)

My question is about radioactive isotopes, especially ones with relatively short half-lives like radium. If the earth is gazillions of years old, why haven’t these isotopes run down and become inert? I’m not trying to start an argument, I just really would like to know. Thanks, and again, sorry for barging in.

Maybe this will give you a hint ;)

Comment #116035

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on August 1, 2006 8:11 AM (e)

“why haven’t these isotopes run down and become inert”

They are indeed trying to.

First, you have the phenomena of decay chains. A radiactively unstable isotope isn’t guaranteed to decay to a stable one, it is in fact often the case that decay continues in a long chain. Some of these chains are used for dating. Or in the case of radium, IIRC it is produced by a chain that upstream has more longlived isotopes.

Second, decay can be modelled by poisson processes, and they have the property that they give exponential results. Ie when half the atoms have decayed, it still takes as much time for half of the remaining half to decay, and so on.

Third, some isotopes are naturally produced by incoming cosmic radiation.

Fourth, I hope you don’t think radioactivity is a trick. It is both rather easy to measure, and as for radon unfortunately still rather common. Cancer from radon in water sources or houses are not unheard of.

I recommend earlier mentioned links, and especially http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html. It shows in a simple manner why some radioctivity dating methods are selfcorrecting and so, ideally, foolproof, as long as radioactivity exists. And, since some radioactivity has halflife on the order of 10^10 years, we can use them for quite a while. ;-)

Comment #116050

Posted by John B on August 1, 2006 10:27 AM (e)

Thank you for your guidance; I’ll dig into it!

Comment #116124

Posted by Ben Z on August 1, 2006 3:44 PM (e)

“The entire purpose behind all of this is to shift it into schools…

at least that is the hope/fear among some science teachers in the area”

…….yeah.

Comment #116128

Posted by steve s on August 1, 2006 4:05 PM (e)

John B, feel free to ask any question you want, there are many knowledgeable people here who can answer technical questions.

Comment #116005

Posted by misanthrope101 on August 1, 2006 03:40 AM (e) | kill

Why would he come out and say “It really is ID in disguise” so blatantly?

Well, he’s Dembski’s research assistant. I take that to mean he’s probably a student at Dembski’s two-bit bible college, somewhere between 18-22. Glancing at his blog, he seems like one of Flanders’s kids. Probably home-schooled by fundamentalists. So I’d say he’s probably just naive, and lacking the nuanced understanding of the political maneuvers that we unconsciously absorb as we watch this issue year after year.

Comment #116173

Posted by Ben Z on August 1, 2006 8:48 PM (e)

“Why would he come out and say “It really is ID in disguise” so blatantly?”

Well, look at what he said. It isn’t saying that really.

Comment #116598

Posted by Glen Davidson on August 3, 2006 11:10 AM (e)

Borofsky spins his comments with a specious progression:

• Joel Borofsky is Bill Dembski’s research assistant
• Joel Borofsky is a co-moderator at Uncommon Descent
• Joel Borofsky believes that the move in Kansas will eventually lead to the teaching of ID
• Therefore, Bill Dembski believes this and supports it
• Furthermore, the entire ID movement can be summed up in what Joel Borofsky says

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1389

Ed, of course, simply claimed that Joel “exposes” the deception. Presumably his point is simply that it is all so obvious that a relatively new and undisciplined addition to the team manages to say what we’ve been saying all along–and what is implied in the Wedge doctrine as well when extrapolated to new events.

We know, certainly, that various kinds of self-delusions and forms of ignorance may mean that outright and explicit (to their minds, at least) deception is not necessarily what is going on in individual IDist minds. That the DI and ID leaders in general are attempting what is sensibly seen from the outside as a collaborative deception seems not to be in dispute. Joel’s strawmen about what Dembski is supposed “to believe” and that he sums up the ID “movement” notwithstanding.

What is really telling in the juxtaposition between Luskin’s ludicrous charges of “‘false fear syndrome’ and exhibiting paranoia” with Joel’s previous statements is that one of persons that they have taken in to promote ID has written essentially the same things that Luskin portrays to be the result of paranoia and “false fear”. Borofsky doesn’t deal with that aspect, understandably, since it puts the lie to Luskin’s charges.

He has the ID rhetoric down well, you will notice in the rest of his article. “Desperate attempts,”, “If ID was easily proven false” followed by a complete non-sequitur, the usual nonsense that IDists use in lieu of being able to demonstrate that ID is meaningful. To be sure, ID is not provably false, for since it doesn’t even make meaningful statements and avoids normal design predictions (like rational planning and design), mostly it isn’t even wrong (it’s conclusions are wrong, however most of its claims and “methods” are merely superfluous to science).

So there you are, he has the usual misunderstandings of science, the IDist patter, and the willingness to close his eyes to the meaning of his own statements. He’ll be a useful ID politician yet, and he’ll no doubt learn not to be as honest in the future as he has been recently. Perhaps he did not realize that not telling the truth is as important to ID “science” as it in fact is.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #128826

Posted by yoaxzv on September 12, 2006 6:37 PM (e)

By%20all%20means%20marry