Comment #11218

Posted by william burns on December 4, 2004 09:40 PM (e) (s)

As a humanist working in the early modern period, I have often been struck by the parallels between evolution deniers, holocaust deniers, and Shakespeare deniers.  The movement espousing the theory that Shakespeare’s plays were really written by the earl of Oxford has the same traits of paranoia, assertions of an academic conspiracy, overemphasis on debates, and heavy overrepresentation of lawyers as opposed to qualified scholars.  Fortunately, they’re not trying to take over the educational system!

Comment #11222

Posted by Nick (Matzke) on December 5, 2004 12:49 AM (e) (s)

I think that Ruse’s position is that creationism/intelligent design have got so many flaws that they will wither in the light of academic debate with well-informed philosophers/scientists.  Which is an eminently reasonable position.  And ID certainly does not fare well in the Cambridge volume “Debating Design.” 

MHO is that there are two basic audiences that are potentially influenced by something like a Cambridge University Press volume.  First, there is the very large portion of the public that isn’t paying close attention.  The Discovery Institute folks may well get some tiny bit of “bump” out of being able to name-drop “Hey, we wrote essays for this Cambridge University Press” volume.  Basically, the opinion of these folks isn’t going to change over the short-term unless something truly drastic happens (on the level of the Civil Rights movement).

But there is a second audience, people who are paying fairly close attention.  This group is much smaller, but I think much more fluid and critical-thinking.  It is basically people who are interested in the controversy for some reason — e.g., a school board battle, a court case, a journalist covering one of the former, or someone with academic interest in science/religion.  These groups will, I think, by-and-large see right through the DI ploy claiming that an anthology of opposing views represents academic acceptance of ID.  And furthermore if they read the book they will learn the problems with ID (since there are some very capable scientific and philosophical critiques of ID in Debating Design, such as “The Flagellum Unspun” by Ken Miller; this is much less true of the “Rhetoric and Public Affairs” anthology Darwin, Design, and Public Education edited completely by DI folks).  I think that it’s at least arguable that the cumulative negative impact on ID within this secondary group (which then goes and writes its own essays, articles, school board decisions, etc., which the public at large will read) outweighs the superficial PR tricks the DI plays at.  It’s not accidental that ID has repeatedly lost popular support when the issue is pushed e.g. on a school board, such as in Darby, MT or Roseville, CA.  Once the media, the science teachers, the local religious and scientific community, etc. take a good close look at ID, they figure out what’s up pretty quick.  To borrow a sports analogy, the fundamentals are much more important in the long run than the superficial stuff.

To sum up, on this question I don’t think we should Ruse to conclusions.
;-)

Comment #11223

Posted by Nick (Matzke) on December 5, 2004 12:55 AM (e) (s)

And, I’d like to express my gratitude to Reed or whoever installed the much-needed spamblocker for PT.  It did mean that I had to change the word “t e e n s y” to “tiny,” because apparently PT now doesn’t like the word “t e e n s”, but this is a t e e n s y price to pay for destroying the dastardly demons of spam.

Comment #11224

Posted by Great White Wonder on December 5, 2004 02:23 AM (e) (s)

Nick

Your point is well-taken (and well presented).  Unfortunately, my optimism about how the minds of most Americans work was destroyed sometime between January and November of 2000 and nothing since then has happened to restore it.

I don’t know what will happen in the “long run” but I do know that there are a bunch of things that I would rather not live to see.

Comment #11226

Posted by Pericles on December 5, 2004 05:32 AM (e) (s)

I am surprised the the number of British subjects knowing about Auschwitz is as high as 45%. The teaching of History in the UK is very poor. For the past 30 years we have subjected children to touchy-feely new age methods with the result the employers have to run remedial classes for significant numbers of employees. Even fewer people in th UK will be aware of the millions and millions of Soviet citizens who were done to death in the name of Marxist theories of equality. Probably twice as many as the victims of Nazi policies.

The killing of millions of Chinese by their own Government in the name of Communism is conveniently ignored by apologists. Pol Pot ordered the killing of 33% of the population of Cambodia. Remind me!! Wasn’t he a Communist?

July 2004: Rwanda holds ceremonies to honour the 800,000 people butchered in 1994, amid criticism of the West’s stance. The number of British who even know where to find Rwanda on an atlas? You tell me—-5% perhaps?

Pericles

Comment #11227

Posted by Katarina Aram on December 5, 2004 05:42 AM (e) (s)

Living in a community of Christian evolution deniers, and having been good friends with Muslims as well, I feel that the influence of anti-evolutionism runs deeper than other historical conspiracy theories, at least in Christian and Muslim circiles. I know many thoughtful, perfectly sane, and well-meaning Christians who got caught because it has been touted to them that evolution is wrong from childhood, from the people they most respected, their pastors, parents, and in some private schools, their teachers. (And now apparently, in public schools as well!)

There is a difference when a child grows up with anti-evolution, as opposed to a mentally disturbed person (or group of persons) deciding to take up a historical event and distort it for whatever reason.

Christians tend to band together and trust each other. They believe in following a leader. So they won’t investigate that closely what DI says, on principle.

As for the leading people for ID, they are the paranoid, twisted people who take advantage of good folks who trust them. (Yes Pericles and Greg, I am determined to stick with a positive view of Christians. Or would you rather scare them all away from this informative site?)

In my view, the best way to deal with them is to expose their lack of integrity on a popular TV news show, which their followers will be likely to watch. TV is the way to reach them, and once they start having doubts about Dembski, Johnson, Wells, etc., the ball will be rolling and they’ll be willing to listen a little closer, i.e., read a book.

The PBS series did OK, but I think they were too kind, politically. A popular investigative journalist would be better.

Comment #11228

Posted by PZ Myers on December 5, 2004 08:40 AM (e) (s)

I think Nick’s point is a fair one to Ruse: Intelligent Design is making no headway at all among people who know biology,  and Ruse is ably playing to the informed scientific audience. However, this is something else that is making the creationists happy: it is widening the divide between the scientific ‘elite’ and the average guy on the street. There’s nothing like being able to point to those smug eggheads in their ivory tower and tell the lay people, “They’re laughing at you, Joe. They think they’re better than you.”

What we really need is more outreach and education. Knowledge is the enemy of ignorance, after all. We need a new Sagan or Bronowski, someone who enlightens Joe by telling him about the great stuff in science.

Comment #11232

Posted by FL on December 5, 2004 10:41 AM (e) (s)

Some of you actually sound like you’re serious about trying to establish a parallel between macro/prebiotic evolution critics and Holocaust deniers.

No wonder some of you are scared to do public debates. 
You ~need~ to be scared, imo, if you’re going to insist on bizarro comparisons like this.

But hey, please don’t take my word for it.  The next one of you gets signed up to a PBS, NPR, or University matchup with Dembski, Behe, Meyer, or one of the other top names, just introduce this new line of argument during the debate.  Maybe read a few paragraphs of GH’s post out loud just to see what happens next.  Then report back on the (doubtless interesting) results….

FL

Comment #11237

Posted by Matt Young on December 5, 2004 11:59 AM (e) (s)

My original essay merely pointed out the danger of debating or collaborating with evolution deniers.  I did not mean to draw an explicit parallel between evolution and Holocaust deniers.  But I daresay that Dr. GH is correct and that they are like peas in a pod - cranks who deny known fact for one irrational reason or another.

I am leery, however, of calling those who disagree with me nuts.  Here I side with Ms. Aram.  While I have no religious belief, I am active in a religious organization and have mild sympathy for people who hypothesize a God because they cannot accept that they are here reasonlessly.  Their religious belief is nonrational, but that does not necessarily mean irrational.

Knowledgeable people who deny known scientific or historical fact to support their religious or other beliefs are another matter.  The key word is knowledgeable.  The people Ms. Aram describes are not at fault.  They have, however, been taken in by people who know better or ought to know better.

Comment #11238

Posted by Joe McFaul on December 5, 2004 12:10 PM (e) (s)

Actually, FL, I’ve gotten a lot of milage by directing ID apologists to Johnson’s HIV denial theories, and noting how, in an entirely different forum, he makes exactly the same conspiracy therorist arguments in HIV denial as he does in denying evolution.  I then ask ID apologists if they want to be part of that.

Their typical response is a slow silence folowed by a disclaimer of Johnson’s HIV views, and arguing that his HIV vieew doesn’t impact whether or not ID is correct. That is true but there is a silent recognition that his method of argument is deeply flawed and does in fact bear a lot of resemblance to holocaust denial and other kook theories. Once they see the flawed methods used by Johnson, they become a little more critical of the flawed methods of Dembski and the others as well. DI press releases are no longer cited as evidence, for example.

I’d personally be delighted to discuss this on any PBS special linking the *method* of attack against evolution with the *method* employed in HIV denial, holocaust denial, ESP and alien abduction, because, in fact, they are all the same.

Comment #11239

Posted by Lurker on December 5, 2004 12:22 PM (e) (s)

Actually the “fear” that FL is describing seems to me to be a pragmatic rule-of-thumb for scientists.  Perhaps FL would like to explain why he thinks evolution-deniers are any more meritorious than Holocaust-deniers to monopolize the attention of scientists.  After all, it is people like FL who have given scientists billions of dollars in government funds.  I would be surprised to learn that the citizens of this country expects that money to be spent so that scientists can take time to entertain cranks at their every whim?

Comment #11240

Posted by Gary Hurd on December 5, 2004 12:46 PM (e) (s)

My main focus of this little piece was not Ruse, however he was a good example of the creationist parallel of well meaning and eminent academics who facilitated and even promoted the views of Holocaust deniers.  Nick’s comments are well taken, and of course “Ruse’s position is that creationism/intelligent design have got so many flaws that they will wither in the light of academic debate with well-informed philosophers/scientists.” Indeed, Ruse sees himself as quite heroic as he revealed in his response to Matt Young,

“If I am to criticize anyone it would be the eminent evolutionists who were asked to contribute but who were too damn busy doing their research while Rome burns around them — when their kids or grandkids are taught Creationism in the classroom (and with Bush stacking the Supreme Court, don’t think it won’t happen) don’t blame me — although come to me for help, because these issues are bigger than my frustration or their selfishness.”  M. Ruse

However, it is not “…an eminently reasonable position,” it is a false perception.  It fails because the creationist movement is not one based on rational discourse, it is entirely political and emotional.  I gave just one example of how Ruse’s collaboration is used by creationists to bolster their position.  Just one out of many available.

I actually think that Ruse’s goal is closely revealed in his closing comment to his review of S. J. Gould’s book Rocks of Ages where he wrote,

“I am sure that this new work will inform and stimulate many people. Even when they disagree, as I sometimes I do, the book will help to further the cause of future progress and reconciliation.”

Contrast this with William Dembski’s insightful assessment of Phillip Johnson’s ambition that I cited above,

“All sides now realize that Johnson was, from the start, deadly
earnest, not content merely to tweak Darwin’s nose but intent, rather, on knocking him down for the ten-count. Johnson is, after all, a lawyer, and lawyers think contests are not simply to be enjoyed but also to be won.”  And Dembski goes on to explain in the clearest language why collaborators such as Ruse are so helpful, “In line with our there-might-be-something-to-it-after-all policy, it’s usually enough to indicate that there’s more to the story than the other side lets on. John Angus Campbell puts it this way: A draw is a win! The other side wants to obliterate intelligent design. Yet to persuade the undecided middle, we just have to show that intelligent design has something going for it.”  (William A. Dembski 2004 “DEALING WITH THE BACKLASH AGAINST INTELLIGENT DESIGN” version 1.1, April 14, )

Ruse hopes for “future progress and reconciliation” while his friend Johnson is in “deadly earnest” and knows “contests are not simply to be enjoyed but also to be won.”  Ruse is a one legged man at an a*s kicking.

There is only one argument I can see that could justify participating with creationists in a public debate.  And that is the notion that they already “own” the entire audience.  In that case, the one-in-a-hundred, or even one-in-a-thousand who can overcome their religious zeal enough to appreciate the scientific position is all to the plus.  A weaker form of the argument would be that merely creating a slight doubt in the creationist audience’s certainty of their position will moderate their political actions.  However, this makes a shaky assumption that “you” are such a polished public speaker that your ability to sway the audience is assured.  Having watched the likes of Gish, and Hovind demolish academics, I would not ever get on that particular horse.

Comment #11244

Posted by FL on December 5, 2004 02:11 PM (e) (s)

Well, Joe, I strongly suspect that if you substitute the phrase “Holocaust denial” instead of the phrase “HIV denial” and then did some more field-testing, you’d find yourself getting far less mileage.  Perhaps even winding up with a stalled engine or something.  At least that much seems clear right off the bat.

But ss far as this HIV denial topic goes, I dunno, that is a different animal (although I submit to you that your ID friends are absolutely correct to begin their response by noting that this topic in fact does not impact the question of whether ID is correct, nor even whether Johnson’s critiques of evolutionist logic/semantics, such as seen in Darwin On Trial are correct or not.

That’s not a small point.  On one thread, I was recently asked about what I thought of the group called the Unification Church (Rev. Sun Young Moon) and its claims, seeing as Jonathan Wells belongs to that group.  The fact is, however, that his church preference, though I personally strongly disagree with it, did not impact his book Icons of Evolution in the slightest. 

Whenever I re-read Darwin On Trial or any of Johnson’s other books, I get that exact same impression of complete separation.  Johnson is free to believe other beliefs and I am free to accept or reject those same claims. 
But he did stick to the business at hand—critical and logical analysis of evo-logic and evo-semantics (and occasional evo-actions), in his books.  That’s the important thing.  And I don’t think they are “deeply flawed” at all—he certainly scored a number of direct hits or evolutionists wouldn’t have fought him so hard afterwards.

You said,

I’d personally be delighted to discuss this on any PBS special linking the *method* of attack against evolution with the *method* employed in HIV denial, holocaust denial, ESP and alien abduction, because, in fact, they are all the same.

Well, that calls for a comparison of what Johnson has said regarding HIV denial with what he said in Darwin on Trial and subsequent books.
I’ve read those books, re-read them and re-read them in fact, and I never saw any “conspiracy theory” talk nor any Johnson statements even remotely reminiscent or parallel of “holocaust denial”, “ESP”, “Alien Abduction”, (c’mon, please, let us keep it real okay?), but I’d be happy to compare/contrast Johnson’s remarks on both issues…either at home or on PBS as well.

********************

Speaking of this HIV thing, one site says that “Although the scientific evidence is overwhelming and compelling that HIV is the cause of AIDS, the disease process is not yet completely understood” That does leave the door open for dissension, even thought the majority view has good arguments and time (esp. the 90’s) hav only sharpened them.

But two of the main HIV dissenters, Duesberg and Rasnick, have written a book called “The chemical bases of the various AIDS epidemics: recreational drugs, anti-viral chemotherapy and malnutrition” (2003), with Claus Koehnlein.  I haven’t read the book yet, nor Duesberg’s journal-published stuff. 

So I will say this:  It’s easy to just go with “the mainstream” and not even bother to check out scientific dissent on an issue.  Way too easy. 

Not saying that D and R (or even Phillip Johnson) are correct on this issue.  To me, HIV still causes AIDS.  But that was and is the official line, and I never bothered reading or listening to alternative scientific voices.  My mistake.

But now, I would think there’s room for a reasonable layperson to at least read what the scientific dissenters are saying, what the majority view has responded and is responding, and again what the minority has recently rejoindered.  Clearly there is a scientific dissenting view there to at least consider, even if it never pans out.

What’s also clear is that there are quite a few PhD’s in biochem, cell biology, and also M.D’s who are at mninimum calling for reappraisal.  Johnson is with some serious scientific company there.  They are calling for: 

It is widely believed by the general public that a retrovirus called HIV causes the group diseases called AIDS. Many biochemical scientists now question this hypothesis. We propose that a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis be conducted by a suitable independent group. We further propose that critical epidemiological studies be devised and undertaken.

http://www.stophiv.com/facts_myths/questions/05-peoplesayhiv…

TalkOrigins, btw, casually (way too much) dismisses them all with the usual stale label “pseudoscientists” but it don’t look like their credentials and current posts are anything to sneeze at.  Further, their requests there are not self-evidently unreasonable, since in fact we still do not scientifically understand the disease process.

So what am I saying?  I think this HIV denial debate, which Johnson has sided with the dissenters, is a genuine scientific debate, one which the NIH and other “establishment” groups are in little danger of losing. 
However, the work of D and R obviously isn’t going away and there is still room for scientific dissent on this HIV issue.

FL

Comment #11246

Posted by Sean Foley on December 5, 2004 02:49 PM (e) (s)

I’m not sure that a lack of British knowledge of the specific atrocities of Auschwitz is necessarily symptomatic of an overall ignorance of the general atrocities of the Holocaust.  I’ve always understood that, in the British mind, the camp most synonymous with the Holocaust was Bergen-Belsen, which was liberated by the British Army on April 15, 1945.  Auschwitz, by contrast, was liberated by the Red Army nearly two weeks after Bergen-Belsen.

Comment #11248

Posted by Great White Wonder on December 5, 2004 04:11 PM (e) (s)

FL still hasn’t reached the bottom of his manure pile!  He has an endless supply!

The fact is, however, that [Wells’] church preference, though I personally strongly disagree with it, did not impact his book Icons of Evolution in the slightest.

Horse hockey.  Wells church wallows in bogus bigotry-fueled rhetoric like a pig in a sty.  Where are all the anti-science books written by Episcopalians, FL?

It’s easy to understand why you, FL, would fail to see how Wells’ sick religious beliefs inform his equally warped views about science.  I’ll leave it at that.

I would think there’s room for a reasonable layperson to at least read what the scientific dissenters are saying, what the majority view has responded and is responding, and again what the minority has recently rejoindered.  Clearly there is a scientific dissenting view there to at least consider, even if it never pans out.

You’re about ten years behind the times.  Do “reasonable laypeople” include lying fakes like you who would believe just about anything if an evangelical put enough fake scientific sugar on top?  I hope not.

I never saw any “conspiracy theory” talk nor any Johnson statements even remotely reminiscent or parallel of “holocaust denial”, “ESP”, “Alien Abduction”,

Is it easy to write and drink kool-aid at the same time?

Although the scientific evidence is overwhelming and compelling that HIV is the cause of AIDS, the disease process is not yet completely understood” That does leave the door open for dissension

Dissension as to what exactly?
Here’s a question for you, FL:  Has the means of death of every Jew killed in the holocaust been proven beyond a reasonable doubt?  Doesn’t that leave room for dissension, FL?

C’mon my prepubescent friend.  It’s time for you to become an adult.  Put down your script and step away from your computer for a few years.  Come back when you’re an adult, FL, when you know the difference between telling the truth and lying.

Well, Joe, I strongly suspect that if you substitute the phrase “Holocaust denial” instead of the phrase “HIV denial” and then did some more field-testing, you’d find yourself getting far less mileage.

No mileage is necessary, FL, which you’d understand if you weren’t so utterly deluded.  There is no genuine “controversy” as to the scientific bankruptcy of “intelligent design theory,” just as there is no genuine “controversy” as to the fact that millions of jews were systematically killed by Nazis during the holocaust.

Your answer to my question about the holocaust above, FL, will show that you are a dissembling rube.  And whether creationists apologists are a pack of dissembling evangelical Christian rubes trying to do an end-around the First Amendment is all that remains to be “proven” to “reasonable laypeople” in this country.  All the other garbage about “science” is just a smokescreen that is easily blown away once the fan is plugged in.  Remember what your mommy told you, FL: don’t get your finger caught in the blades.

Comment #11251

Posted by mark on December 5, 2004 05:23 PM (e) (s)

I’m reminded of one of my earliest meetings with a creationist—I thought they, like water witches, had long passed from the scene (wrong on both counts).  Back in 1974, a fellow worker in the automobile factory started talking to me after learning that I studied geology.  Not only was he a creationist, but he was also the leader of the local branch of the John Birch Society.  It seemed like his wacky ideas in one area were quite harmonious with his wacky ideas in the other area.  Underlying both was a religious fundamentalism that prevented any philosophical or cognitive evolution on his part.

Comment #11254

Posted by Ed Darrell on December 5, 2004 05:43 PM (e) (s)

For the issue of Holcaust denial, one needs to know and remember the story of Mel Mermelstein. 

Here’s the sequence of events regarding Mermelstein, a Los Angeles businessman and survivor of Auschwitz, and Willis Carto’s wacky “Institute for Historical Revision,” which wishes to deny the Holocaust (from the Shamash website):  Here is a short history of the court proceedings … :

  1)  Mr. Mermelstein wrote a letter to the Jerusalem Post;
  2)  the IHR wrote him a letter offering him $50,000 for proof “that Jews were  gassed in gas-chambers at Auschwitz”;
  3)  he provided proof;
  4)  the IHR refused to pay;
  5)  he sued them;
  6)  the court said that he had provided proof;
  7)  the IHR et al paid him $90,000 and apologized.

Actually, IHR had offered the prize to anyone who could prove the Holocaust.  Typically someone would show up with documents, photos, or whatever constitutes solid evidence, and the IHR folks would feign laughter and claim it wasn’t good enough evidence.  Then they’d claim yet another hoaxer was debunked.

Mermelstein recognized that what the IHR had offered was a sweepstakes; and he understood that such an offer is enforceable in contract, if it is bona fide.  So he provided his evidence, IHR laughed, and Mermelstein sued.

The California courts determined that the evidence for the Holocaust was so powerful that the judge could take “judicial notice” that the holocaust occurred. That means that the holocaust is a fact that doesn’t need to be proven any longer, because it’s so well proven already.  “The cognizance of certain facts which judges and jurors may properly take and act upon without proof, because they already know them,” as the Federal Rules of Civil Evidence used to say.

It’s important that you know that, legally, there is no doubt of the Holocaust.  Legally, the Holocaust deniers have no leg to stand on.

Someone could sue Kent Hovind to make him pay, similarly, were his offer not so nutty that any sane person would immediately see it’s not bona fide.

Phillip Johnson probably read the Mermelstein case and saw the writing on the wall.  He hopes to create doubt in evolution while keeping the issue out of court.  In a fair tribunal, evolution is the sort of evidence that courts take on judicial notice.

Comment #11255

Posted by Bob Maurus on December 5, 2004 06:02 PM (e) (s)

FL,

You said, “On one thread, I was recently asked about what I thought of the group called the Unification Church (Rev. Sun Young Moon) and its claims, seeing as Jonathan Wells belongs to that group.”

A clarification - I believe you’re referring to me, and whatI asked you for was your assesment of Wells’ motivation, and I subsequently pointed out that Wells had gotten his PhD at the direction of “Father” Moon, for the express purpose of destroying Darwinism.

As to HIV and Aids, I have been told that 1 in 100 white Europeans have a mutation that renders them immune to HIV/AIDS.

Comment #11256

Posted by Joe McFaul on December 5, 2004 06:48 PM (e) (s)

FL, you’re missing the point about Johnson.  The reason why I get so much mileage is because intellectually honest people see the problem with Johnson, once it’s demonstrated.

Here’s Johnson’s basic “argument”—his M.O.:

1. The scientific/medical establishment has made a fundamental error about (insert issue here).
2. The vast majority of scientists have all independently made this same error and “confirmed” each other’s research so that a prevailing dogma is the paradigm.
3. It is necessary to continue the prevailing dogma at the expense of truth, usually for financial or political reasons.
4. There is a small band of truthseekers (Johnson is one of them) seeking to tell the American public the truth about (insert issue here).
5. The evidence in support of the prevailing dogma is incomplete, inaccurate or forged. Sine it’s dogma, no contrary evidence will be received.
6. The establishment controls the means of communicating the truth to the American public including peer reviewed journals, the mass media and education system and will publish nothing that contradicts the prevailing dogma.
7. The battle against this conspiracy continues as the truthseekers fight the good fight against overwhelming odds.

Of course it could be that just possibly thousands of scientists, engineers, healthcare professionals and educators all with their own interests, might not be able to keep a secret and someone would eventually spill the beans. It also seems more than likely that not that the prevailing dogma is actually the truth. But neither of these occurs to Johnson. He makes the same argument about evolution that he makes about HIV—essentially a grand conspiracy is concealing the truth.  That’s the conspiracy theory. 

It is exactly the same conspiracy theory used by alien abduction apologists, ESP advocates, holocaust deniers, and obviously both ID advocates and HIV conspiracy theorists.  People of good will run from conspiracy theorists.  People who sincerely believe that ID has potential begin to re-evaluate the evidence when they realize Johnson’s M.O.

Now I don’t know whether you misunderstood what I meant by this, but you cannot possibly make  a statement like “I’ve read those books, re-read them and re-read them in fact, and I never saw any “conspiracy theory” talk” with a straight face. Most poeple here have actaully read Johnson. Your statement is means only one of three things: (1) you didn’t know what I meant by conspiracy theory; (2) you can’t read; or (3) you are a liar.

I randomly opened my paperback version of Defeating Darwinism to page 35 (as it turns out) and found two references to “ dogmatic Darwinian” and the “official story” on that page alone. I could repeat the test some more but there’s no need.  Now, Dembski would infer that it was not chance that there are two conspiracy theory references on one random page.  It’s there by design.  And he would be right, for once. So take this opportunity to retract that statement. It’s wrong.

It appears you agree in any event that Johnson is using this M.O. but even if he is, he might be right, not once, but twice (Darwinism and HIV). You might as well tell us how you distinguish his logic from that of the holocaust deniers and alien abductees because I for one would like to know.

Comment #11260

Posted by MI on December 5, 2004 09:15 PM (e) (s)

One of my concerns is the failure of evolution deniers to rightly understand evolution and evolutionists. I would not call the misconceptions glaring nor, of course, am I making a blanket criticism of all evolution deniers. But the misconceptions can be important. There is no doubt it has weakened their criticism of evolution.

What was surprising to me was the extent to which evolutionists return the favor. In fact, what is surprising is the gross magnitude of misconceptions evolutionists have of creationists. They are far greater than their counterparts in the creationist camp.

And they don’t merely weaken your criticism of creationists – they render it absurd. This thread is a prime example. The sentiment expressed here reads more like a caricature. If I showed this to a creationist (one not intimate with the evolution – creation debate, and forums like this) I think they would wonder if I was joking.

I am by no means suggesting evolution deniers are without fault. There certainly are problems to which one can point. But, frankly, I could not have written a better parody of the evolution position vis a vis creationism. Unfortunately, the sentiment here was written in all seriousness.

Below is a sampling of quotes from this thread.

———————————
Creationists’ goal to eliminate scientific and academic freedom is immediate and real.  The stakes should be clear from the beginning.  We are never more than a single generation away from total savagery.

When I read Prof. Young’s piece, I was immediately taken with the social and intellectual parallels between Holocaust deniers and evolution deniers.

The professional creationists’ denial of data from every science and ability to distort what facts they are forced to admit far outshine any paranoiac I have encountered.  It is futile looking to professional creationists for either the intellectual honesty or mental health necessary to change their opinion.

I have often been struck by the parallels between evolution deniers, holocaust deniers, and Shakespeare deniers. 

the DI ploy

ID has repeatedly lost popular support when the issue is pushed e.g. on a school board, such as in Darby, MT or Roseville, CA. 

the influence of anti-evolutionism runs deeper than other historical conspiracy theories, at least in Christian and Muslim circiles.

There is a difference when a child grows up with anti-evolution, as opposed to a mentally disturbed person (or group of persons) deciding to take up a historical event and distort it for whatever reason.

As for the leading people for ID, they are the paranoid, twisted people who take advantage of good folks who trust them.

Dr. GH is correct and that they are like peas in a pod - cranks who deny known fact for one irrational reason or another.

Knowledgeable people who deny known scientific or historical fact to support their religious or other beliefs are another matter.

the creationist movement is not one based on rational discourse, it is entirely political and emotional. 

Not only was he a creationist, but he was also the leader of the local branch of the John Birch Society. 
———————————

Comment #11264

Posted by Katarina Aram on December 5, 2004 10:17 PM (e) (s)

MI,

Well done. Point taken.

Comment #11267

Posted by Great White Wonder on December 5, 2004 10:34 PM (e) (s)

Nice try, MI.

I disagree entirely with Katarina.  You post is not “well done”.  Rather, it’s half-baked.

A lot of those quotes are reasonable personal opinions based on widely available facts.  Hyperbole?  Maybe some.  In any event, they are all taken out of context.  I don’t have the time to defend each of them, but I could do so soberly if I was so inclined.

Please acknowledge, MI, that the “teach creationism” movement is a political movement funded and driven, for the msot part, by conservative evangelical religio-political think tanks and related evangelical organizations.  To the extent some poor saps (like William Buckingham) are merely inspired by what the claptrap produced by the Discovery Institute and its peons, there may be some “independent” thought.  But for the most part it’s the same script.

If you can’t acknowledge this fact, MI, then show us the evidence to the contrary.  Go ahead and rebut Joe McFaul’s post.

I agree that the world isn’t going to end if creationism is taught in public schools, MI, and it is a mistake to argue that it will.  I haven’t seen anyone seriously make that argument, have you?

On the other hand, the world won’t end if we teach kids that there is as much scientific proof for God as there is for the Easter Bunny.  But try proposing teaching that fact to your local school board.  After you read your hate mail, you’ll know why you’re dead wrong when you claim that we “sound just like the creationists” in this thread.

Comment #11269

Posted by MI on December 5, 2004 11:21 PM (e) (s)

Great White writes.: Please acknowledge, MI, that the “teach creationism” movement is a political movement funded and driven, for the msot part, by conservative evangelical religio-political think tanks and related evangelical organizations.  To the extent some poor saps (like William Buckingham) are merely inspired by what the claptrap produced by the Discovery Institute and its peons, there may be some “independent” thought.  But for the most part it’s the same script. If you can’t acknowledge this fact, MI, then show us the evidence to the contrary.

Me: You are continuing to make my case. The “teach creationism” movement is not a unified, monolithic, well funded, political movement that you make it out to be. Many of these recent stories we hear about are grass roots movements (I don’t know the details of all of them, so I won’t make a sweepting statement, but all the cases that I have knowledge of are grass roots movements). Drop your conspiracy theory, they are not feeding off some secret “evangelical” funding source. In fact, the ones I am most familiar with were not interested in teaching creationism or design in our public schools. What they wanted is biology taught not from an evolution-is-true perspective, but from a neutral perspective.

Comment #11270

Posted by Great White Wonder on December 5, 2004 11:43 PM (e) (s)

You are continuing to make my case.

Not really.  You’re continuing to deny reality and I find it interesting that you offer no facts to support your position.

The “teach creationism” movement is not a unified, monolithic, well funded, political movement that you make it out to be.

Let’s see.  What did I say exactly to inspire the creation of your strawman?  Oh yes, there it is. You quoted what I wrote, in English.  Why don’t you read the text you quoted before arguing with a strawman, MI?  Arguing with a strawman makes you look silly.

Many of these recent stories we hear about are grass roots movements (I don’t know the details of all of them, so I won’t make a sweepting statement, but all the cases that I have knowledge of are grass roots movements).

Hard to respond to something as vague as this.  Could you describe some trivial detail relating to say, TWO of these “many” “recent stories” about a creationism controversy in a public school?  Like the name of a town in which a disclaimer was proposed or the teaching of ID was mandated? Thanks in advance, MI!

Drop your conspiracy theory, they are not feeding off some secret “evangelical” funding source.”

Another strawman.  No one is alleging a secret funding source.  For the most part, the funding is right out in the open, as are the conservative pro-evangelical legal groups that offer their services.

In fact, the ones I am most familiar with were not interested in teaching creationism or design in our public schools. What they wanted is biology taught not from an evolution-is-true perspective, but from a neutral perspective.

Oh, is that all?  They just want all of the most useful and universally accepted scientific theories to be taught from a “neutral” perspective.  Do I have that right?  And I assume, then, that these evangelicals also have no problem with the Bible being taught from a “neutral” perspective in public school, right?

Let me know if I misunderstand you, MI.

Btw, you are driving on bald tires.  Are you one of those folks that can admit being wrong or do you just keep dissembling when people take time out of their day to discuss your errors with you?

Comment #11271

Posted by Nick (Matzke) on December 5, 2004 11:45 PM (e) (s)

Yes MI, you do score some points with some of those quotes from this thread.  GWW in particular seems to have a tendency to get, um, riled up.  Comparisons to clinical paranoiacs and such are over the top.

On the other hand, it’s hard to see anything overwrought in some of those statements, e.g.:

ID has repeatedly lost popular support when the issue is pushed e.g. on a school board, such as in Darby, MT or Roseville, CA. 

Knowledgeable people who deny known scientific or historical fact to support their religious or other beliefs are another matter.

the creationist movement is not one based on rational discourse, it is entirely political and emotional.

In general I think that the HIV deniers are a much better comparison to ID than the Holocaust Deniers.  First, Holocaust denial is associated with a repugnant form of antisemitism that is unfair and insulting to associate with IDists.  No such allusion was made in the openning post and I’m sure it was not intended, but I suspect that most IDist readers would take it that way.  Second, at least two of the most prominent IDists (Phillip Johnson and, IIRC, Jonathan Wells) are HIV-AIDS deniers.

The parallels continue.  Both ID and HIV-AIDS deniers rely heavily on lists of people signing on to a vaguely worded, somewhat misleading statement that almost anyone could agree with, and using that to support a very radical agenda that is quite a bit beyond what the signatories signed up for.  This was clearly part of the situation with the DI 100.

FL even did us a favor by posting the HIV deniers statement:

It is widely believed by the general public that a retrovirus called HIV causes the group diseases called AIDS. Many biochemical scientists now question this hypothesis. We propose that a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis be conducted by a suitable independent group. We further propose that critical epidemiological studies be devised and undertaken.

And the Discovery Institute 100 statement:

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

It’s almost like Phil Johnson wrote both statements.

PS: A collection of Phillip Johnson links on HIV/AIDS denial is here, and the the “Rethinking AIDS-Phillip Johnson page is here.”

PPS: One really bizarre feature of the HIV-AIDS deniers is that they seem to fall into two groups: first, some of their writings (like Phil Johnson) have a strong social conservative vibe.  But the second group is basically a radical wing of gay activists from San Francisco — and they’ve taken over the group ACT-UP, which as you will recall was the most vocal supporter of AIDS research in the 1980’s.  This strange situation was reviewed in the press a few years ago, here is one good article, an editorial in a Biomedical Journal, and Law Weekly.

PPPS: I don’t know anything about Shakespeare denial.  My vague impression was that we don’t know that much about Shakespeare’s life, and that while most plays are confidently by him, a few might not be.  Care to post some links someone?

Comment #11272

Posted by Sean Foley on December 6, 2004 12:10 AM (e) (s)

Nick -

This is a reasonably rundown on the Shakespeare authorship “controversy”.  There’s no real compelling evidence to suggest that anyone other than William Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him.

Though the theory that Francis Bacon not only wrote all of Shakesepeare’s works but supervised the construction of an enormously elaborate hiding place for the manuscripts is at least kind of funny.

Comment #11273

Posted by Great White Wonder on December 6, 2004 01:11 AM (e) (s)

First, Holocaust denial is associated with a repugnant form of antisemitism that is unfair and insulting to associate with IDists.

Hmm.  The conservative evangelical creationist types love to bring up the Nazis (or their partners in crime, the commies) and do so at every opportunity. ID peddlers throw out references to the Nazis because, we are told, Nazism is based partly on Darwin’s theories.  In fact, conservative evangelicals often compare anyone or any country that doesn’t share their fundamentlists views re morality to Nazis or communists.

The “implications” of the ID peddlers position with respect to the ethics of scientists are obvious.  Indeed, they are explicit.  It’s standard procedure to bring up the Nazis.  Does anyone believe that William Buckingham didn’t bring up the Nazis at one of his school board meetings?

I think by showing the similarities between Holocaust deniers with IDists, we show that IDers are inclined to engage in the most self-serving forms of selective ignorance.  That is, they are not afraid to debase themselves in their pursuit of the “truth” as they would like to see it believed by sheep everywhere.

No one believes that the majority of creationist-pushers are antisemetic.  Anti-atheists probably, but then so are a whole lot of other people in this sad uninformed country. 

The creationist-pushers rile me up for essentially the same reason that Holocaust deniers rile me up.  I can honestly say that I’m equally revolted by both groups.  And I don’t think it is outrageous to admit it (although it could seem that way to a creationist, but they’re outraged that they can’t broadcast prayers over the school PA system).

If creationist peddlers don’t want to be compared to Holocaust deniers, they should be prepared to explain why they believe that a tiny minority of big mouths is correct and all of the world’s scientists are wrong but somehow fail to be as skeptical when it comes to another “controversial” claim.

Then they can admit that the difference is that their holy book doesn’t say anything about the number of jews killed in world war II.  And then they can admit that their position is not based on science, but is purely religious.  And then we can all go home and focus on things like ending starvation, disease and war.

Comment #11277

Posted by Katarina Aram on December 6, 2004 08:47 AM (e) (s)

Is the purpose of this thread to help us to better understand our opponent by comparison to another group?

MI brought up a very important point: anti-evolutionists are as diverse a group of people as we are. It is not fair to charactarize them as such and such, only for the purpose of venting our anger. If the purpose is not that, but to gain tools for defeating their propaganda, then the thread makes sense.

Let’s get to the point: will this comparison help indirectly, but helping us understand our opponent, or directly, by bringing up the point on a talk show? And if indirectly, then what are we to learn from it?

(PS. Great White: Commies fought Nazis, and very bravely at that)

Comment #11281

Posted by Great White Wonder on December 6, 2004 10:07 AM (e) (s)

Katarina

anti-evolutionists are as diverse a group of people as we are.

This is absolutely not true of the people on the creationist peddling front line.  They are not nearly as diverse as the group consisting of rational people who understand science and/or respect the historical record which plainly shows over a century of rigorous research confirming the essential aspects of Darwin’s theory.

As to the “everday” evolution “skeptic” — they are a more diverse group than the limelight lovers.  But they are still mostly conservative Christian creationists.  That fact alone should strike any objective observer as odd but of course this is the United States we’re talking about.

Moreover, it’s not the “everday” man-on-the-street evolution skeptic who resorts to the Holocaust-denial type arguments.

It is not fair to charactarize them as such and such, only for the purpose of venting our anger.

Again, depends on who “them” is.  I think Dr. GH’s post was clear about who “them” is and I think most of the commenter’s posts were also clear about who “them” is.

There is nothing “unfair” about comparing the minds of people Johnson or Hovind or Wells to the minds of Holocaust deniers.  I don’t know what the position of these individuals is with respect to the Holocaust but, frankly, I would be more surprised if they weren’t sympathetic to the claims of Holocaust skeptic than if they were.

Comment #11285

Posted by Katarina Aram on December 6, 2004 10:50 AM (e) (s)

Great White.

Intelligent Design is strong politically, not scientifically. That much is obvious. Political strength means the support of the average joe, in addition to some wealthy people with agendas. If the average joe withdrew his political support, ID would have little left.

I am not sure if this means we need to target the average joe in public debates, but I don’t think it would hurt. I am not saying to leave out the science, but as things stand at the moment, It doesn’t seem we are getting through to the average joe.

I don’t pretend to know the solution. But it may be more constructive to refrain from discussions that tend to alienate the other side.

Comment #11287

Posted by Great White Wonder on December 6, 2004 11:11 AM (e) (s)

But it may be more constructive to refrain from discussions that tend to alienate the other side.

Sure.  You could be right.  And it sounds “nice”, in theory.

On the other hand, you could look at the last two Presidential elections and make an argument that attacking the character of your opponent and belittling them is a very successful strategy for winning a political contest in this country.  Likewise, responding to such attacks with nothing but reasoned intellectualisms is a proven way to lose.

That’s not to say that there aren’t lines that can’t be crossed.  But given that the our opponents have already crossed the line we’re talking about — explicitly — I don’t see too much of a downside illustrating how revolting their attitude is with a pungent rejoinder.

Comment #11290

Posted by MI on December 6, 2004 11:37 AM (e) (s)

Believe it or not Nick, scoring points is not my goal. I actually was hoping we could create some light rather than heat. So what’s wrong with:

1) ID has repeatedly lost popular support when the issue is pushed e.g. on a school board, such as in Darby, MT or Roseville, CA. 

2) Knowledgeable people who deny known scientific or historical fact to support their religious or other beliefs are another matter.

3) the creationist movement is not one based on rational discourse, it is entirely political and emotional.

One way to gather support, solidify your base, and generally win your case is to villify the opposition. Do not admit to any rational position within your opposition. Hitler was good at this. But the risk you run is losing credibility. You can’t paint the guy next door, who is a pretty sharp guy, as a raving lunatic and maintain credibility. This sentiment you guys are espousing can thrive only in isolated discussions where you all are talking to each other.

So, for #1 above, could it be that there are parents who think that biology teaching is inaccurate due to undue acceptance and emphasis on evolution? Could it be that they simply want the problems with evolution to be acknowledged? No, that would admit to a rational position. Better to paint them as backwater illiterates, driven by religious fundamentalism, whose goal is the teaching of creationism or ID and banishing evolution. Aside from the Dover case, I don’t know of a case that is asking for ID to be taught. #1 is simply factually wrong, but this serves to propagate the stereotype.

#2 and #3 are more obvious, and the fact that the ostensible middle position here would ask what is wrong with these, again, is telling. “Deny known scientific … fact to support their religious or other beliefs” and “the creationist movement is not one based on rational discourse, it is entirely political and emotional” ?  What scientific facts are being denied? Why is creationism not rational? You see, these charges expose you. One can argue for evolution and against creation, but to paint creationists in this way is simply not credible. The only people you are going to convince are yourselves. Again, I’m not saying there are not problematic elements within the creationist movement.

GWW writes: Could you describe some trivial detail relating to say, TWO of these “many” “recent stories” about a creationism controversy in a public school? 

MI: Dover is the only case I know of advocating ID. Non are advocating teaching creation. Cobb County, Kansas, Roseville were all advocating the teaching of problems with evolution as well as the positives. Actually, Cobb did not even go that far, they only wanted a “theory” disclaimer. Because evolutionists maintain evolution is a fact, they opposed the disclaimer.

GWW: Oh, is that all?  They just want all of the most useful and universally accepted scientific theories to be taught from a “neutral” perspective. 

GI: Yes, isn’t that terrible! Think of it, teaching the negatives of theory.

GWW: You’re continuing to deny reality … Btw, you are driving on bald tires.  Are you one of those folks that can admit being wrong or do you just keep dissembling when people take time out of their day to discuss your errors with you?

GI: Unfortunately, GWW is not really an outlier. This simplistic, black/white reductionism (anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot, regardless of what they actually say) is not that unusual.

Comment #11294

Posted by Katarina Aram on December 6, 2004 11:47 AM (e) (s)

MI wrote:

“…could it be that there are parents who think that biology teaching is inaccurate due to undue acceptance.”

The acceptance and emphasis on evolution is perfectly justified. If parents think otherwise, why is that

“Could it be that they simply want the problems with evolution to be acknowledged?”

Acknowledged where, in high school biology? First the “problems” have to be acknowledged using the peer review process, then if they pass that test, maybe a few college courses, then if it becomes really well established, finally it can trickle down into high school biology.

MI, you are no longer making sense.

Comment #11298

Posted by MI on December 6, 2004 12:01 PM (e) (s)

Katarina writes: The acceptance and emphasis on evolution is perfectly justified.

MI: Not to the extent that the science is not taught accurately. We don’t brush problems under the rug.

Katarina: Acknowledged where, in high school biology? First the “problems” have to be acknowledged using the peer review process, then if they pass that test, maybe a few college courses, then if it becomes really well established, finally it can trickle down into high school biology.

MI: Agreed (and done). The problems are well understood.

Comment #11299

Posted by Great White Wonder on December 6, 2004 12:02 PM (e) (s)

Damn, MI, your last post was too short!

I was really interested in where your conversation with me was going.

Comment #11300

Posted by Katarina Aram on December 6, 2004 12:21 PM (e) (s)

“MI: Agreed (and done). The problems are well understood.”

Do you mean problems WITH or problems WITHIN the theory?

Sorry I don’t remember who said this, but in a comment a while back someone compared the theory of evolution to Swiss cheeze: there may be holes, but it’s still Swiss cheeze.

High school is for basics, for presenting the overall picture. Not promoting a religious agenda. So far, it is the religious that find problems WITH the theory.

Comment #11304

Posted by Katarina Aram on December 6, 2004 12:26 PM (e) (s)

Add to my last sentance, as a result of their religious beliefs.

Comment #11306

Posted by ~DS~ on December 6, 2004 12:45 PM (e) (s)

I wrote a similar article using the holocaust deniers as an analogy to creationists. Kinda weird it keeps coming up like that.

Comment #11307

Posted by MI on December 6, 2004 12:49 PM (e) (s)

No, Karatina, I’m talking about problems WITH the theory. This has nothing to do with religious beliefs. This is the “Inherit the Wind” stereotype that is simply not credible. Let me give you a very simple example. Homologies very often arise from non homologous development processes. This is, and has been for a long time, been well known. Yet the going high school text book says the exact opposite (in an uncategorical statement).

Comment #11308

Posted by Gary Hurd on December 6, 2004 12:49 PM (e) (s)

“MI” Fails to see his or herself in the arch opinion I have of the professional creationist.  I hope theirs is a well informed opinion and they aren’t like the Carl Wielands, and Kent Hovinds, or even the William Dembskis in the world.  “MI” seems to mistakenly assume that I lack direct personal experience with creationists.  This is untrue.  In fact I was drawn into this late in my career (some would say at its end) when I was the curator (and later Director of Education) of a small natural history museum.  I had the odd experience of having apparently normal people come to the museum and declare that all the fossils were faked, and blather on with such strange assertions with such certainty, that I thought I had returned to psychotherapy. I then set out to learn what I could about creationism, attending creationist lectures, buying dozens of creationist books, and visiting creationist “museums” both in real time, and on the Internet.  the rest of what I now recognize as typical creationist lies.

Further, “MI” doubts that there is any worry need about the consequences of antiscience’s distorted version of reality, and the political machinery created to promote it.  In this, I congratulate them for their naiveté.

It is of course a matter of personal perspective, and in this we are informed by our own experiences.  In my professional life I have needed to be able to testify in court if rectal tearing was by rape or the coyote scavenging of the victims body.  I have held in my hands the bits and pieces of murdered men women, and children shot, stabbed and clubbed to death.  (This includes one religiously motivated ritual murder of a child, by the way).  So I lack the cheery outlook that allows “MI” to think that I presented a “parody” with mistaken earnestness.  Some say that ignorance is bliss- and I say it is dangerous.

First, “MI” perhaps you are ignoring the professional creationists and attributing complete innocence to their dupes.  Again, the Nazi slaughter serves as a potential model.  The actual Nazi party members were few compared to the happy participants in the mass murder.  Because I hope you will never learn from personal experience, I recommend two books as essential in understanding the capacity of ordinary people to become ravening mass-murders, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, 1997 Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust (New York:Alfred A. Knoph), and Jan T. Gross, 2001 Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland (Princeton University Press).  The years I worked as a professor of medicine (psychiatry) taught me that people drawn to clinical professions sincerely like to help other people.  They truly enjoy caring for others.  A brilliant book by Robert N. Proctor, Racial Hygene: Medicine Under the Nazis (1988, Boston: Harvard University Press) will teach you how in just a small number of years the “caring professions” can become the very engine of slaughter.

And have I exaggerated the goals of the professional creationists?  Not at all.  I merely take them at their word.  For example, do the creationists intend to cast aside scientific method for supernaturalism?  Consider, “J. P. Moreland, Professor at the Talbot School of Theology at Biola University (the Bible Institute of Los Angeles), offers this summary of Dembski’s program:

William Dembski has reminded us that the emerging Intelligent Design movement has a four pronged approach to defeating naturalism: (1) A scientific/philosophical critique of naturalism; (2) a positive scientific research program (Intelligent Design) for investigating the effects of intelligent causes; (3) rethinking every field of inquiry infected with naturalism and reconceptualizing it in terms of design; (4) development of a theology of nature by relating the intelligence inferred by intelligent design to the God of Scripture (Moreland 1999 citing Dembski 1998).

“MI” seems also to not see the denial of academic freedom in the “Statements of Faith” that are demanded of these creationist “institutes” and even so-called “universities.”  These are the identical strictures that the creationists will, if given power, enforce on all academics.

And finally, “MI” fails to acknowledge the considerable cost already being paid in blocked medical research, and blocked environmental protections that is largely fueled by the creationists’ political denial that science is valid or to be trusted.  If the creationist movement accomplishes even half of their stated goals, the number of unnecessary deaths from disease alone will exceed that totals of Hitler’s Germany, or Pol Pot’s Cambodia.

[img]http://i.timeinc.net/time/daily/polpot/images/pixbone1.jpg…[/img]

Dembski, William
1998 “Introduction” in Mere Creation Dembski (ed). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press

Moreland, J. P.
1999 “Postmodernism and the Intelligent Design Movement” Philsophia Christi Series 2, Vol. 1, No. 2: 97-101.

P.S. I have not made a “diagnosis” that creationists are paranoid.  I merely pointed out a parallel that they distort and deny facts commonly accepted, and believe in massive conspiracies lead by scientists to “hide the truth” about the “supernatural origin of the life and the Universe.”

Comment #11309

Posted by Joe McFaul on December 6, 2004 01:08 PM (e) (s)

In response to MI, I have no problem dealing with people who are casual ID adherents.  These poeple are sincere, and usually have just read Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box” and not much else in depth. There is an initial appeal to ID. That’s where the educational process comes in.

And I’m more than willing to participate in the educational process, since I can always learn something, too. Generally, I find this educational process to be fruitful.  Of course the educational process cannot work with Johnson, Dembski and others because I truly believe these poeple think it is OK to “lie for God.” They will lie and twist the truth becaue they are on the side of “right.” These “leading lights of ID” are not interested in a good faith discussion, which is why the debates won’t work with them.

You’re right generally that those who initially favor ID are from a wide range of philosophical backgrounds and have a wide range of concerns.  Generally, they are leery of evolution not because of what it represents, but what they have been told (untruthfully) what it represents—the end of civliztion as we know it. They are understandably concerned about those kinds of issues for their children.

I try to be polite when talking with these “grass roots” people and address their concerns. Frankly, many of these people are my friends relaives and fellow churchgoers. I don’t believe these people are the equivalent of holocaust deniers or HIV deniers, but some of the leading lights of the ID moevement clearly are. Casual ID adherents begin to have a more sceptical prspective of ID when informed (truthfully) that the ID leading lights are charlatans on the level of holocaust denial.

However, even some of these people like FL above, will make an objectively false statement. When they do, I will present the truth and allow them an opportunity to retract the false statement, as I did with FL.  If they don’t I consider them “liars for God” just like their leaders.

People of common sense, even if disposed towards ID, will observe these interactions and conclude that a pattern of deception would not be necessary if ID had any merit. They eventually see that ID is simply an empty promise—it’s pseudoscience, poor theology, poor philosphy.

Comment #11310

Posted by Great White Wonder on December 6, 2004 01:16 PM (e) (s)

Hey MI.

I really think you are a dishonest rube but here’s a shot at redemption.

Provide proof which supports your claims that

(1) Homologies very often arise from non homologous development processes.

NOTE: please define what you mean by “very often” in this context.

(2) This is, and has been for a long time, been well known.

(3) Yet the going high school text book says the exact opposite (in an uncategorical statement).

I’m especially interested in (3) but really you should provide answers to all three questions if you expect to be taken any more seriously than the typical creationist apologist (a group which includes you, as far as I’m concerned)

Comment #11311

Posted by FL on December 6, 2004 01:28 PM (e) (s)

In general I think that the HIV deniers are a much better comparison to ID than the Holocaust Deniers.

No kiddin’.  And with that acknowledgment, the original subject of this thread (“Evolution Deniers and Holocaust Deniers in Locked Step”), is pretty much kaput.

Note to Bob M:  I don’t deny that Wells’ motivations to “destroy Darwinism” are based on his association with the Unif. Church and its leader Rev. Moon.  On the other hand, when you pick up a copy of Icons Of Ev, you get only the icons and the analysis, and none of the UC or Moon.  That’s good enough for me.

MI:  Great post.

Joe:  Nice of you to clarify what you mean or don’t mean by “conspiracy theory.”  All the same, you’re being seriously misleading when you apply it to Johnson and his books as a way of comparing Johnson to such folks as alien abductees and holocaust deniers. 

First, the point remains that Johnson’s views on the cause of HIV, just like Well’s views regarding Rev. Moon’s identity, is a ~separate~ issue that so far has not impacted or intermingled with his works.  One need only read his books and articles to see that. 

It’s a point that you acknowledge to be true, but then you switch gears and say things like

there is a silent recognition that his method of argument is deeply flawed and does in fact bear a lot of resemblance to holocaust denial and other kook theories

Well, as I’ve said before, actual comparisons are needed here.  Particularly, when I compare your 7 point “Johnson’s M.O” list (which for you is the basis for claiming that Johnson is promoting a “grand conspiracy” theory a la alien abductees and holocaust deniers) with what Johnson’s actually written in his books, I see no need even to grant you a “silent recognition” that Johnson’s argument is flawed on this basis nor any recognition of any resemblence to what you call “kook theories.”

Second, though your 7 point “M.O.” list does remind me of the tone of Johnson’s popular-level intro book “Defeating Darwinism”, there’s a couple of important caveats that HAVE to be taken into account.

(A)  Let’s face it….Johnson never actually CLAIMED that a conspiracy existed a la “X-Files” or “Oliver Stone’s JFK movie”.  In fact, notice from your own examination of Defeating Darwinism that you had to take two phrases (both quite true if you’ve ever done an examination of high school and college textbooks)——”dogmatic Darwinism” and “official story”—-and try to infer that Johnson is talking “conspiracy theory.”

But there’s the rub; you’ve hardly located any smoking guns here.  There IS such a thing as dogmatic Darwinism and an official story, and you don’t need an organized card-carrying cloak and dagger conspiracy to achieve that. 
 
In fact, if you have your copy of Defeating Darwinism (I believe that’s the one, don’t have it right with me), I believe Johnson illustrates the truth of those two terms rather vividly, with his account of Denver high school student Danny Phillips, who responded to a dogmatic Darwinist “official story” spoonfeeding (a NOVA video the class had to watch) with a carefully-homeworked request for officials to drop the video.  Ultimately, his request caught people’s attention because it was well-written, which ultimately necessitated no less than big-name Dr. Bruce Alberts to publicly respond to this teenager’s brave efforts in a Denver newspaper editorial.
Dogmatic Darwinism and Official Storydom in one bite.

So what I’m saying is that, unlike your garden-variety UFO abductee, Philip Johnson does a really good job of supporting his statements with documentation. 

And that leads to (B):  you seek to diminish Johnson’s arguments by claiming that his “M.O.” is the same as what you call “kook theorists”, but the fact is that NOTHING necessarily prevents all 7 points of your given M.O. from being true on a given topic.  One has to simply check out the supporting reasonings, examples, and evidences to see if any or all points are plausible and supported.

Again, there’s not much to go on for those “kook theory” categories you mentioned.  But Johnson is careful to provide serious support for his statements in his books.  No book is perfect, whether written by Johnson or by Johnson’s critics, but there IS a reason why his book(s) like Darwin on Trial have scored with people, visibily challenged the dominion of dogmatic darwinism at the national level, and forced any number of university and public debates regarding doubts about evolution. 

Finally, there’s even a (C):  the simple fact that your 7 point MO list does NOT cover Johnson’s MO but instead fails to recognize the breadth and depth of it.  In short, you’ve oversimplified Johnson’s argumentation and logic and then tried to claim that his M.O. of argumentation is just like those of holocause deniers and alien abductees.
You’re wrong and misleading when you do that, you know.

Do you have a copy of “The Wedge of Truth”?  Open it up, flip thru the pages and see if you can easily cover the entirety of his arguments and rebuttals merely by overlaying the 7 point MO list on it.  Show me where Johnson is even claiming an”conspiracy” or “grand conspiracy” in that book.

In other words, Johnson’s “M.O.” is bigger than those 7 points.  Just reading “Darwin on Trial” should have been enough to cause a person to sense that Johnson was into more than that.
Further, if you do read Johnson’s wording in “Wedge of Truth”, you notice that Johnson is indeed careful in his wording.  Doesn’t try to claim that every evolutionist is this or that.  And again, I just don’t see any conspiracies running around in that book.  Maybe read the book for yourself and tell me.

I’ve read many stories about ESP and Alien Abductions, and to repeat, a major difference is the way Johnson documents and gives examples of what he’s talking about.  There is a visible difference between Johnson’s argumentation and what you read in a UFO magazine. 
Again, if it were otherwise, you evolutionists would NEVER have felt forced to debate and write tomes about Johnson right and left at major universities and forums.
Nobody pays attention to abductees and kooks, you know. 

If you read it and find “conspiracy theory” in it, then I present to you the same three negative options you presented to me, with equal sincerity.

Well, anyway, I’m gonna stop there for now.  I think your ID discussion partners are best advised to counter your “conspiracy theory” angle by first bringing up the point that Johnson’s views on HIV or other issues don’t impact on his evolution-critical books, and then second, they should insist on a careful, thorough, specific comparison of the argumentation in Johnson’s books (all of them) with your overly simplified 7 point M.O list.

If they do that, they won’t have to waste time with silent recognitions or even concede what you might term “conspiracy theory” parallels with alien abductees’ or holocaust deniers’ views.

Johnson is into specifics, thoroughness and examples, and AFAIK, usually doesn’t let his wording go beyond what can be documented, quoted, or closely reasoned.  A major impediment to any claimed parallels with “kook theories”, needless to say.

FL

Side note on the HIV thing:  I’ve already acknowledged that people like Drs. Duesberg and Rasnick and others are on the losing side of that debate at this time, and they may be quite wrong from Day One for all I know, but I for one would still read their 2003 book mentioned above before arbritrarily classifying them with “alien abductees” like “kook theories”.  Read first, then judge.

Comment #11313

Posted by MI on December 6, 2004 01:38 PM (e) (s)

I have never heard a creationist say that fossils, as a matter of course, are fake. I’m not doubting your experience, just pointing out that this is not a general position within creation. In fact, I don’t know of any creationist “thinker” who holds such a position. Again, no doubt there are problems within the creation spectrum. So too, for evolution. I have heard lay evolutionists say some pretty absurd things too. Gary, I wonder if you hold evolution to the same level of scrutiny that you do creation. Your use of the word “antiscience” as a synonym for creation suggests to me that you do not acknowledge a middle position for creation.

Gary writes: I have held in my hands the bits and pieces of murdered men women, and children shot, stabbed and clubbed to death.  (This includes one religiously motivated ritual murder of a child, by the way).  So I lack the cheery outlook that allows “MI” to think that I presented a “parody” with mistaken earnestness.  Some say that ignorance is bliss- and I say it is dangerous.

Wow, this speaks volumes. You’ve been on the witnessing end of some religiously motivated murders, so now you know the truth about those evil religious people. Creationism must be full of lies, and liars. Yes, I agree that ignorance is dangerous. Unfortunately those evil religious folks don’t seem to have a monopoly on it.

Gary writes:
**********************
First, “MI” perhaps you are ignoring the professional creationists and attributing complete innocence to their dupes.  Again, the Nazi slaughter serves as a potential model.  The actual Nazi party members were few compared to the happy participants in the mass murder.  Because I hope you will never learn from personal experience, I recommend two books as essential in understanding the capacity of ordinary people to become ravening mass-murders, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, 1997 Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust (New York:Alfred A. Knoph), and Jan T. Gross, 2001 Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland (Princeton University Press).  The years I worked as a professor of medicine (psychiatry) taught me that people drawn to clinical professions sincerely like to help other people.  They truly enjoy caring for others.  A brilliant book by Robert N. Proctor, Racial Hygene: Medicine Under the Nazis (1988, Boston: Harvard University Press) will teach you how in just a small number of years the “caring professions” can become the very engine of slaughter.

And have I exaggerated the goals of the professional creationists?  Not at all.  I merely take them at their word.  For example, do the creationists intend to cast aside scientific method for supernaturalism?  Consider, “J. P. Moreland, Professor at the Talbot School of Theology at Biola University (the Bible Institute of Los Angeles), offers this summary of Dembski’s program:

William Dembski has reminded us that the emerging Intelligent Design movement has a four pronged approach to defeating naturalism: (1) A scientific/philosophical critique of naturalism; (2) a positive scientific research program (Intelligent Design) for investigating the effects of intelligent causes; (3) rethinking every field of inquiry infected with naturalism and reconceptualizing it in terms of design; (4) development of a theology of nature by relating the intelligence inferred by intelligent design to the God of Scripture (Moreland 1999 citing Dembski 1998).

“MI” seems also to not see the denial of academic freedom in the “Statements of Faith” that are demanded of these creationist “institutes” and even so-called “universities.”  These are the identical strictures that the creationists will, if given power, enforce on all academics.
*********************

Gary, this is going from bad to worse. I included all four paragraphs above so as not to lose the effect. Yes, Gary, I know something about evil too (I have distant relatives who were prisoners in the holocaust). But I always hate it when the prosecutor dwells on the horrificness of the deed to prove th