PvM posted Entry 2644 on October 15, 2006 10:23 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2638

I have heard some weird reasons why we should reject Darwinian theory but this one seems to offer quite a new perspective:

Orzechowski said that the theory was a feeble idea of an aged non-believer, who had come up with it perhaps because he was a vegetarian and lacked fire inside him

Source

The story continues:

The deputy minister is a member of a Catholic far-right political group, the League of Polish Families. The league’s head, Roman Giertych, is education minister in the conservative coalition government of Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski.

Giertych’s father Maciej, who represents the league in the European Parliament, organised a discussion there last week on Darwinism. He described the theory as not supported by proof and called for it to be removed from school books.

The far-right joined the government in May when Kaczynski’s ruling conservative Law and Justice party, after months of ineffective minority government, formed a coalition including LPR and the populist Sambroon party.

Roman Giertych has not spoken out on Darwinism, but the far-right politician’s stance on other issues has stirred protest in Poland since he joined the government.

A school pupils’ association was expected to demonstrate in front of the education ministry on Saturday to call for his resignation.

Let’s hope that the school pupils will get an opportunity to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the leadership of their country.

Dembski has started a discussion’ on UncommonDescent. I wonder if his faithfuls are willing to stand up and speak out against these ‘scientists’. Or is the big tent still an essential part of Intelligent Design’s groupthink strategy?

Hans Zimmer

Darwin’s Mistake by Hans J Zillmer

Antediluvian Discoveries Prove Dinosaurs and Humans Co-Existed

Yes, there were cataclysms (among them The Flood) in the course of history, but no, there was no evolution. The Earth’s crust is relatively young and no more than a few thousand years ago; its poles were free of ice. Published in nine languages, this international best-seller puts the latest discoveries and new evidence against Darwin’s ‘Theory of Evolution’.

The author, who owes his insights and expertise to numerous excavations he participated in, describes recent findings that – in line with suppressed results of scientific research – prove what seems unthinkable to us today: Darwin is wrong.

Berthault

Berthault’s “Stratigraphy”: Rediscovering What Geologists Already Know and Strawperson Misrepresentations of Modern Applications of Steno’s Principles

Glenn Morton, former YECer

Guy Berthault uses Walther’s law which basically says that a prograding sedimentary package can deposit multiple facies at the same time. This has been known since the 15-1600s. Near shore a river will deposit gravels, further out, sand, further out still shale. The age of the ocean bottom sediments at any time are the same so the age doesn’t match the stratigraphy. But, this law can only be applied in situations like this, not to the whole geologic column as Berthault wants to claim.

I surely hope that Dembski is familiar with the readily available search tools allowing one to quickly gain a good insight into the claims by these ‘scientists’ and many of the rebuttals of their claims.

I wonder if Dembski will abandon groupthink and speak out against poor science, even though it involves occupants of the Big Tent?

As is so often the case with groupthink websites, it appears that UncommonDescent has finally disabled trackbacks. Since critical postings at UcD seem to be discouraged by the groupthink syndrome, I hope that UcD posters will use this opportunity to contribute at a much friendlier site.

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 #139611

Posted by Gene Goldring on October 16, 2006 12:10 AM (e)

A word was missing in their denunciation of evolution. Is there no word for monkey in Polish?

Comment #139612

Posted by Ben Z on October 16, 2006 12:37 AM (e)

Posted it over there. We’ll see if we can agree to say it’s fair to discredit the whole thing because of Berthault.

Comment #139620

Posted by Anton Mates on October 16, 2006 1:34 AM (e)

Orzechowski said that the theory was a feeble idea of an aged non-believer, who had come up with it perhaps because he was a vegetarian and lacked fire inside him

Darwin ate mountain lion on the voyage of the Beagle. He was, like, a meta-carnivore.

Darwin ate lots of critters on his travels, like most naturalists. He’s probably eaten more animal species than I’ll ever see in American supermarkets, even the ones whose signs aren’t written in English.

OTOH, Hitler ate a mostly vegetarian diet in his later years, so this obviously proves Darwin => Hitler.

Comment #139621

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on October 16, 2006 1:51 AM (e)

At least it’s somewhat new and original, unlike the boredom that the local creationists have become as of late (constantly gibbering about bacterial flagellums, research that doesn’t exist but we pretend that it does and is uber secret etc).

Comment #139622

Posted by Pope Benedict XVI on October 16, 2006 1:56 AM (e)

Keep Darwin’s ‘lies’ out of schools: Polish official

PvM posted Entry 2644 on October 15, 2006 10:23 PM.
Trackback URL: http://degas.fdisk.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2638…

Relevant Links

Hans Zimmer

Hans Zimmer? Didn’t he do the music for True Romance? That was good stuff.

Comment #139629

Posted by Andriopoulous on October 16, 2006 5:56 AM (e)

Some of Darwins lies from the Descent of Man:

1. The characterization of “savage” races; i.e., not Victorian Elitist enoougn.

2. Women are intellectually inferior to men.

3. Vaccination weakens the race.

And just look in the index for his references to the “great work” of the eugenicists Francis Galton for plenty more.

Comment #139630

Posted by JMX on October 16, 2006 6:00 AM (e)

That’s Zillmer, not Zimmer.

Comment #139632

Posted by Mike on October 16, 2006 7:24 AM (e)

Polish Academy of Sciences already made a public statement in which they describe anti-evolution comments made by Giertych as disgraceful. Many Catholic Church officials also said that anyone who makes such comments shouldn’t be taken seriously.

The deputy minister of education who also made anti-evolution comments (the ones about Darwin being fire-lacking vegetarian) is a deluded religious kook. What a disgrace…

Comment #139635

Posted by guthrie on October 16, 2006 8:11 AM (e)

I refer the honourable gentlemen to this post:
—————–
A seminar critical of the theory that all life has a common ancestor was held for Members of the European Parliament on Wednesday October 11th, Truth in Science has learned.

Polish MEP, Maciej Giertych, former head of the Genetics Department of the Polish Academy of Science introduced the seminar to fellow MEPs in Brussels. He claimed that universal common ancestry is a falsified hypothesis and lacks usefulness in scientific research. He questioned the value of teaching it to students throughout Europe.

Professor Giertych related how his children (one of whom is now Deputy Prime Minister of Poland) had returned home from school having been taught about the theory of evolution. They were told that the proof of the common ancestry of biological life was to be found in the science of genetics. Professor Giertych, who had spent his life working in this field at the highest level, replied that such proof does not exist in genetics, only disproof.

This was backed up by Professor Emeritus Joseph Mastropaolo who gave a lecture explaining that the biological sciences offer no empirical proof of macroevolution, just insurmountable problems.

Dr. Hans Zillmer told the meeting that the fossil record holds no proof for evolution theory either. Instead of showing gradual change from one species to another, as is often claimed in the classroom, it actually reveals the stasis and stability of life forms.

Finally, Dr. Guy Berthault spoke to the audience about the results of his empirical research programmes concerning the deposition of sediments. He said that his research, published in journals of the National Academy of Sciences in France, Russia and China, appears to show that continuous depositions of water-borne sediments can sort themselves mechanically, simple changes in flow velocity causing rapid formation of strata.

Amongst those helping to organise the seminar was Dr. Dominique Tassot, Director of Centre d’Etude et de Prospectives sur la Science, an organisation of 700 French-speaking scientists, intellectuals and professionals, who oppose evolutionary theory on scientific grounds.

Truth in Science was not involved in this seminar and is not in a position to comment on its scientific content. We simply note this scepticism over aspects of evolutionary theory in Europe.

———————
From:
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/vi…

They are the latest creationist attempt at getting into schools, by stealing ID wholesale.

Anyone know anything about the purported French group?

Comment #139641

Posted by GvlGeologist, FCD on October 16, 2006 8:46 AM (e)

While reading about the Polish creationist attempts to deny Evolution (and by extension, much of science), it occurs to me that we might try a new tact:

Start showing up at creationist meetings, and agreeing with them. Comment about how the large numbers of humans on the planet have led to environmental degradation, global warming (that’s in there on purpose), wholesale extinctions, and wars (and I’m sure that this is a very partial list).

Point out that evolutionary science (and other types of science denied by creationists as well) have been phenomenally successful in allowing large scale civilization (by recovering natural resources such as various metals and petroleum, by figuring out where and when to plant crops - you all can come up with other benefits) and preventing human deaths (by preventing or curing disease and improving crop yields, and again, I know that you all can come up with others as well).

Then agree that we should remove evolution, nay, all of science that deviates even slightly from the bible from the school curriculum. As human population inevitably drastically declines, the world will again approach its “Garden of Eden” condition, which should please the creationists no end.

Snarky? Yes. Sarcastic? Of course. Effective? Probably not, but it’s still early and I’m not yet recovered from the weekend. I’d love to see the expressions on their faces, though, as you agree with them, and then point out the probable large scale effects.

Comment #139644

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on October 16, 2006 9:06 AM (e)

A couple of trouble-raisers.

“The leader of the League of Polish Families, Roman GIERTYCH, made clear it unconditionally opposed Polish membership in the EU. He is the deputy prime minister today in charge of education. These young people objected not that he is Euro-sceptical but to what they called his extremism:
0:02’14” Young demonstrator (in Polish): “We’re demonstrating because Roman GIERTYCH has become minister for education. Given that he expresses fascist opinions, we’re afraid this will mean losing free schooling, free thought. We oppose this.” ( http://www.europarl.europa.eu/eplive/expert/shot… )

“Eurosceptic finds EU useful
Perhaps the Polish Eurosceptic MEP Maciej Giertych, who earlier in his life was a professor of forestry, is turning over a new leaf.” ( http://www.europeanvoice.com/archive/issue.asp?i… )

“Anti-abortion exhibition ignites row
A row broke out in the European Parliament this week over an anti-abortion exhibition organised by the Polish League of Families MEP Maciej Giertych.” ( http://www.europeanvoice.com/archive/issue.asp?i… )

I can’t find any notes on the purported seminar on EU parliament web though.

But creationism and anti-science seems to infect political circles of Europe. When I recently read up on the swedish sceptics magazine “Folkvett” ( http://www.vof.se/ ) I learned two things:
1. A known creationistic christian democratic member of the parliament had placed a motion, concurrent with when Paul Nelson visited Sweden, that evolution education should be moved to philosophy to be discussed with ‘alternatives’. It was dismissed without discussion, what I can see in the records.

After the election the christian democrates are members of the new majority government. But fortunately the creationist parliament member was replaced. Now we have to see if any more creationists are members.
2. A christian college (Andreasgymnasiet in Stockholm) with a few students has been permitted to teach ID concurrent with evolution by the Swedish school authority, against a number of complaints.

The point two seems to be an unfortunate consequence of swedish ingrained habit of consensus. The nonstringent division between government and judiciary makes law weaker and less important. This lack of law support in turn somewhat paradoxically narrows the societal diversity. Which may seem good until something kooky slips under the consensus radar and is found hard to eradicate.

The swedish school law lack an explicit requirement of scientific basing for all of the education. (The universities law has such a requirement.) This loop hole is now exposed and criticised. Religious neutrality is otherwise handled by having comparative religion classes about religions and their histories.

Comment #139645

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on October 16, 2006 9:11 AM (e)

“This lack of law support in turn somewhat paradoxically narrows the societal diversity.”

Or perhaps the other way around. In any case it is a clear correlation.

Comment #139646

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on October 16, 2006 9:17 AM (e)

“In any case it is a clear correlation.”

If we throw in US and call that the universe of our data set. This part strikes me as one of my worst reasoning ever. I’m biased - I don’t like the boring consensus and its consequences, and I don’t like the weak courts and its consequences. Oh, well.

Comment #139648

Posted by CJColucci on October 16, 2006 9:31 AM (e)

And just when I thought that the Polish Joke was dead.

Comment #139649

Posted by Edwin Hensley on October 16, 2006 9:48 AM (e)

There are many problems in Poland. My last Au Pair was from Poland, so I communicate with someone in Poland regularly. Radio Maryja is a conservative Catholic radio station founded in Poland in 1991. My Au Pair told me about anti-semitic guests on this radio program. I googled the radio station to get the name right and found lots of dirt on the radio station at Wikipedia. The station has been condemned by Lech Walesa and many others for anti-semitism, promoting freemason and jewish world domination conspiracy theories, history falsification regarding Auschwitz, and other topics. The point that I am making is that there is a scary political movement in Poland that goes beyond denying evolution. I have many Catholic friends, and they would be shocked by the current movement among many Catholics in Poland. The vatican has instructed Radio Maryja to no longer mix prayer and politics.

Comment #139660

Posted by Boo on October 16, 2006 10:47 AM (e)

I wonder if Dembski will abandon groupthink and speak out against poor science, even though it involves occupants of the Big Tent?

Speaking as a pro-evolution person who thinks Uncommon Descent is mostly a haven for cranks, how do you get “groupthink” and “Big Tent” into the same sentence here? Isn’t groupthink the opposite of a Big Tent?

Comment #139663

Posted by PvM on October 16, 2006 11:35 AM (e)

As I predicted/feared, the groupthink mentality which leads to self censorship seems to lead the faithful of UcD to see the latest anti-science activity as evidence that ID is taking a foothold. I am working on a groupthink article, in response to Dembski’s posting in which he showed a fascinating example of groupthink himself when Allen MacNeill responded.

So far the people mentioned in the press release seem to all be from the fringes of science and mostly strongly motivated by faith in their rejection of science.

Tassot believes that recent experiments by a French colleague on sedimentation support a quasi-literal interpretation of Genesis regarding the physical age of the earth. This brings him close to a view known as “Young Earth Creationism,” although Tassot says he is not a creationist.

right…

But there is also some good news

Last week, I interviewed Peter Schuster, president of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, who will speak at the upcoming meeting with the pope. Schuster, a microbiologist, regards the evidence for evolution as beyond dispute.

Source

Comment #139665

Posted by PvM on October 16, 2006 11:44 AM (e)

Boo wrote:

Speaking as a pro-evolution person who thinks Uncommon Descent is mostly a haven for cranks, how do you get “groupthink” and “Big Tent” into the same sentence here? Isn’t groupthink the opposite of a Big Tent?

Not really, groupthink and big tent abandons disagreement while pursuing a common goal which all participants believe to be most important. Remember how Dembski responded when one of the moderators strongly spoke out against YECism?

Groupthink, and its related dysfunctional group behavior, the Abilene paradox, wherein groups agree to pursue goals with which the individual members do not agree, continue to fascinate researchers in the field of Social sciences. The reason for this fascination is that these theories appear to explain the observed behavior of individuals and groups in many social contexts.

From Wikipedia

Dembski has been accused of censoring critics on his blog. Ed Brayton, a critic of Dembski, alleges that Dembski as a matter of course removes reasonable criticisms and questions left at his personal blog, uncommondescent.com [44]. Along with comments, Dembski often removed “trackback” links to other blogs where his claims were discussed. A small number of Dembski supporters from the uncommondescent blog have trolled blogs and forums critical of Dembski, notably Dispatches from the Culture Wars [45] and Wikipedia’s Intelligent design article discussion page. At Dembski’s blog those whose comments are in opposition to Dembski’s own views but not disruptive have been blocked by Dembski from contributing [46] [47].

Comment #139666

Posted by PvM on October 16, 2006 11:48 AM (e)

The question for UcD posters is simple: Will they be able to abandon the strongly enforced groupthink mentality and point out the many problems with the arguments of these people or will they self censor themselves and reinforce the groupthink mentality?

Time shall tell. So far, the responses seem to go towards groupthink, not critical thinking.

Comment #139667

Posted by Glen Davidson on October 16, 2006 11:53 AM (e)

Speaking as a pro-evolution person who thinks Uncommon Descent is mostly a haven for cranks, how do you get “groupthink” and “Big Tent” into the same sentence here? Isn’t groupthink the opposite of a Big Tent?

Yeah, I don’t know, one has to discuss the various aspects if one is trying to make a case for “groupthink” on UD. Pim is apparently reacting against the “groupthink” charge against “Darwinism” (Dembski’s trying to make the solidity of the evidence and consensus based on that evidence into a bad thing) that Dembski scribbled out recently.

So is UD groupthink, or isn’t it?

In the Big Tent sense, it is surely not groupthink. Davison disagrees with most people there in some way or other (though he was recently kicked off), the YECs and the strict IDists don’t agree, and as we’ve pointed out often, ID is hardly coherent. That is to say, in one sense groupthink is impossible, for lack of any coherence among the creationists.

But if you look at the enforced groupthink, where the differences are not permissable to talk about, the mindless carping about “Darwinism”, and the constant drumbeat of whines about how “religion” has been forced out of science, the groupthink is overpowering.

Most dissent is not allowed. For a couple of months they tried to allow more dissent than under DaveTard’s dictatorial rule (and Dembski’s earlier one), but that seems to have been too much for them to be able to tolerate.

What is more, even without the rather strong censorship at UD, the complaints about “Darwinism”—and opposition to Darwinism is the uniter in the Big Tent—is heavily re-enforced by social pressures among those cranks. Even the criticisms aren’t exactly coherent, certainly, yet what amounts to the “groupthink” in opposition to “Darwinism” is simply the unswerving maniacal drumbeat of criticism against evolution. You don’t have to have the right arguments, you don’t need to agree with the others as to why you are implacably opposed to “Darwinism”, however you simply must have an unreasoning rejection of “Darwinism” and all of its conclusions and applications.

It is this groupthink which unites them underneath all of their divisions. Whether “groupthink” really best describes their reactionary psychology vis-a-vis “Darwinism”, it does have at least some merit. The mindless fawning upon their “champion” Dembski also argues somewhat for the “groupthink” label, although “reaction” might be a better term overall.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #139668

Posted by mark on October 16, 2006 12:11 PM (e)

Antediluvian Discoveries Prove Dinosaurs and Humans Co-Existed

But surely, since the time of the Flood, we have made additional discoveries that suggest otherwise!

Comment #139683

Posted by Boo on October 16, 2006 12:58 PM (e)

Davison disagrees with most people there in some way or other (though he was recently kicked off),

So you’re saying that a past Davison at Uncommon Descent is undeniable, but a present Davison at Uncommon Descent is undemonstrable?

I love it so!

Course, they’re making the same groupthink charge over there about PT. I notice you guys tend to back up charges with actual evidence, tho. Must be your materialist dogma mindsets.

Comment #139694

Posted by Ben Z on October 16, 2006 2:43 PM (e)

“A small number of Dembski supporters from the uncommondescent blog have trolled blogs and forums critical of Dembski”

That would suggest an openness to exploring other sides. It’s a matter of convention in deciding if they’re really “open” but this objective standard seems to hold.

Comment #139697

Posted by Henry J on October 16, 2006 2:47 PM (e)

Re “And just when I thought that the Polish Joke was dead.”

Wonder what Archie Bunker would say about this?

Oh wait, Archie would probably have sided with I.D. in the first place.

Never mind.

Henry

Comment #139729

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 16, 2006 5:40 PM (e)

1. The characterization of “savage” races; i.e., not Victorian Elitist enoougn.

2. Women are intellectually inferior to men.

3. Vaccination weakens the race.

Sounds like the Republican Party. (shrug)

The only thing missing is “repeal the capital gains tax”.

Comment #139752

Posted by PvM on October 16, 2006 9:07 PM (e)

In the Big Tent sense, it is surely not groupthink.

In the Big Tent sense these issues are not being discussed in favor of the larger picture. This certainly seems like groupthink or at least a variant of it.

A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.

His eight symptoms indicative of groupthink:

1. Illusion of invulnerability
2. Unquestioned belief in the inherent morality of the group
3. Collective rationalization of group’s decisions
4. Shared stereotypes of outgroup, particularly opponents
5. Self-censorship; members withhold criticisms
6. Illusion of unanimity (see false consensus effect)
7. Direct pressure on dissenters to conform
8. Self-appointed “mindguards” protect the group from negative information

Most of these apply to the ID movement…. Certainly to UcD

Comment #139753

Posted by Anton Mates on October 16, 2006 9:27 PM (e)

Andriopoulous wrote:

1. The characterization of “savage” races; i.e., not Victorian Elitist enoougn.

I’m not sure what that sentence means, but Darwin ranked the ancient Greeks above the Victorian English, and the Spanish of about a century before on the same level. He thought different nations were constantly getting smarter or dumber as local selection pressures changed.

2. Women are intellectually inferior to men.

That bastard! Why, if he hadn’t constructed a time machine and told that to Aristotle, it would never have become a basic assumption of Western thought until the mid-1900s!

3. Vaccination weakens the race.

Which it does. But Darwin was pro-vaccination anyway, because he didn’t believe in racial improvement via atrocity:

“Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.”

And just look in the index for his references to the “great work” of the eugenicists Francis Galton for plenty more.

Yeah, it’s not like Galton was also one of the most important statisticians in history, or universally well-respected during his lifetime, or anything.

Comment #139754

Posted by PvM on October 16, 2006 9:34 PM (e)

On UcD Sal shows not only a level of disrespect for copyright by quoting verbatim a book review but also helps to uncover the intellectual vacuity of Maciej Giertych’s claims.
As a YECer I am not surprised that Sal may find Giertych’s claims to be relevant or even truthful but these are just the same old YEC canards.

Is ID willing to let these kind of arguments set their agenda? Is it time to abandon the groupthink and speak out against bad science. Or is ID willing to risk that its opponents may point out the hypocrisy in the position of ‘teach the controversy’ as it pertains to ID’s attempts to improve scientific education.
Or is that all a thin veil after all to cover up the big tent?

Comment #139757

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 16, 2006 10:19 PM (e)

1. Illusion of invulnerability
2. Unquestioned belief in the inherent morality of the group
3. Collective rationalization of group’s decisions
4. Shared stereotypes of outgroup, particularly opponents
5. Self-censorship; members withhold criticisms
6. Illusion of unanimity (see false consensus effect)
7. Direct pressure on dissenters to conform
8. Self-appointed “mindguards” protect the group from negative information

Heck, these all sound like the Republicrat Party, too.

Comment #139758

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 16, 2006 10:21 PM (e)

1. Illusion of invulnerability
2. Unquestioned belief in the inherent morality of the group
3. Collective rationalization of group’s decisions
4. Shared stereotypes of outgroup, particularly opponents
5. Self-censorship; members withhold criticisms
6. Illusion of unanimity (see false consensus effect)
7. Direct pressure on dissenters to conform
8. Self-appointed “mindguards” protect the group from negative information

A correction — these actually sound a lot like … well … Americans.

Comment #139761

Posted by PvM on October 16, 2006 10:39 PM (e)

Very funny Lenny. Yes, lately many americans seems to be engaging in wishful groupthink. And look what good that did to this country…

Comment #139767

Posted by sparc on October 17, 2006 12:12 AM (e)

L. Flank:

1. Illusion of invulnerability
2. Unquestioned belief in the inherent morality of the group
3. Collective rationalization of group’s decisions
4. Shared stereotypes of outgroup, particularly opponents
5. Self-censorship; members withhold criticisms
6. Illusion of unanimity (see false consensus effect)
7. Direct pressure on dissenters to conform
8. Self-appointed “mindguards” protect the group from negative information

I have posted the following comment in the The Groupthink Syndrome thread at UD and WD’s threat to kick out A. McNeill

6. sparc // Oct 14th 2006 at 11:25 pm

5. direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group’s stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, making clear that this type of dissent is contrary to what is expected of all loyal members;

8. the emergence of self-appointed mindguards - members who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions.

William Dembski:
For your fatuous remarks above, I should boot you from this forum
Comment by sparc — October 14, 2006 @ 11:25 pm

It appeared as the 6th comment but was removed shortly after.

A second comment in which I included some examples from UD’s own archives, that fit to the different groupthink characteristics did not even show up.

Comment #139791

Posted by Advocatus Diaboli on October 17, 2006 8:23 AM (e)

Iirc, a Finnish cristian MP tried to make the same effort in Finland’s parliament a few years back. No one cared about her comments and the motion was buried.

Comment #139819

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on October 17, 2006 9:46 AM (e)

Advocatus:

Great! My feeling is that Finnish people is exactly the opposite of a consensus society (with the independent and artistic spirit they are more like the French of the North, really - at least they like their courtship, food, booze, dance and smoke about as much :-) but the similar reaction doesn’t surprise me. Rationalist societies doesn’t take kookery well.

Hope it will stand up, though.

Comment #139871

Posted by Glen Davidson on October 17, 2006 1:19 PM (e)

1. Illusion of invulnerability

Dembski:

“…I take all declarations about the next big revolution in science with a stiff shot of skepticism. Despite that, I grow progressively more convinced that intelligent design will revolutionize science and our conception of the world.”

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/revolution.cf…

This in the face of unrelenting skepticism by scientists, as well as telling questions which Dembski doesn’t answer.

Continued below:

Comment #139872

Posted by Glen Davidson on October 17, 2006 1:20 PM (e)

2. Unquestioned belief in the inherent morality of the group

Dembski:

“I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this, is that I think God’s glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonder of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God’s glory is getting robbed.”

http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/tdr.html

And to a theist, what could be less moral than robbing God’s glory?

continued below:

Comment #139873

Posted by Glen Davidson on October 17, 2006 1:22 PM (e)

3. Collective rationalization of group’s decisions

Although Discovery Institute does not support the particular policy adopted by Dover, it has been clear in supporting the principle of academic freedom when it comes to intelligent design. That is why the Institute supported filing a friend of the court brief on behalf of 85 scientists who sought protection of the freedom to research and write about intelligent design. That is also why the Institute itself filed its own brief defending the constitutionality of teaching about intelligent design.

Regardless of the particular outcome of the Dover case, Discovery Institute believes that support in the scientific community for the theory of intelligent design will continue to grow. This is because the case for intelligent design is ultimately based on scientific evidence, and that evidence cannot be ruled out of existence by the courts.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/11/the_truth_a…

Particularly the “academic freedom” bleat is a shared rationalization of the ID/creo decisions to corrupt public education.

continued below:

Comment #139875

Posted by Glen Davidson on October 17, 2006 1:24 PM (e)

4. Shared stereotypes of outgroup, particularly opponents

Of course they say today, let them have only one [opinion]- only ours.

Many contemporaries who think of themselves as liberals are not - for the most part - liberals in any sense.

No, they are materialists, naturalists, Darwinists, or devotees of a local variant of one of those deities. They cling to their doctrine with Sunday Blue tenacity. But for them every day is a Blue day. Psychologically, they have much more in common with the “Sunday Blue” leagues of yesteryear, particularly in their desire to suppress anything that offends them.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1707

Find a single page at UD which does not spout this shared stereotype of their opponents.

For the record, I would not accept the terms “liberal”, “materialist”, “naturalist”, or “Darwinist”. O’Leary does cover herself by leaving it open-ended, which only goes to show how dedicated she is to including all of us within her stereotype, no matter how broad it has to be to include someone like myself.

continued below:

Comment #139876

Posted by Glen Davidson on October 17, 2006 1:25 PM (e)

5. Self-censorship; members withhold criticisms

Heddle (recounting the muffling he received in ID’s “secret group”):

Welcoming all views is reasonable–after all science (and this list is supposed to be about science) welcomes all views. But what science never does is place views “off limits.” How, I asked in subsequent posts, can we be “about science” if a scientific topic, namely the age of the earth, is off the table? A handful of people replied by email (I flew below most everyone’s radar on this list) to say they agreed with me, but on the list the argument against my position was that the age of the earth was not relevant in the domain of ID. I pointed out that for cosmological ID it is extremely relevant, since fine-tuning arguments make no sense for a YEC position–but shortly thereafter the thread was closed for discussion. (I didn’t post much on this list, but I had a Ted Williams-like batting average for having my threads closed.)

http://helives.blogspot.com/2006/10/first-time-d…

At the link Heddle documents the “mindguard”, Dembski, along with the careful self-censorship of his fellows at ID’s “secret forum”.

continued below:

Comment #139878

Posted by Glen Davidson on October 17, 2006 1:28 PM (e)

6. Illusion of unanimity (see false consensus effect)

Well, same thing from Heddle:

Welcoming all views is reasonable–after all science (and this list is supposed to be about science) welcomes all views. But what science never does is place views “off limits.” How, I asked in subsequent posts, can we be “about science” if a scientific topic, namely the age of the earth, is off the table? A handful of people replied by email (I flew below most everyone’s radar on this list) to say they agreed with me, but on the list the argument against my position was that the age of the earth was not relevant in the domain of ID. I pointed out that for cosmological ID it is extremely relevant, since fine-tuning arguments make no sense for a YEC position–but shortly thereafter the thread was closed for discussion. (I didn’t post much on this list, but I had a Ted Williams-like batting average for having my threads closed.)

http://helives.blogspot.com/2006/10/first-time-d…

continued below:

Comment #139879

Posted by Glen Davidson on October 17, 2006 1:29 PM (e)

7. Direct pressure on dissenters to conform

Heddle, plus virtually all of the PTers who have tried to dissent on Dembski’s blog.

8. Self-appointed “mindguards” protect the group from negative information

Why deviate from the most precious example, appearing on the groupthink thread, brought earlier to us by sparc?

sparc:

I have posted the following comment in the The Groupthink Syndrome thread at UD and WD’s threat to kick out A. McNeill

6. sparc // Oct 14th 2006 at 11:25 pm

5. direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group’s stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, making clear that this type of dissent is contrary to what is expected of all loyal members;

8. the emergence of self-appointed mindguards - members who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions.

William Dembski:
For your fatuous remarks above, I should boot you from this forum
Comment by sparc — October 14, 2006 @ 11:25 pm

Of course I could add that to Dembski all settled science would count as “groupthink”, by dint of the fact that well-established matters in science are not regularly discussed or “challenged”. Of course he would arbitrarily distinguish between other sciences and evolution by (without sufficient evidence, as per his custom) claiming that evolution isn’t based on the evidence but upon our commitment to materialism, blah blah. That’s number 4 on the list of characteristics of groupthink: “Shared stereotypes of outgroup, particularly opponents”

Indeed, if he wishes to point out that our side is far more in agreement about the science, that is completely true. This is why elements of groupthink are necessary at UD and in ID at large, because they could easily fall apart since they don’t share a consistent and scientific regard for evidence. But I do say “elements”, for individuals and segments can and do dissent from the UD position, and “reaction” more fully characterizes the cause for the solidarity of those who oppose Darwinism when they can’t even agree on the age of the earth, what constitutes design in organisms, or the extent of “Darwinistic” evolution that they will allow.

That is to say, certainly no facts, or even shared interpretation, characterizes ID’s big tent. Only an unreasoning desire to “disprove evolution” (meaningful evolutionary theory, anyhow) unites them, and there would be a free-for-all to “decide what science is” if they were ever to obtain power. Even now UD is discussing the divide between YECs and ID, which we already saw in the suppression of Heddle’s dissent in their “thinking group”.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/

Comment #139896

Posted by Da Vinci on October 17, 2006 4:06 PM (e)

I’m sorry for poor Polish guys. Even in Turkey, we don’t see such nonsense.

Comment #139904

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 17, 2006 5:49 PM (e)

Even in Turkey, we don’t see such nonsense.

Do a Google for “Harun Yahya”.

Comment #139925

Posted by PvM on October 17, 2006 9:20 PM (e)

Excellent observations Glen, I had started my own research to find examples and you seem to have beaten me to it. Well done.
It also seems that Jason Rosenhouse has taken the challenge as well.

Comment #140061

Posted by Glen Davidson on October 18, 2006 11:33 AM (e)

Thanks, Pim. Much could be added from their considerable record of groupthink.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #140262

Posted by Da Vinci on October 19, 2006 1:33 AM (e)

Even in Turkey, we don’t see such nonsense.

Do a Google for “Harun Yahya”.

Who do you think Harun Yahya is? He has 7 doctor’s report showing that he is mad. He is an idiot. He is nothing. Nobody cares what he says. He is not an official or something like that. Of course in every country there are dishonest anti-evolutionists and Harun Yahya is one of them and the biggest one in Turkey but I have a blog in which I show his dishonesty clearly. He appealed to court and tried to close my blog because he thinks I insult him by calling him “dishonest”.

Comment #140269

Posted by Adam on October 19, 2006 2:52 AM (e)

I just noticed a funny coincidence.

The deputy minister’s name is Orzechowski. It just so happens that the word “orzech” means “nut” in Polish.

His name, therefore, could plausibly be translated as “nutty.”

Comment #140307

Posted by Christophe Thill on October 19, 2006 9:05 AM (e)

Something to read about this matter:

http://www.polskieradio.pl/polonia/article.asp?t…

Fortunately, there are not only religious nuts in Poland, but also some top level scientists. For instance, there’s Pr. Zofian Kielan-Jaworowska, who could rightly be called Poland’s Dr. Dino, having dicovered many dinosaurs in the Gobi desert during the 1970s. Here’s what she has to say about MEP Maciej Giertych:

“There are people who still believe that not the earth is going round the sun but the sun round the earth. His views have nothing to do with science; I would not call him a scientist. We are deeply ashamed that he got the title of a professor and that he is a biologist.”

The last paragraph of the article shows that the Catholic church is very cautious on the matter, and takes care not to give any support to these fundies.

Comment #140612

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 20, 2006 7:29 AM (e)

Who do you think Harun Yahya is?

“He” is not a “he”. “He” is a “they”.

And they are getting money and lit from Americans.

Comment #140778

Posted by Leon on October 20, 2006 5:02 PM (e)

Da Vinci, seems to me if anything you were being too kind to Yahya by calling him dishonest. (Not to say you’re wrong to use softer language, but that your restraint is commendable.)

Comment #140783

Posted by Da Vinci on October 20, 2006 5:25 PM (e)

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:

“He” is not a “he”. “He” is a “they”.

And they are getting money and lit from Americans.

That is absolutely true.

Leon wrote:

Da Vinci, seems to me if anything you were being too kind to Yahya by calling him dishonest. (Not to say you’re wrong to use softer language, but that your restraint is commendable.)

You are right but as I said before they appealed to court because of insulting (they think saying dishonest is insulting) and blogger removed some of my articles.

Comment #140800

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 20, 2006 5:55 PM (e)

Posted by Christensen’s Clones

Well, since this moron posted this same crap on a different thread under a different name, it’s pretty apparent that he’s SOMEBODY’s clone. And yes, I do smell a Christensen somewhere.

Wasn’t his ass bounced out of here not long ago for doing this very same thing?