Comment #25948

Posted by Hiero5ant on April 20, 2005 03:11 PM (e) (s)

Hello Professor Smith; I am the BU Law student with whom you spoke briefly afterwards.

Interested readers can look at my own review posted on talk.origins. (For what it’s worth, I had considered submitting it to PT, but hadn’t known how receptive the admins would be to guest contributions, especially one as informally composed and from someone as academically uncredentialled as myself; if anyone in authority thinks it might be worth reprinting I’d be willing to revise it, otherwise this link should be fine. I have since corresponded with Professor Beckwith and gotten a more extended reply, as well as a list of “peer-reviewed” citations to which he referred, and I am currently in the process of composing a follow-up post on some issues arising from that correspondence. Persons can contact me if they’re interested, or just wait for it to appear on t.o.)

I should have to add that while I appreciate your comments, I did include a critical note on the manner with which you delivered them — after the moderator asked you to allow someone else to speak, you did begin to lose some supporters in the audience, I only wished a little more tact had been involved. That having been said, I agree %110 with each of your statements, as well as your frustration involved in making them.

Comment #25952

Posted by Colin on April 20, 2005 03:23 PM (e) (s)

Thank you for this piece!  As an HLS alum, I have been deeply ashamed by the ignorance on display by some of the students.  I was a 3L when VanDyke wrote his obsequious book review, and Professor Leiter was absolutely right to call it academic fraud.

I was even more disturbed by the support VanDyke got from some students on campus.  I assume the invitation to Beckwith comes from the same people, for the same purposes.  There is a very well organized and very influential core of conservative extremists at HLS, as, I would imagine, at most law schools, and the impression that I got last year was that some of those students were willing to support creationism and creationists for cultural and political reasons.  This is merely my opinion, of course.

Obviously, this state of affairs distresses me.  We can’t expect law students to be scientists, or even to understand science, but we can and should expect them to not be credulous fools or callow manipulators. 

I’m glad that Steve submitted this.  I found out about the debate only the day before it occurred, but if I hadn’t had other commitments I was seriously considering hopping a shuttle to Cambridge to attend.  I tried to get someone from the Harvard Evo. Bio. graduate labs to attend, but they weren’t interested.  It pleases me to no end that there were articulate and educated defenders of objective science in attendance to ask questions and limit Beckwith’s misinformation.

Comment #25956

Posted by frank schmidt on April 20, 2005 03:28 PM (e) (s)

Since we will not succeed in having no events, we ought to be prepared for such things. There are a couple of useful points here. First, don’t make it a “debate.” We had a similar event here but the format was short presentations answering a series of questions. This helped diminish the utility of rhetorical tricks. Secondly, the presence of scientists or other such experts at such events is crucial - it reduces the opportunity for fundie cheerleading.

Comment #25959

Posted by RBH on April 20, 2005 03:35 PM (e) (s)

I was struck by Hierosant’s remark (in his TO posting referenced above) that

[Note: after the talk he [Beckwith] explained that the list had actually been given to him by one William Dembski; I am currently in the process of obtaining this list.

One wonders if Beckwith would similarly wave around a law review article that someone had handed to him claiming it supported some position, without himself being even competent to evaluate whether it did in fact support the claimed point.  The alleged scholarship of the Beckwiths of the world seems to evaporate when they’re talking about areas far outside their professional competence but dear to their heats.

RBH

Comment #25962

Posted by RBH on April 20, 2005 03:40 PM (e) (s)

Um.  That’s “hearts”, not “heats”.

Comment #25963

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 20, 2005 03:43 PM (e) (s)

Beckwith is footsoldier happily serving the “idiot culture” recently recognized by the journalist Carl Bernstein.

Steve Smith

But that does not mean that scientists and supporters of scientists cannot attend discussions where nonscientific issues are the focus, and employ the same rhetorical methods used by our opponents.

Unfortunatley, my conscience prevents me from uttering the slick smooth pleasing lies that are peddled by Francis Beckwith every time he speaks or puts pen to paper.

But I agree with Smith that scientists and science supporters should take advantage of every opportunity to pull the carpet out from under Beckwith and the charlatans whose activities he defends.  It’s easily done, as has been demonstrated here on numerous occasions.

The key is to never ever ever let go of the carpet when Beckwith et al. crank up the smoke machines, which is the inevitable response as Beckwith’s encounter with Smith demonstrated (“fallacy of association”? does it get any more pathetic than that????).  A laser beam focus is what is necessary because, as anyone who has tracked the activities of creationist apologists (e.g., our trolls) knows, the over-riding strategy is dissembling and reliance on short memories (e.g., pretending that odd unsupported statements were never made, addressing the form of questions rather than the substance, etc.).

Just as a side note, I wonder how many amusing ways there are too address that “peer reviewed article”. In addition to simply knowing sort of garbage is in the article, one might have another peer reviewed paper in a prestigious journal to wave around such as this one

http://66.221.71.68/content/research/sria.htm

followed by an obvious question regarding the significance of such an article for the scientific validity of a charlatan’s claims.

Comment #25964

Posted by Hiero5ant on April 20, 2005 03:47 PM (e) (s)

RBH — I have since obtained the list, and the journal articles in question were exclusively philosophical in nature. (there were also some of the “usual suspects” in the monographs department: Darwin’s Black Box, The Design Inference, etc.) In Professor Beckwith’s defense, he does have a degree in philosophy and is published in philosophy journals, so I would have to say he is at least qualified to speak upon those issues. That they were not scientific in nature (except for the Axe article), however, makes its own point about the basis of ID.

Comment #25966

Posted by Matt Inlay on April 20, 2005 04:07 PM (e) (s)

I’ve discussed the Axe paper and its applicability to ID here, if anyone is interested.

Comment #25972

Posted by Ed Darrell on April 20, 2005 04:43 PM (e) (s)

Beckwith’s legal analysis assumes that intelligent design has some science to back it.  He assumes that there is enough science there that an expert could be qualified at trial, which is patently untrue.

Were that the case, yes, there would be a debate in science. 

But since that is not the case, then the holdings in McLean v. Arkansas, and Edwards v. Aguillard would govern any legal case.  Without dramatic additional science demonstrations from intelligent design advocates, either disproving the Darwinian synthesis completely (which could not occur) or providing dramatic evidence of the workings of intelligent design (photos of the designer at work, for example, with a video interview, and demonstrated results such as the total evisceration of anthrax, or the total eradication of hemorrhagic fevers), then Dr. Beckwith’s assumption is legally unsound.

Consequently, anyone who relied on his advice that teaching ID would be constitutional would be caught with his or her constitutional pants down.  Unfortunately for Dover, PA, Beckwith is not a lawyer, and note their counsel, so they will be unable to pursue him to reimburse them for bad advice.  This is the ultimate sin of intelligent design advocates, it seems to me, that they distract from science and waste the time and resources of public offices, all on someone else’s money.

Did Ahmanson repudiate Reconstructionism?  Where did he do that?  It’s news, if it’s true.  I doubt that’s the case.

Comment #25973

Posted by Ed Darrell on April 20, 2005 04:48 PM (e) (s)

In Professor Beckwith’s defense, he does have a degree in philosophy and is published in philosophy journals, so I would have to say he is at least qualified to speak upon those issues. That they were not scientific in nature (except for the Axe article), however, makes its own point about the basis of ID.

But he was presented as a legal expert to the Texas State Board of Education in 2003.  Is he being more careful now?  He’s not retracted any of his law review writings that I am aware.

Comment #25975

Posted by Francis Beckwith on April 20, 2005 04:58 PM (e) (s)

A couple of initial points.  First, it is “guilt by asociation fallacy,” not “association fallacy.” As I pointed out to Steve at the debate and for about 10 minutes afterwards that this is mistake in reasoning, one that apparently is not considered mistaken at MIT.  (The MIT comment did get a rise out of the Harvard students, it seemed to me). My citation of Forrest’s connection to the ACLU was an illustration of the sort of arugment I WOULD NOT MAKE precisely because it is “guilt by association.” My point was to show that if people on my side offered the same sort of reasoning, it would be just as bad.  Steve cut me off before I could complete the Forrest illustration fully, but the audience got it. That’s why when I told him that he misunderstood me and that in fact I was using this as an example of why his argument is bad, the audience giggled, with numerous members smiled to ear to ear, since they clearly knew that Steve did not get it.  The complete illustration, which Steve, because of his continuous interruptions did not allow to make, was to go like this:  the ACLU believes that child porn is protected by the First Amendment; Forrest is associated with the ACLU in some leadership capacity (or at least has been); Forrest opposes ID; the ACLU opposes ID; therefore, ID opponents are linked to defenses of the First Amendment protection of child porng.  That would be a really, really, bad argument to make, since it is a fallacy, “guilt by assocation.” It has no bearing on the quality of the case against ID. 

Second, Steve is completely mistaken about my presentation. I did not defend ID. My purpose at the debate was merely to offer an argument as to why teaching ID was not unconstitutional. In fact, I made the point, as I have always made the point, that as a matter of policy I am against school districts requiring the teaching of ID.  I also told the audience that my views on ID are not fully formed, though I think some of the arguments offered by ID advocates raise important philosophical questions about the nature of knowledge and science, even if they turn out to have no place in public school classrooms. I did offer an overview of the sorts of cases presented by ID advocates, but it was purely descriptive and made no pronuncements as to their quality or strength.  So, Steve was not listening very carefully, since he probably heard what he wanted to hear rather than what I actually said in my prepared comments. 

Third, during our interaction, I was completely transparent about my own Christian pilgrimage, sharing with the audience my concern as a Christian philosopher to understand the philosophical implications of my faith and how best to articulate that in a world of contrary points of view. I then went on to tell Steve and the audience that the best I can do is to offer my case, and that those that disagree should focus on the veracity of my premises and the validity and strength of my inferences.  If my arguments fail, so be it. But they fail or stand regardless of the vessel that carries them. To target that vessel—me—rather than the arguments I offer, is a disreputible tactic, one that will not take us very far. 

Fourth, Steve didn’t tell you that I specifically addressed Howard Ahmanson in a very personal way.  I told him and the audience that between 1997 and 2002, my wife and I attended St. James Episcopal Church in Newport Beach, California. There we had the opportunity to meet Howard, a long-time member.  I had no idea about his support of Discovery until around 2000 or so.  When I caught wind of his reconstructionist views, it troubled me as well, since I am a strong defender of liberal democracy and strong proponent of religious liberty.  So, I asked him about it. He said that he had abandoned those views years ago. I informed Steve and the audience of this and told him to stop recycling the NCSE talking points without doing the sort of research that he accuses his enemies of not doing. Apparently, this made no impression on him, for, without scruple or conscience, he posts this falsehood yet again, even though he was informed that it was false. (Now, I understand why he may not take my word for this. But in that case, he should abstain from mentioning it until he finds out for sure).

Fifth, you pandasthumb guys should know that Steve’s public decorum was not flattering to your point of view.  He came across as someone who was vidictive, hurtful, and obssessed with  associations and connections, and not very interested or conversant with the debate that had happened right in front of him.  The audience seemed uneasy with his injection of religious motivation as a litmus test to exclude certain points of view from the public square, since these very bright members of the Harvard community understand all too well that an argument’s soundness is not contingent upon the motivation of its defender.

Sixth, I don’t think I was flustered at all. I was chomping at the bit from the very moment I knew where Steve was going with this. (Maybe this is “Steve projecting”).  If there’s anything I love to do is to expose people’s logical fallacies and use the incident as a teaching opportunity for the audience. Because Steve was facing me and not the audience, he did not see their faces when they realized that his “guilt by association” argument was a logical fallacy.  To me, it looked like a beatific vision: one cycloptic lone ranger sounding like Joseph McCarthy exposing communists.  Frankly, I thought he was a gift from God.  When debating in front of an intelligent crowd you hope for one guy with an axe to grind and a cluster of logical fallacies. 

Seventh, I wish Colin had been there. He would have been proud of the good quetions offered by the students of his alma mater. One student in particular stood out. I found out later that he is a 1L with an MA from Oxford under philosopher Richard Swinburne. It was clear from his question that he fully understood the underlying issues in the philosophy of science. 

Eighth, Professor Wexler was most gracious.  He and I started off with pretty good jokes. Mine went like this: “My wife asked me when I would ever be invited to speak at Harvard Law School. I answered, `the day the Red Sox win the World Series.” Wexler opened up by telling us of a time when he was undergrad at Harvard and a member of the debate team. He said that they had lost an important match to Baylor and he hoped that this was not a preview of things to come. Very classy.

Ninth, Ed, I do have a PhD in philosophy (Fordham) as well a graduate degree in law from the Washington University School of Law, St. Louis (Master of Juridical Studies).  As part of that degree, I wrote a thesis called “Rethinking Edwards v. Aguillard?,” which eventually (in revised form) became my book and three law review articles. I am not a lawyer, but I do have academic training in the field. 

Tenth, my wife thinks I’m handsome too. :-)

I’ve been really lazy on putting together a summary of the debate for my blogs. Thanks to Steve, he’s inspired me to write all this stuff and speed it up. Thanks.

Comment #25976

Posted by Ed Darrell on April 20, 2005 05:21 PM (e) (s)

I well understand that you have a graduate degree in legal studies — not a graduate law degree — from Washington U.  The basis of my complaint is that you appear to have little understanding of what evidence is, and how evidence plays a role in court, in a real case like McLean v. Arkansas, or perhaps more to the point, in a case involving summary judgment against a law that requires something like ID to be included in curriculum, such as Edwards v. Aguillard.

If a lawyer with a license were to advise a client to “go ahead and teach it, it’s constitutional,” I would hope sanctions would apply against the lawyer at some point.

You have assumed that ID is science.  It’s not.  You’ve assumed that the science can be well demonstrated in a courtroom.  No one has tried.  It is unjustified, therefore, to make the leap to the position that teaching ID in a government-sponsored science class could be constitutional.  I think the repeating of this canard is part of what makes non-legal scholars, like Tom DeLay, angry when the judges merely apply the law that exists, instead of the law that non-party partisans have told DeLay and others could exist.

One could, philosophically, argue that the Federal Aviation Administration should regulate effluents from pigs, if it can be shown that pigs do fly.  The effluents could, arguably, pose a hazard to commercial and recreational aviation, and they could have effects on the ground around pig airports.  If the pigs fly in FAA-regulated areas, then the law is pretty clear that they fall into the purview of the FAA.

But if the FAA shows up at an Arkansas pig farm to inspect the pigs, the farmer would be well within his rights to throw them off the farm.  Pigs don’t fly, no matter the philosophical validity of the FAA’s having jurisdiction, if they did.

ID is not science.  That pig hasn’t even sprouted wings yet.

Incidentally, that’s part of the practical reason that courts don’t offer advisory opinions.  Courts rule where there is a genuine case or controversy.  It’s interesting to see that neither side in the Dover case is long on scientists as expert witnesses.  No one in the case really thinks ID is science, it appears, at least not to the point that there will be much litigation about it.  I’m reminded of the displeasure from the Creationist Research Society that none of them were called as experts at the Arkansas trial, for either side.  They were really miffed.  Can you imagine?

Comment #25977

Posted by Stuart Weinstein on April 20, 2005 05:21 PM (e) (s)

Mr. Beckwith,

  Would you mind giving us an idea of an ID lesson plan?

I mean if you claim it is legal to teach ID, I’d like to know what will be taught.

Comment #25980

Posted by Russell on April 20, 2005 05:41 PM (e) (s)

Personally, I don’t know whether it’s “legal” to teach ID. I hope not, as it seems to me to be pretty much a religious thing, and I like to think the Constitution would not allow that. But to try to delimit Stuart Weinstein’s question just a little, how would Dr. Beckwith assess the legality of teaching the following potential topics:

christianity
history of christianity
history of the bible
history of miracles
science of miracles
astrology

(No baiting intended, really. I’m honestly curious. I assume, for instance, Dr. Beckwith doesn’t put any stock in astrology, but suppose my kid’s teacher does. Are there laws against his teaching it?)

Comment #25981

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 20, 2005 05:42 PM (e) (s)

A couple of initial points.  First, it is “guilt by asociation fallacy,” not “association fallacy.” (blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah) It has no bearing on the quality of the case against ID.

The “case against ID”?  You mean the claim that “ID” is scientifically vapid and that it is nothing more than a political tool used to wedge religion into science classrooms?

That claim?  It seems to me that if I claim that “ID” is nothing more than a political tool used to wedge religion into science classrooms, then pointing out where the money comes from to fund the hordes of script-reciters and how the wheels of that political machine are apt to turn is certainly valid.  Indeed, I would argue that it is an essential point.

Your Forrest “analogy” of course is just a smoke screen.  “Creationism in public schools and theocrats?  If they go together, then so does the ACLU and protecting child porn.”  Just lovely, Mr. Beckwith.

I also told the audience that my views on ID are not fully formed

Huh.  Did you include this disclaimer in your article in The Recorder?

I am a strong defender of liberal democracy and strong proponent of religious liberty.

But an extraordinarily weak defender of science education. Go figure.

I understand why [Steve] may not take my word for [something Ahmanson allegedly told me about Ahmanson’s alleged change of views regarding the promotion of Ahmanson’s religion]. But in that case, he should abstain from mentioning it until he finds out for sure

So how is Steve supposed to find out what Ahmanson “really thinks.”

And how is Ahmanson’s funding of the Discovery Institute inconsistent with the goals of Johnsonite Christianity?

Harvard community understand all too well that an argument’s soundness is not contingent upon the motivation of its defender.

But appreciating why an argument that is so utterly bogus is even being discussed at Harvard is very much contingent on understanding the motivation of the arguments defenders.

Care to dispute that, Mr. Beckwith?

When debating in front of an intelligent crowd you hope for one guy with an axe to grind and a cluster of logical fallacies.

It’s even better if the “intelligent” crowd doesn’t understand the pseudoscientific garbage that you’re defending in spite of the fact that “your ideas aren’t fully formed” (how mealy-mouthed can you get, Beckwith)?

Comment #25982

Posted by Francis Beckwith on April 20, 2005 05:49 PM (e) (s)

Ed.  I don’t recognize my arguments in your comments.  As you know, if you have read my book, I am not offering legal advice to teachers. I am assessing a debate over Constitutional Law.  To employ an illustration, prior to our current First Amendment regime, lawyers argued in law reviews that hard core pornography is protected by the Constitution, even though those lawyers would not advise their individual clients to start purchasing pornography.  So, there is a difference between the sort of advice one may give a client, and the more scholarly debate about the nature of our legal regime and what sorts of actions are permissible under it. 

If you want to call my MJS a degree in “legal studies,” that’s fine with me. Yale offers a similar degree, “Master of Studies in Law,” which you may want to call “law studies.”  In any event, I very enjoyed the experience at Wash. U. School of Law and learned a lot as a result.  I worked with some fine scholars, and I think it was the best way I could have spent my sabbatical year in 2000-01.  I know that the JD does not require a thesis, which is unfortunate for you, for you didn’t have the opportunity, as I did, to engage in sustained scholarly reflection on the law with one of the finest legal philosophers in the world (Stanley Paulsen).

Stuart.  I have none in mind.  Perhaps it can’t practically be done.  But I’ll leave that to the curricular gurus to assess.  But remember that my project is strictly concerned with the Constitutional question and not the curricular one. I do offer an illustration of a possible scenario of a teacher tangentially presenting ID for a few minutes in his science class.  You can find it in my San Diego Law Review article, which is posted on my website.  The purpose of the illustration is to cash out the implications of academic freedom in a thought experient.

Comment #25983

Posted by RBH on April 20, 2005 05:57 PM (e) (s)

Having read Beckwith’s version above, and noting his total non-mention of the (two) reports of his having proffered Axe’s paper as somehow representing ID in the peer reviewed scientific literature, one is left with a single question: Is Beckwith a willing participant in Dembksi’s repeated misrepresentations of that paper, or is he merely an ignorant tool?

RBH

Comment #25984

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 20, 2005 06:04 PM (e) (s)

So, there is a difference between the sort of advice one may give a client, and the more scholarly debate about the nature of our legal regime and what sorts of actions are permissible under it.

Where does fabrication and lying fit into all this?  The ID charlatans seem to thrive on deception and dissembling.  Is that relevant Mr. Beckwith?  Or do you “lack the background” to assess those issues so, what the heck, might as well just assume that ID isn’t just a bogus propoganda tool wielded by Christian extremists, for arguments sake.

Is that how it works?

Will you defend the teaching of Prayericle Theory in public school Physics class when Fallwell and Roberston decide to spend $150 million promoting it?  Or do you need Dembski’s approval?

I’m trying to figure out when an idea becomes “fully formed” in that head of yours.

Comment #25985

Posted by Grey Wolf on April 20, 2005 06:05 PM (e) (s)

Dr. Beckwith, an easy question for you, if you’re willing:

Please explain the difference, if any, between: ID, tauromancy, astrology, creationism. Please explain if they can all be teached in schools, according to your thesis and, if not, why not. From what you’ve said so far, you’d think that changing “ID” by “UFO sightings” shouldn’t change anything at all. Is it really so?

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Comment #25989

Posted by Francis on April 20, 2005 06:25 PM (e) (s)

Colin wrote:  “We can’t expect law students … even to understand science.”  Actually, we can.  Legal reasoning is not far different from scientific reasoning.  As a lawyer who works on a daily basis with engineers, biologists and chemists, I have a professional obligation to understand the scientific method.  And frankly, i’m damn tired of too many young lawyers abdicating their responsibility of understanding the bases of the opinions given by experts and consultants.

ok, so i’m grumpy.  Mr. Beckwith is, as usual, assuming his conclusion.  I look forward to hearing from him as to what other psuedo-scientific disciplines he has not yet formed an opinion, so he can then pontificate on the suitability of teaching additional dreck to our nation’s youth on taxpayer dollars.

Comment #25990

Posted by Nick (Matzke) on April 20, 2005 06:27 PM (e) (s)

One could, philosophically, argue that the Federal Aviation Administration should regulate effluents from pigs, if it can be shown that pigs do fly.  The effluents could, arguably, pose a hazard to commercial and recreational aviation, and they could have effects on the ground around pig airports.  If the pigs fly in FAA-regulated areas, then the law is pretty clear that they fall into the purview of the FAA.

But if the FAA shows up at an Arkansas pig farm to inspect the pigs, the farmer would be well within his rights to throw them off the farm.  Pigs don’t fly, no matter the philosophical validity of the FAA’s having jurisdiction, if they did.

ID is not science.  That pig hasn’t even sprouted wings yet.

We should have some kind of award for best comment of the day…

Comment #25991

Posted by Stuart Weinstein on April 20, 2005 06:31 PM (e) (s)

Stuart.  I have none in mind.  Perhaps it can’t practically be done.  But I’ll leave that to the curricular gurus to assess.  But remember that my project is strictly concerned with the Constitutional question and not the curricular one.

SW: Well, why would you knock yourself out with the constitutionality of teaching ID, when you don’t know what can be taught? I see above that your ideas on ID aren’t fully formed. The fundamental question you need to answer for yourself, is “Is ID science?” Moreover, until the curricular question has an answer, I can’t imagine any court taking it seriously. I mean how can the IDers say “Teach the controversy” then lay an egg when it comes to showing how ID and the “controversies” should be taught? Which is one reason why the DI seems to have back peddled from Dover.

I do offer an illustration of a possible scenario of a teacher tangentially presenting ID for a few minutes in his science class.

SW: And what would your reaction be to a physics teacher tangentially presenting astrology or phologiston theory in class? presenting alchemy in Chemistry class?

You can find it in my San Diego Law Review article, which is posted on my website.

SW: I will check that out.

  The purpose of the illustration is to cash out the implications of academic freedom in a thought experient.

SW: This may simply be a thought experiment to you, but its not helpful to science education if the premises upon which the experiment are based are faulty. In the mean time, here is some food for thought. As Sagan put it, there’s a difference between having an open mind and a hole in the head. Not every system of investigation falls under that which we call “science”. The issue isn’t academic freedom. The issue is what qualifies as science. I wouldn’t have objections to Bible stories, ID etc. being taught in public schools in a comparative religion class. I do object to such things being taught as science. I also object to disclaimers being placed on high school science text books for reasons having nothing to do with science. Actually I’d am curious to know where you stand on the “disclaimers” business.

Comment #25992

Posted by Francis Beckwith on April 20, 2005 06:39 PM (e) (s)

RBH writes: “Having read Beckwith’s version above, and noting his total non-mention of the (two) reports of his having proffered Axe’s paper as somehow representing ID in the peer reviewed scientific literature, one is left with a single question: Is Beckwith a willing participant in Dembksi’s repeated misrepresentations of that paper, or is he merely an ignorant tool?”

That’s a false dilemma, and another fallacy.  I can’t cover everything in the comments. I just don’t think the Axe articles are that a big a deal, since the sources provided to me by Bill (in addition to my more philosophically-oriented sources) included a lot more. It just turned out that since Axe’s name begins with “A,” he was on the top of the list.  It was in the rebuttal period in which I responded to the peer-review question and I thought I was rather modest in my claims, agreeing with Professor Wexler that even a couple of peer-reviewed articles would not even remotedly justify requiring the teaching of ID in public  schools.

As I understand Axe’s articles (published in the Journal of Molecular Biology), he is offering an argument that, if sound, provides support for a necessary condition for a design inference.  As I noted in a private email to Andrew,  I do think that the peer-review article question is an important one, and clearly ought to be asked by ID skeptics.  On the other hand, what would precisely count as a pro-ID article is a more interesting question. Suppose, for example, an ID advocate (or sympathizer) publishes a peer-reviewed article in a science journal on the explanatory power of natural selection to account for phenomena X, Y, and Z.  Imagine the author concludes that NS does not have the resources to account for X, Y, and Z, offers an argument and evidence to support that conclusion, and then ends it at that.  In a sense, this article is and is not a pro-ID article.  How would we count this?  I suspect that this is where the political debate clouds our judgment.  I would say that it does count, but I can see why someone would not count it (like the gentleman above who raises questions about the Axe piece).  Because it is rare to find an academic article in any discipline where someone defends his or her entire paradigm, I’m not sure one will ever find an article that defends or supports an entire point of view.  He or she usually targets one aspect or argument and goes on from there.  For example, it’s probably unlikely that one will find a peer-reviewed science article where one defends “methodological naturalism.”  Yet, it is considered by most as much a necessary condition for the practice of the natural sciences as the testing of hypothesis, conceptual clarity, fruitfulness, etc. 

I do think that peer-reviewed articles in the philosophy of science are relevant on this matter, since it is only in those journals that these deeper questions can be argued in a more candid fashion. 

As I noted in the debate, so much of the rancor on this issue is the result of the intellectual fragmentation of the academy in which really smart people in different disciplines are trained in ways that do not encourage a rich understanding of the interconnectiveness of the disciplines.  After all, reality is not divided into science, philosophy, politics, or literature. It’s one world, and I think we can know it, and that knowledge need not be dismissed because it does not fit under someone’s narrow definition of what counts as rationality.

I’m kinda rambling, but these are my thoughts on the matter.

Fellas and gals, I’ve gotta stop this for awhile.  I’ve been ignoring my wife for the past few hours, and she is not happy.

Comment #25995

Posted by Joe McFaul on April 20, 2005 07:02 PM (e) (s)

I am assessing a debate over Constitutional Law.

To an audience of lawyers, I note.  If you think about that you’d recognize the difference between “guilt by association fallacy” on one hand, and “bias,” a very legitimate inquiry, on the other hand, when dealing with statements of fact by a witness or public speaker. Inquiry into bias is even more legitmate when the statements are couched as opinions by self proclaimed experts, philosphers, theologians and lawyers masquerading as scientists.  All lawyers who have taken an evidence class and conducted *one* jury trial know the importance of examining into bias.

Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest.
Coleman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (7th Cir.1986) 791 F.2d 68.

And this applies directly to Intelligent Design, which is why it is not pandering to any fallacy to inquire into political and religious motivations of ID proponents, their education in matters scietific, their sources of funding, their scientific peer reviewed publications, their past employment, and their beliefs as to other sciences implicated by ID such as DNA chemistry and radioisotope physcics.  Additionally, they should be able to articulate their beliefs regarding common descent and the age of the earth. Finally,they should be able to plausibly state an explanation for the total and complete lack of any scientific research being conducted into irreducibly complex biological systems or calculating the mathematics of real world complex objects to reliably detect design.  All of this inquiry goes to bias. Evidence I.

Real laywers know all this.

It is also not pandering to a fallacy to ask why legal and legally trained ID proponents misuse their legal footnotes and cited authorities.

Comment #25996

Posted by Jay on April 20, 2005 07:10 PM (e) (s)

Of course, there are two separate issues here: firstly, should ID be taught in schools, and secondly, is it Constitutional.

The first question is an easy NO, for there is nothing to teach.  There is no science behind ID.  In science classes they already cover the supposed “gaps” in the evidence that supports natural selection/evolution. 

Secondly, if ID proponents argue that their “theory” is not religious in nature, then its a little more difficult to prove the un-constitutionality of teaching it in school.  Obviously, there’s nothing in the Constitution about forbidding junk pseudo-science from public classrooms; for example: acupuncture.  Constitutionally speaking, they COULD teach acupuncture in public school, though it is a faith-based practice.  It is not directly associated with what one would call a religious belief.

However, the particular faith-based component of ID involves the creator of the universe and/or life, which has a direct correlation with most religious beliefs.  So even if ID were being promoted by secular scientists, it would still reek of religious belief, and thus its presence in a public classroom could be rejected by the courts as unconstitional.  The fact that ID is being promoted by religious ideologues may not make too much of a difference in determining the constitutionality of ID, but one would be foolish to overlook who it is doing the promotion.

For example, let’s debate the constitutionality of teaching a Greek Mythology class, or having a picture of Zeus in a random public classroom, or showing the Disney movie Hercules to schoolchildren on a rainy day.

In one sense, it promotes the ancient Greek religion.  But since there is no one who currently believes in the Greek gods, it doesn’t really pose a threat to the separation of church and state.  So, in a sense, it does matter who is promoting a particular argument.  If the Courts see a mass of Christians promoting ID, it does factor into their decision, for they cannot deny the religious underpinnings of the argument.

Comment #25999

Posted by Francis Beckwith on April 20, 2005 07:21 PM (e) (s)

Okay, I can’t help myself.  I will, of course, be in the dog house soon enough. McFaul raises  examples that he believes raises legitimate legal questions about the constitutionality of teaching ID in public schools.  He is partly correct.  First, it depends on the question being asked. For example, if a teacher brings up cosmological fine-tuning arguments, questions of Darwinism don’t come into play, and thus all the concerns about common descent and biology are irrelevant. Second, McFaul is correct that on issues pertaining to the claim being made—X may be taught in public schools—the substance of what is to be taught and the academic sources (e.g., peer-reviewed articles) are certainly relevant and perhaps despositive. You have no argument from me here.  However, questions of a person’s religious or political motivation should be absolutely out of bounds. And here’s why. Supposing a particular view, X, passes the science test. That is, it is a theory held by a significant (though not majority) number of scientists who have published their findings in peer-reviewed journals and offered their point of view in academic venues including conferences, symposia, etc.  It would seem to me that X could be taught.  However, suppose Mr. Z comes along and points out that proponents of X are 95% Muslim (with Sunnis and Shiites evenly divided) and that proponents of X support a Koranic view of reality. But suppose Mr. Z never points this out. How would the quality of theory change simply because its proponents motives shift from known to unknown. If the theory is well-regarded by the wider community of scientists, even if a majority of them don’t agree with it—it seems to me that the motivation of its advocates has no bearing on its quality.  In fact, to exclude that point of view because its legislative proponents (not its scientific ones, let’s say) are overwhelming of one faith, even if the view is well-regarded by non-believers, seems to place a limit on the power of  legislators, and smacks at a violation of Article VI of the Constitution, which prohibits a religious test for office (limiting a legislator’s powers based on his beliefs, and not on the content of his legislation, is, for all intents and purposes a “religious test,” since he is being limited in his powers based on his beliefs).

Comment #26002

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 20, 2005 07:31 PM (e) (s)

That’s a false dilemma, and another fallacy.

Also a rhetorical device to get you to respond.  And what do you know — it worked.  Thanks for the lecture anyway, Socrates.

I thought I was rather modest in my claims, agreeing with Professor Wexler that even a couple of peer-reviewed articles would not even remotedly justify requiring the teaching of ID in public  schools.

How generous of you!

You keep talking about “requiring” the teaching of ID in public schools, Mr. Beckwith.

It’s odd that you don’t describe the more germane question: is it Constitutional for a teacher at his/her own discretion to teach bogus science in public school science classrooms as a legitimate science, where the bogus science is promoted at substantial expense by folks who obviously see the bogus science as a way to wedge their religion beliefs into public schoolrooms?

For example, it’s probably unlikely that one will find a peer-reviewed science article where one defends “methodological naturalism.”  Yet, it is considered by most as much a necessary condition for the practice of the natural sciences as the testing of hypothesis, conceptual clarity, fruitfulness, etc.

Actually, Mr. Beckwith, most people don’t “consider” “methodological naturalism” at all.  Like you and me — human beings on the planet earth (last time I checked) — we accept the fact that reality is extraordinarily consistent because that is what we observe with our senses (when we are not on drugs).  Our acknowledgement of this observed fact enables us to feed and shelter ourselves.  Scientists have somehow managed to make a whole lot of interesting discoveries merely by recognizing that mysterious alien beings — whether they exist or not — do not detectably alter reality (except for drawing the Virgin Mary on the occasional highway underpass).

Testing of hypotheses?  Yes, that is a useful approach to learning about nature, as I was taught in fourth grade or thereabouts (but which I had discovered on my own earlier than that, as have many humans of mediocre intelligence or less).

After all, reality is not divided into science, philosophy, politics, or literature. It’s one world, and I think we can know it

Did you read that on the side of a Dr. Bronner’s soap bottle?

Somewhere in this cloud of smoke I saw the words “science” and “reality”.  Your task is to explain what all of the bogus Disclaimery Institute propoganda has to do with “science” or “reality.”

Comment #26003

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 20, 2005 07:48 PM (e) (s)

Beckwith

Supposing a particular view, X, passes the science test. That is, it is a theory held by a significant (though not majority) number of scientists who have published their findings in peer-reviewed journals and offered their point of view in academic venues including conferences, symposia, etc.  It would seem to me that X could be taught.  However, suppose Mr. Z comes along and points out that proponents of X are 95% Muslim (with Sunnis and Shiites evenly divided) and that proponents of X support a Koranic view of reality.

Just out of curiosity, can anyone think of any scientific theory that was held by (a) a significant number of scientists and (b) published in peer-reviewed journals and considered seriously by the scientific community as a whole, even those who weren’t necessarily proponents of the theory and (c) favored almost solely by scientists who belong to a particular religious group?

Is there a term for the sort of hypothetical that Beckwith just presented?

Comment #26004

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 20, 2005 08:12 PM (e) (s)

“Supposing a particular view, X, passes the science test. That is, it is a theory held by a significant (though not majority) number of scientists who have published their findings in peer-reviewed journals and offered their point of view in academic venues including conferences, symposia, etc”

no.  just because several scientists agree does NOT mean it passes the “science” test.  You keep assuming that any hypothesis that calls itself “science” and gets published really is science.  Science is not done by majority.  An idea that attempts to address issues in mathematics, but is published in a peer reviewed journal in philosophy, does not mean it is good mathemetics, or that any mathematician would think it so.  similarly, ideas addressing evolutionary theory, but published in molecular biology journal does not mean it passes the “test of science” as far as evolutionary biologists are concerned.

there are basic rules of what constitutues good science, and NONE of the articles presented in ID’s defense, or referenced by yourself, Mr. Beckwith, even come close to meeting the standards of good science.

With that in mind, it seems most here, myself included, find you woefully unqualified to give any kind of legal advice as to what consitutes any kind of legal argument about what is or what is not, science.

“However, suppose Mr. Z comes along and points out that proponents of X are 95% Muslim (with Sunnis and Shiites evenly divided) and that proponents of X support a Koranic view of reality.”

Oh Please! what an absurd argument.  ID “theory” can easily be shown to have no grounding in science whatsoever, regardless of any religious or philophical grounding it might have.  However, you are simply using that argument to deflect away questions about what your motivations are, not the motivations of the articles in question.  And YOUR motivations can explain a lot about YOUR arguments.

One must question, as several here have, what your real motivations are for putting yourself so far out on limb?  A limb, i would say, that you don’t even have a clue as to its strength, or whether it will support you as you climb ever further out on it.

personally, I have qualms about misuse, but no real contention against teaching creationism as part of a philosophy course, but it does students a disservice to teach it as science.  Evolutionary theory is complicated enough as it is to teach at the secondary school level, without further complications from irrelevant philosophical musings.
I have been studying evolutionary theory, as a student, grad student, and after for over 15 years, and still don’t feel i have a complete grasp of the entire field. 

You can’t dissociate the legal ramifications from the disciplinary ones.  To do so invites others to think of you as not putting much value into the law to begin with.

Comment #26005

Posted by RBH on April 20, 2005 08:15 PM (e) (s)

Beckwith wrote

As I understand Axe’s articles (published in the Journal of Molecular Biology), he is offering an argument that, if sound, provides support for a necessary condition for a design inference.  As I noted in a private email to Andrew,  I do think that the peer-review article question is an important one, and clearly ought to be asked by ID skeptics.

In fact, Axe does not offer that argument.  Dembski persistently misrepresents Axe’s data as suggesting that.  Dembski has known since 2002 that his representation of that paper is false and has admitted as much publicly, but he still pushes the misrepresentation both in his own writing and in gulling people like Beckwith into carrying his polluted water.

I advise Beckwith to read Matt Inlay’s analysis of this very point referenced above.

RBH

Comment #26007

Posted by Stuart Weinstein on April 20, 2005 08:24 PM (e) (s)

Francis writes:

That is, it is a theory held by a significant (though not majority) number of scientists who have published their findings in peer-reviewed journals and offered their point of view in academic venues including conferences, symposia, etc.  It would seem to me that X could be taught.  However, suppose Mr. Z comes along and points out that proponents of X are 95% Muslim (with Sunnis and Shiites evenly divided) and that proponents of X support a Koranic view of reality. But suppose Mr. Z never points this out. How would the quality of theory change simply because its proponents motives shift from known to unknown. If the theory is well-regarded by the wider community of scientists, even if a majority of them don’t agree with it—it seems to me that the motivation of its advocates has no bearing on its quality.

SW: The short answer is, that in science it is the evidence that decides, not the judicial system. And in the case of ID, no testable proposition has been proposed, hence it is not a sceitific theory. The fine-tuning argument is not an argument at all. If the fundamental constansts of nature weren’t what they are, we wouldn’t be here to argue the point; either the universe would harbor different kinds of life, or no life at all. It obviously doesn’t pass as a testable hypothesis. For example what would a universe not desgined for life, which still harbors life, look like? And if one can’t describe what such a universe would look like, its useless to discuss notions of a designed universe.

With regards to your above scenario, an example that comes to mind would be George Le’Maitre and the Big Bang hypothesis. Although Hoyle tagged the expanding universe theory with the moniker Big Bang, Le’Maitre, a Jesuit and physicist, was one of the early proponents of Big Bang. There was criticism that was simply a religious theory, as the concept that the universe may have a finite age is supported by Genesis. Still, the expanding universe made some important testable predictions which were later verified. Gamow later predicted the existence of the Cosmic-Microwave background radiation which was discovered in the late 60’s. Testable scientific hypothesis and there corresponding research programs do not need ill-trained and advised school board officers and lawyers who don’t understand science to grab, the attention of the scientific community.

You’re continually putting the cart before the horse. In that your assumming that ID is actually a scientific theory. You haven’t made that case, nor have the proponents of ID made that case either. Which is why they are hoping they can dupe the judiciary into thinking it should be taught on the grounds of “equal time” or “academic freedom”.

  In fact, to exclude that point of view because its legislative proponents (not its scientific ones, let’s say) are overwhelming of one faith, even if the view is well-regarded by non-believers,

SW: Can you name any prominent atheist scientist who claims ID is a scientific theory?

seems to place a limit on the power of  legislators,

SW: So, you think the legislature can legislate what science is? So much for “academic freedom” Science is not a democracy.

and smacks at a violation of Article VI of the Constitution, which prohibits a religious test for office (limiting a legislator’s powers based on his beliefs, and not on the content of his legislation, is, for all intents and purposes a “religious test,” since he is being limited in his powers based on his beliefs).

SW: Thats laughable. The reason the religiosity of the IDers is continually brought up, is because they offer not testable hypothesis nor a research program. What else is there to talk about. But the biggest reason it gets brought up, is because the IDers, like they do in Dover make a point of bringing that up themselves. Comments like “Somebody needs to stand up for Jesus”, only go to show what the motivation for ID is, and it sure ain’t to advance scientific knowledge.

THe theory of evolution on the other hand, finds support across ethnic, religious and political boundaries. You may ask yourself why this is, and why it isn’t for ID.

Comment #26009

Posted by roger Tang on April 20, 2005 09:03 PM (e) (s)

“Stuart.  I have none in mind.  Perhaps it can’t practically be done.  But I’ll leave that to the curricular gurus to assess.  But remember that my project is strictly concerned with the Constitutional question and not the curricular one. “

Then I would suggest that you not play on the front lines. You’re essentially admitting that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

If or when ID shows itself as solid science, it essentially wins the argument. No ifs, ands or buts about it. You are strictly unnecessary and really have no business speaking up as an expert.

Comment #26013

Posted by Henry J on April 20, 2005 09:51 PM (e) (s)

Re “He assumes that there is enough science there that an expert could be qualified at trial, which is patently untrue.”

If that were true, there’d be no need for a trial in the first place. Well, unless the current IDers decided they didn’t like what the (hypothetical) evidence implied about the “designer”. (Say, if that happened, would those current IDer’s wind up arguing against that version of ID? That’d be interesting.)

Henry

Comment #26022

Posted by Arne Langsetmo on April 21, 2005 12:38 AM (e) (s)

Sez Francis Beckwith:  “I do think that peer-reviewed articles in the philosophy of science are relevant on this matter, since it is only in those journals that these deeper questions can be argued in a more candid fashion.”

Huh?  You folks can argue all you want in your “peer-reviewed articles” on the “philosophy of science”, but it’s feet on the ground that actually matter in the real field of science, and in that, “ID” is so damn pathetic that it’s not worth more than a mordant chuckle from the serious actual scientists around….

To make it plainer, pretty much every philosopher of science in modern times would agree that it’s the results that make a difference, from Popper to Kuhn to whoever….  You can get back to me for further discussion when “ID” has anything that’s actually producing any results of consequence, much less starting to infringe on the ‘established Darwinian orthodoxy’….

Cheers,

Comment #26023

Posted by Arne Langsetmo on April 21, 2005 12:54 AM (e) (s)

Francis Beckwith sez:  “Okay, I can’t help myself…..”[/i}

[i]”… I will, of course, be in the dog house soon enough.”

What makes me rather amazed is that you haven’t figured out that you were there long ago.  Your protestations above that you’re really not ‘defending’ IC but rather just throwing it out as a reasonable idea  (without, as you acknowledge, having the faintest hint as to what you’re talking about) is about as lame as it comes.  A more cynical person would be saying “follow the money” and then writing letters to Ahmnson telling him what a piss-poor job you’re doing carrying his water for him….

Cheers,

Comment #26024

Posted by FL on April 21, 2005 12:54 AM (e) (s)

1.  Religious motivations are behind ID, as they admit themselves:

Which, in and of itself, absolutely does ~not~ render ID unscientific, as admitted by the evolutionist heroes of McClean vs. Arkansas, Michael Ruse and the late Langdon Gilkey. 
Part of Gilkey’s summary of Ruse’s comments on the witness stand (which Gilkey agreed with) are as follows:

“….As for the theories of creation science, they cannot claim to be science, but not because their proponents are religious or religiously inspired.”

(Creationism on Trial, c1998, p.137.)

So Francis Beckwith’s comment that “it seems to me that the motivation of (a theory’s) advocates has no bearing on its quality” is in fact quite consistent with the religious-motivation-doesn’t-matter position that you evolutionists have already staked out in McClean vs Arkansas.

With that in mind, you might want to re-read carefully what Beckwith wrote.  Consider this:

The audience seemed uneasy with (Steve’s) injection of religious motivation as a litmus test to exclude certain points of view from the public square, since these very bright members of the Harvard community understand all too well that an argument’s soundness is not contingent upon the motivation of its defender.

So, we can scratch Matzke’s “Fact #1” here and now.  Even if it’s true for any individual non-Darwinist, it’s clearly a non-issue in terms of determining whether or not the ID hypothesis is scientific. 
Or so respected evolutionists have pointed out.

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

Also, Scientific American magazine’s article “15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense” explains why ID claims are nonsense.

Also, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati’s article “15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry:  A point by point response to Scientific American” explains why ID claims are ~not~ nonsense:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp…

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

Side note.  Arne said:

You folks can argue all you want in your “peer-reviewed articles” on the “philosophy of science”, but it’s feet on the ground that actually matter in the real field of science

Just wanted to mention something that evolutionist Gilkey also pointed out, at a public lecture at Washburn Univ only a few years before he passed away.
He said that we (and “we”, he said, particularly included scientists) needed to look to philosophers of science (not scientists, but philosophers of science, he specifically said) to get an understanding of what science is or is not.

FL

Comment #26027

Posted by FL on April 21, 2005 01:12 AM (e) (s)

My apologies.  The sentence

So, we can scratch Matzke’s “Fact #1” here and now

should read:

“So, we can scratch Steven Smith’s “Fact #1” here and now.”

FL

PS.  Steven Smith also said….

scientists must not debate these subjects on the same stage as creationists because they will only serve the creationist rhetorical end of being taken seriously.

Another “because” is that the evolutionists clearly risk getting defeated in public by the scientists and scholars on the non-evolutionist side if they show up to a debate or a hearing.

I know the following suggestion may make some folks bristle, but honestly, I am becoming increasingly convinced that there’s a bit of Fear Factor popping up on the evolutionist side of the fence.

FL

Comment #26030

Posted by Jay on April 21, 2005 02:26 AM (e) (s)

If ID had any grounding in science it would not make a difference whether its proponents happened to be religious.  This much is true.  But it does not, so it is not to be looked at in scientific terms.

With any constitutional matter, the context is to be considered.  Supreme court decisions are not decided in a vacuum.  If ID were simply a bogus idea, but it did not have any supporters among religionists, I don’t even think we’d be having this debate.  Church-state separation issues are only “issues” because they post a threat to the functioning of our government.

Therefore, in the case of ID, where a “philosophy” is being put forth that has serious ramifications for our separation of church and state, the context should be considered.  And the fact that ID is being supported strictly by a religious crowd is something a judge should take into consideration.  Like I said, if it were simply a bogus idea, and didn’t have the religious support, it would likely not be a constitutional matter.  If it were an idea that happened to coincide with a fundamental tenet of Zoroastrianism, would we care that it technically violated a church-state separation?  And would the court even take the case?  I sincerely doubt it.  So to act as if the religious views of ID supporters are irrelevant is to deny the obvious.

Also, I sure feel bad for philosophers.  You know, philosophy still employs reason and logic.  All opinions in phiolosophy are not of equal merit simply upon being uttered.  I don’t even think ID has a place in a philosophy course.

Comment #26032

Posted by Betty Bo on April 21, 2005 02:49 AM (e) (s)

Just be surfing around in net. I definitely found a very informal place with a lot of good stuff for everybody. I will certainly visit your site again sometime. Really good work.

Comment #26034

Posted by Steven Thomas Smith on April 21, 2005 05:29 AM (e) (s)

Dear Francis,

Hi-Yo Silver!

I hope that you enjoyed your visit to Cambridge, and am glad that we had nice weather for you.

Thank you for your reply to my post, as well as your criticisms.

As our disagreement about the facts at hand is well known, and as we appear to implicitly agree that this is not a debate but a rhetorical conflict, I believe that it would be most constructive for me to reply briefly to the play-by-play, and ask for your thoughts on the most effective rhetoric in this situation.

• Guilt by association. First the play-by-play. I understand that you were trying to make the point that you do in your reply above. However,  I believe that you fumbled the logic in your response on this one, and allowed me to point out the inconsistency of citing this fallacy immediately followed by telling us that Barbara Forrest belongs to the ACLU. It also allowed me to emphasize your implicit comparison of Christian Reconstructionism with the ACLU. This isn’t a logical debate, it’s rhetoric. I sensed an overall rhetorical score on this one, though admittedly, it can be tough to tell. I sensed the audience smiling at your mistake — we all knew what you were trying to say, you just didn’t say it well. (Uncharacteristically, I hasten to add.)

  In an actual debate, I would reply that your response is non sequitur — raising Ahmanson’s funding of the Discovery Institute supports the claim that ID is religiously motivated; of course religion motivation has nothing to do with the  validity of ID. And the religious motivation of ID has direct bearing on the “reasonable person” test on which constitutional issues will be decided.  So Ahmanson is relevant.

  And, back to the rhetorical viewpoint, I’m unable to think of a good reason not to bring this up for rhetorical purposes.  Rhetorically speaking, isn’t this effective?  It’s the one you addressed first and spent the most time on.

  Finally, you say above that “without scruple or conscience, he posts this falsehood yet again, even though he was informed that it was false.” Nice rhetoric, but easily disproved — everything I said about Mr. Ahmanson in my post above is true (please read it again).  If I am wrong, please quote me and cite facts that contradict my statement, and I will gladly retract what I said. I will say that it’s nice that Mr. Ahmanson told you privately that he repudiates Christian Reconstructionism, but because he’s promoted and funded it publicly, he should repudiate it publicly.

• “I did not defend ID.” We’re discussing logic and rhetoric in parallel here, so logically you didn’t, rhetorically, you did.

• Your Christian faith, targeting you. You raised this issue, no one else did, least of all me. Rhetorically, you have an interest in raising this point whenever the point of ID’s religious motivation is made. I think that it can be rhetorically advantageous for you to conflate the discussion of religious motivations with personal religious convictions. But you know they’re fundamentally different, and no one attacked you or your religious convictions.  Least of all me, as that would be poor rhetoric. As you know better than I, this is called the “red herring” fallacy.

• “injection of religious motivation as a litmus test to exclude certain points of view from the public square” Hmmmm … how to respond … how about the First Amendment of the United States Constitution?

  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
  

  Or how about Thomas Jefferson’s views on using “religious motivation as a litmus test to exclude certain points of view from the public square”:

  Thomas Jefferson wrote:

  “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.” (1802) [italics added]
  

  And after all we are discussing a debate hosted by the Federalist Society, so let’s add one more:

  James Madison wrote:

  “What influences, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been seen the guardians of liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.”
  

• Decorum. Dulce et decorum est pro physica defensare (please correct my conjugation, like in that Life of Brian scene).

  It’s true that I’m frustrated with the danger this nonsense poses for the country, and I’m certain that this came through in my questions. I apologize if I went beyond what was necessary.  The other lawyer who commented on this has expressed this opinion, so this criticism must have merit. I wonder what another scientist would say — our disputes can be less courtly.

  That said, decorum is to be used or not used as appropriate, as Aristotle advises:

  Aristotle wrote:

  “Slighting is an actualization of opinion in regard to something that appears valueless; for things that are really bad or good tend to become so … men disdain those things which they consider valueless and slight what is no account.” — Aristotle, Art of Rhetoric, Book 2
  

  Academic legitimacy one of the wedge’s primary objectives. Your rhetorical performance at Harvard Law School made a pretty good appearance that there just might be such legitimacy, when in fact there is none. Wherever someone like yourself proclaims — sorry, implies — the validity of Intelligent Design creationism, there should be someone to point out the fact that ID is nonsense, an action which is not encountered in typical scholarly discourse, but nevertheless expresses an important truth.

• “cycloptic lone ranger sounding like Joseph McCarthy” Now, now, I never attacked you, so it’s bad form to say I did, then come and attack me.  Besides, mixed metaphors make baby Aristotle cry.

I’ve been completely honest with you about where and how I’ve used rhetorical devices in our discussion — they’ve been quite transparent. You’re clearly a sophisticated person and must be aware that your rhetorical methods are glaringly visible to most people reading this blog. At least I give you the intellectual credit of assuming that you use, e.g., Axe’s paper as evidence for ID, because it can be a rhetorically effective technique to beguile the innocent, not because you actually believe it.

I would very much like to hear your candid thoughts on these rhetorical implements.  God knows we can use some good advice on this art.

Best wishes to you and your wife,

Steve

Comment #26035

Posted by Steven Thomas Smith on April 21, 2005 05:34 AM (e) (s)

Dear Francis,

Hi-Yo Silver!

I hope that you enjoyed your visit to Cambridge, and am glad that we had nice weather for you.

Thank you for your reply to my post, as well as your criticisms.

As our disagreement about the facts at hand is well known, and as we appear to implicitly agree that this is not a debate but a rhetorical conflict, I believe that it would be most constructive for me to reply briefly to the play-by-play, and ask for your thoughts on the most effective rhetoric in this situation.

• Guilt by association. First the play-by-play. I understand that you were trying to make the point that you do in your reply above. However,  I believe that you fumbled the logic in your response on this one, and allowed me to point out the inconsistency of citing this fallacy immediately followed by telling us that Barbara Forrest belongs to the ACLU. It also allowed me to emphasize your implicit comparison of Christian Reconstructionism with the ACLU. This isn’t a logical debate, it’s rhetoric. I sensed an overall rhetorical score on this one, though admittedly, it can be tough to tell. I sensed the audience smiling at your mistake — we all knew what you were trying to say, you just didn’t say it well. (Uncharacteristically, I hasten to add.)

  In an actual debate, I would reply that your response is non sequitur — raising Ahmanson’s funding of the Discovery Institute supports the claim that ID is religiously motivated; of course religion motivation has nothing to do with the  validity of ID. And the religious motivation of ID has direct bearing on the “reasonable person” test on which constitutional issues will be decided.  So Ahmanson is relevant.

  And, back to the rhetorical viewpoint, I’m unable to think of a good reason not to bring this up for rhetorical purposes.  Rhetorically speaking, isn’t this effective?  It’s the one you addressed first and spent the most time on.

  Finally, you say above that “without scruple or conscience, he posts this falsehood yet again, even though he was informed that it was false.” Nice rhetoric, but easily disproved — everything I said about Mr. Ahmanson in my post above is true (please read it again).  If I am wrong, please quote me and cite facts that contradict my statement, and I will gladly retract what I said. I will say that it’s nice that Mr. Ahmanson told you privately that he repudiates Christian Reconstructionism, but because he’s promoted and funded it publicly, he should repudiate it publicly.

• “I did not defend ID.” We’re discussing logic and rhetoric in parallel here, so logically you didn’t, rhetorically, you did.

• Your Christian faith, targeting you. You raised this issue, no one else did, least of all me. Rhetorically, you have an interest in raising this point whenever the point of ID’s religious motivation is made. I think that it can be rhetorically advantageous for you to conflate the discussion of religious motivations with personal religious convictions. But you know they’re fundamentally different, and no one attacked you or your religious convictions.  Least of all, that would be poor rhetoric. As you know better than I, this is called the “red herring” fallacy.

• “injection of religious motivation as a litmus test to exclude certain points of view from the public square” Hmmmm … how to respond … how about the First Amendment of the United States Constitution?

  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
  

  Or how about Thomas Jefferson’s views on using “religious motivation as a litmus test to exclude certain points of view from the public square”:

  Thomas Jefferson wrote:

  “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.” (1802) [italics added]
  

  And after all we are discussing a debate hosted by the Federalist Society, so let’s add one more:

  James Madison wrote:

  “What influences, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been seen the guardians of liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.”
  

• Decorum. Dulce et decorum est pro physica defensare (please correct my conjugation, like in that Life of Brian scene).

  It’s true that I’m frustrated with the danger this nonsense poses for the country, and I’m certain that this came through in my questions. I apologize if I went beyond what was necessary.  The other lawyer who commented on this has expressed this opinion, so this criticism must have merit. I wonder what another scientist would say — our disputes can be less courtly.

  That said, decorum is to be used or not used as appropriate, as Aristotle advises:

  Aristotle wrote:

  “Slighting is an actualization of opinion in regard to something that appears valueless; for things that are really bad or good tend to become so … men disdain those things which they consider valueless and slight what is no account.” — Aristotle, Art of Rhetoric, Book 2
  

  Academic legitimacy one of the wedge’s primary objectives. Your rhetorical performance at Harvard Law School made a pretty good appearance that there just might be such legitimacy, when in fact there is none. Wherever someone like yourself proclaims — sorry, implies — the validity of Intelligent Design creationism, there should be someone to point out the fact that ID is nonsense, an action which is not encountered in typical scholarly discourse, but nevertheless expresses an important truth.

• “cycloptic lone ranger sounding like Joseph McCarthy” Now, now, I never attacked you, so it’s bad form to say I did, then come and attack me.  Besides, mixed metaphors make baby Aristotle cry.

I’ve been completely honest with you about where and how I’ve used rhetorical devices in our discussion — they’ve been quite transparent. You’re clearly a sophisticated person and must be aware that your rhetorical methods are glaringly visible to most people reading this blog. At least I give you the intellectual credit of assuming that you use, e.g., Axe’s paper as evidence for ID, because it can be a rhetorically effective technique to beguile the innocent, not because you actually believe it.

I would very much like to hear your candid thoughts on these rhetorical implements.  God knows we can use some good advice on this art.

Best wishes to you and your wife,

Steve

Comment #26036

Posted by Steven Thomas Smith on April 21, 2005 05:38 AM (e) (s)

Sorry for the duplicate post — would someone at the Panda’s Thumb please delete one of these?

Comment #26041

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 21, 2005 07:25 AM (e) (s)

Fourth, Steve didn’t tell you that I specifically addressed Howard Ahmanson in a very personal way.  I told him and the audience that between 1997 and 2002, my wife and I attended St. James Episcopal Church in Newport Beach, California. There we had the opportunity to meet Howard, a long-time member.  I had no idea about his support of Discovery until around 2000 or so.  When I caught wind of his reconstructionist views, it troubled me as well, since I am a strong defender of liberal democracy and strong proponent of religious liberty.  So, I asked him about it. He said that he had abandoned those views years ago.

How many years ago?  And which parts did he give up?

Ahmanson was on the Board of Directors of the Chalcedon Foundation for over 20 years, and donated almost three-quarters of a million dollars to them. And we are expected to beleive that he just gave up all those beliefs, just like that?  Baloney.

Here’s what it looks like to me;  the Intelligent Design movement needs Ahmanson’s checkbook to survive.  Alas, Ahamanson’s extremist views (has he also given up his views on gays? has he also given up his views on the separation of church and state? has he given up his views on “intregration of Biblical law into our lives”? has he given up his views on the death penalty for people who support “false religions”?) were becoming a liability for IDers.  So voila, Ahmanson now waves his arms about what a nice guy he’s become. (During the 2002 Hawaii Governor race, Linda Lingle wasn’t convinced of Ahmanson’s sudden conversion — she returned his check when she learned who it came from.) 

I think Ahmanson’s sudden “liberalization” is all bullshit.  All PR.  Disscovery Institute knows a liability when they see one, and Ahmanson’s extremist views are a liability.  After all, coupled with the Wedge Document, DI’s funding source makes it crushingly clear what DI’s hidden agenda is, and how they intend to go about it.

Comment #26043

Posted by David Heddle on April 21, 2005 07:51 AM (e) (s)

Rev:

I think Ahmanson’s sudden “liberalization” is all bullshit.  All PR.

You think? You think? Well that’s special.

You only speak for yourself. And you’ve given no indication at all why anyone should care any more about your religious opinions than they should about mine, my next door neighbor’s, or the kid who delivers my pizzas.

Why is that, David Rev?

Your religious opinions are just that, David Rev, your opinions. They are no more holy or divine or infallible or authoritative than anyone else’s religious opinions. No one is obligated in any way, shape, or form to follow your religious opinions, to accept them, or even to pay any attention at all to them.

Right, David Rev?

Or *are* you, as I suspect, indeed so arrogant, self-righteous, prideful and holier-than-thou (literally) as to seriously believe that your religious opinions are so