Creationist Fears, Creationist Behaviors

Posted by Burt Humburg on May 20, 2005 02:17 PM

Andrew Gumbel, a correspondent for the London-based Independent, attended the recent intelligent design show trial in Topeka. His write-up at LA City Beat is recommended reading. Although he develops several good themes in his essay, there is one point in particular I would like to highlight.

Another manifestation of the misdirection of the ID movement is the ludicrous notion that high schools are the appropriate venue for intricate debate about the finer points of evolutionary science. Any public school science teacher will tell you it’s already a minor miracle if a 16-year-old can accurately summarize The Origin of Species, or pinpoint the Galapagos Islands on an atlas. Raising questions about the cellular structure of the flagellum is unlikely to exercise most students until grad school.

The only reason for raising such questions before state education authorities is not to deepen the scientific understanding of teenagers but rather to sow deliberate confusion. It is about denigrating mainstream science as biased against religion — which it is not; it merely regards questions of the supernatural to be outside the realm of scientific inquiry — and by extension bringing God and open avowals of faith into the public school system. (Emphasis mine.)

Many authors have correctly explained that the testimony of ID proponents in Topeka only criticized evolution. Indeed, in an effort to allay concerns that the rejected proposals were written to mandate the teaching of creationism, John Calvert articulated this point numerous times directly. Until Gumbel’s article, though, media coverage has failed to identify the desire by ID creationists to confuse the public. In other words, Gumbel is one of the first journalists to point out that, to an intelligent design creationist, the whole point of criticizing evolutionary theory is to criticize evolutionary theory.

It is important for advocates of science to recognize this strategy because there is a clear link between the beliefs creationists hold, the threats to those beliefs that they perceive from verified science, the fear they have from those threats, and the reactions to those threats that they make. Several points and implications about this understanding of creationist strategy merit mention and they will be developed below the fold.

Creationists Aren’t Stupid

When the transcriptions from the Topeka hearings are made public, the sheer volume of logical inconsistencies in the testimony between ID creationists and even in their own statements will strain credibility. For example, Charles Thaxton and many other creationists testified under cross examination that science should not be restricted to natural explanations, even while they refused to admit that they wanted (or in some cases saying that they didn't want) supernatural explanations included in science classes.

It is tempting to ridicule these creationists, dismissing them as hayseeds and not giving them a second thought. But this dismissive attitude overlooks the motivations that drive them and prevents genuine understanding of the issues creationists consider pivotal regarding evolution and the methods of science. Obviously, something is influencing their decisions and it isn’t a lack of intellectual stature. John Calvert was a successful oil and gas trial lawyer. William Harris is a successful nutritional biochemist. Charles Thaxton retired from a career as a chemist. These are not careers that tolerate problems with cognition.

An optimal strategy for science advocates must presuppose nonscientific motivations in creationists, motivations that deserve more strategic consideration than simply being dismissed as the result of stupidity.

Creationists Are in Fear

To understand why creationists fear evolution, it is necessary to consider three things. First, many creationists believe that the Bible must be taken literally, though this literalism is typically ad hoc. (They interpret literally when literalism serves their purposes and they interpret metaphorically or symbolically when it does not.) Second, one must consider the concept of salvation, specifically Christian salvation. (No other religious belief will do.) According to the fundamentalism that gives rise to creationism, all morals, values, ethics, and behaviors in which Christians should engage are derived from these two beliefs.

The final key to understanding creationist fear is to know that they engage in absolutism. In other words, to not believe in the account of the creation in the Bible is to not believe in talking snakes, to not believe in worldwide floods, to not believe in the geocentric model of the solar system, to not believe that rabbits chew their cud, etc. (Note that this is not to imply all modern creationists hold all these beliefs as absolutes; for example, creationists today have found ways to overlook the geocentrism that a truly literalist approach would necessitate.) By way of their absolutism, if they can’t trust the Bible with regards to (insert issue of concern here), then there is no reason or justification for their religious values whatsoever.

Naturally, these arguments sound absurd to anyone who recognizes the parallels between the arguments supporting Middle-age geocentrism and the arguments supporting intelligent design, especially anyone who recognizes that Christianity did not end with Galileo’s research. Nevertheless, this absolutism leads to fear and this fear leads to irrationality and unconventional behaviors.

Or, as reporters were asking KCFS members by the second day of testimony, ‘Why are these creationists saying the things they do? I thought they were Christians.’

ID Avoids Tough Questions

Yet more needs to be elucidated about creationist fears before the implications of this model can be discussed. Consider the following true story. A few months ago, I attended a Sunday-school course on creationist responses to evolutionary statements, which was being put on by the Creation Science Association of Mid-America. (This is the group that wrote the now infamous standards from the 1999 fiasco, for which Steve Abrams told Steve Case he was the sole author.)

One thing that was interesting about the creationist’s arguments was the certainty with which he held his YEC positions. As anyone who has read Robert Pennock’s book Tower of Babel knows, there is a great diversity of creationist thought in the US. So, I asked the obvious question:

‘Sir, there are forms of creationism other than YEC, such as OEC and ID creationism. How can you be so certain about the age of the earth when it appears to be a legitimate controversy within the creationist community?’

His answer was, ‘All those other forms of creationism allow for the possibility of an old earth. If death entered the world before the fall, then there is no need for Christian salvation. That is why YEC is true.’

While religiously arrogant, this creationist was also refreshingly direct about his motivations. He was explaining that the threat he perceived to his beliefs was not just from evolution, but also from any of the sciences that require (or even accommodate) an old earth. And although this creationist was rebelling against the fact of the 4.5 billion-year-old earth, his argument prototypes many of the claims made by those whose beliefs contradict the findings of verified science: creationism is an obvious area of conflict, but there have been others. Galileo’s heliocentrism and whether rabbits chewed their cud were both, in their day, equally controversial due to contemporary Biblical literalists. Regardless of the controversy, efforts to suppress scientific investigations at best delay the inevitable enlightenment. Eventually, believers have to rethink their theology in the light of new scientific understanding.

What does it mean to be made in God’s own image if humans evolved from ape-like ancestors? If organisms, species, and indeed entire phyla died and went extinct before humans appeared, what need have we for a salvation based on the idea that human sin gave rise to death? Why can some Christians decide what women should do with their own bodies when the God of the Bible chooses to let people make their own decisions? Why are abortion and stem-cell research, but not in-vitro fertilization, forms of murder? And if common sense and research both demonstrate that no one — no one — chooses their own sexuality, what are we to make of religiously-fueled homophobia?

Now consider intelligent design in the light of these questions and in the light of the point Gumbel was making: even though there is no scientific evidence for intelligent design, nor is there any forthcoming, the purpose of intelligent design creationism arguments is to give certain believers a plausible reason to not ask the ‘tough questions.’ Yet these creationists know that science is an amazingly successful method of finding things out about the world. So, to provide believers a crutch for their faith, they seek to gain the legitimacy of science to support their beliefs. They believe in intelligent design and, for it to be legitimate, call ID creationism science. Odd as it may sound, for a creationist, for something to be nonscientific is for it to be irrelevant or unimportant.

Consider, when sympathetic, non-scientific journals publish what little passes for faux empiricism — itself riddled with secondary source citations passing for proof, quote-mining, and distortions of elementary physical and biological understandings — these articles are celebrated as groundbreaking and revolutionary. Without exception, there is a shortage of peer-reviewed studies supporting intelligent design creationism, though there is a wealth of promises that such will be forthcoming. The arguments from the creationists themselves are no better. If viewed as an attempt to generate an alternative scientific framework, the intelligent design arguments are incoherent at best and lies at worst. There is no, nor will there ever be, any theory of intelligent design.

But viewed in the theological model of evolution fear I am proposing, these arguments become purposeful. The ID creationists aren’t trying to advance science or educate kids about a legitimate controversy in science or subject their ideas to peer review. The reason intelligent design creationists criticize evolution is to criticize evolution. To those creationists who are in fear of evolution, this pseudoscience provides them a surrogate for faith — they can believe in a God that science has, through its purported failures, confirmed. As the testimony in Topeka demonstrated, examples of creationist duplicity in the service of simply criticizing evolution abound.

Forrest and Gross, in their book Creationism’s Trojan Horse, make the argument that intelligent design creationism is an attempt to change the fundamental belief systems of our society. This understanding is not inconsistent with the fear of evolution model I am proposing.

ID as Political Opportunism

The ID creationists engage the psychology of fear described above, convincing themselves that their faith is not simply misplaced but that they are an embattled minority. Thus, the faith that creationists place in their theology becomes the delusion that evolution is supported only by a worldwide conspiracy of scientists and liberal media. This delusion leads creationists to claim that intelligent design, which has no testable model -- the sine qua non of a useful scientific theory -- proposed, cannot get published due to this worldwide conspiracy.

Even pastors fall victim to (or utilize, as the case may be) this fear. Consider Jerry Johnston who, in his 13 April 2005 sermon on intelligent design, told his congregation that Genesis was a book under attack that need to be defended by the faithful. Notably, in the same sermon, he openly admitted that the people who trained him in divinity school advised not to teach from Genesis literally. The possibility that Pastor Johnston’s faith might have been misplaced and that there was not a worldwide conspiracy of scientists and theologians whom he must have respected was not discussed.

That the creationists are in fear, that this fear leads to absolutism, and that absolutism leads to irrationality about belief, has been previously described. One creationist, testifying at the standards committee meeting in Derby, exemplified this irrationality terribly:

… if we cannot as a state even put a sticker on a book that says macroevolution at least is not a fact, it is just a theory, then that is — then you are telling my, my children that everything that we have taught them as a family is wrong.

The political implications are intuitively obvious. Politicians know that fear is a powerful motivator, far more so than reason. Politicians, and others who fail to place sufficient priority on science education, may find this population of people who are in fear due to a lack of scientific understanding tantalizing. They recognize that, for example, it is far easier to marginalize those who have abortions than it is to marginalize scientists than it is to marginalize couples who cannot have babies on their own. To marginalize abortion and stem-cell research, not in-vitro fertilization, as forms of murder gains them favor with their uninformed constituency, even while it leaves that constituency ignorant of embryonic biology.

But why stop at just embryos? In for a penny, in for a pound: those same politicians also tell that constituency about the worldwide conspiracies against intelligent design, the evils of evolution, how it is impossible to be a legitimate Christian and to be pro-choice or pro-science, that God calls them to be absolutist in their dealings with those who hold differing views about murky ethical issues like Terry Schiavo, etc. When things are good for politicians who do not care about science education, things are good for religious leaders who propagate ancient and wrong understandings of the observable world, and vice-versa. Thus, religious leaders make pacts with those politicians to continue to market these incoherent theologies in exchange for political favors.

For these lies, for the crime of abandoning their charge to lead responsibly, indeed for failing to even read the proposed standards over which creationists held hearings in Topeka in the first place, the voters who lack scientific understanding reward these politicians with continued terms in office and political approval. Needless to say, it is unlikely that politicians like these will be enthusiastic about taking steps to improve the understandings of science in their constituency. To do so would be to remove the fear of the scientific issues involved.

So, what science-advocacy strategies does this fear-based model of intelligent design suggest?

Deny Creationists Martyrdom

In order to be a martyr, there must be a general recognition that the cause for which one suffers is a cause worth suffering for. Absent that recognition, the toil is wasted and unworthy.

Attempting to achieve martyrdom, ‘expert witness’ Roger DeHart openly admitted — indeed, seemed rather proud of — being reassigned for teaching non-science while he was a science teacher charged to teach science. Similarly, Nancy Bryson let it be known that she was appearing as an ‘expert witness’ at the risk of her science career. William Dembski said that his career was in ruins due to his advocacy of intelligent design. He made this claim when even a cursory review of the facts will demonstrate that he failed to address the claims of those who took the time to review his work critically and that his problems are perfectly explained by his lack of collegiality in this and other regards. In other words, none of the hardships these creationists describe as due to their beliefs are worthy toil.

Someone can leap into the path of an oncoming train, somehow defending their belief that things fall up when dropped, and die for those beliefs. While such commitment may be deserving of respect, it does not make that death any more than a senseless waste. Similarly, that creationists have endured hardship may be reason for those of goodwill to respect those creationists. Nevertheless, the violation of their charge to educate students in science or teach people about actual philosophy when hired as philosophy instructors or help a congregation to make sense of God in a world with a dizzying pace of scientific progress remains nothing more than a violation of their respective charges. Specifically, the cause of denying verified science is not and cannot be worthy toil, especially when those creationists choose — despite the evidence — to believe that one cannot be a Christian and endorse verified science.

Respect those who hold these beliefs, possibly, but do not excuse them. They are not martyrs. They are in fear and they have misplaced their faith. They tilt at windmills and the hardships they endure are nothing more than the fruits of their own self-deceit.

Don’t Confuse the Public

Gumbel's article made the point that it was ludicrous to present highly technical arguments to high schoolers under the assumption that it would stimulate their interest in science. The same is true for the public at large. Michael Behe cites the absence of a described evolutionary ascent of the blood-clotting cascade as evidence of design in debates. Only a small percentage of Americans would be convinced of evolution by reviewing the clotting cascade's technical details that refute Behe. Similarly, Jonathan Wells offers the phylogeny produced by a limited dataset as evidence that molecular phylogenies are unreliable. Only a small percentage of Americans would be able to understand the technical arguments involved, process what the literature really says and how Wells misrepresented it, and recognize Jonathan Wells for the liar that he is.

Arguing pseudoscience with science in an audience comprised of those unfamiliar with the science involved will lead to confusion. Gumbel’s article cited prestigious journalists who found the claims of the creationists convincing. (In their defense, they only found them reasonable on day one of the trials. After they heard what science actually had to say that first day, their questions to scientists became on days two and three, ‘Okay, how is what this creationist said (bullcrap).’)

Or consider letters to the editor. David Berlinski wrote to the Wichita Eagle itemizing nine ‘controversies’ about evolution, the gist of which was to convince the reader that doubting evolution was justifiable academically. In point of fact, the answers to those questions were shockingly simple: a freshman biology major could have answered them. Unfortunately, the response that was printed in the Eagle rebutted Berlinski point-by-point, only describing in the final sentence the violation of the accepted process whereby scientific conclusions are legitimately overturned that was implicit in Berlinski’s letter. Most of the people who don’t know the science involved probably read Berlinski’s points and thought them logical and valid.

In each of these cases, the average citizen is implicitly told that the process the creationists use to argue their case is a valid one. In other words, by participating in these forums of equal-time (or equal-space, in the case of letters to the editor) as creationists, we do exactly what the CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science said it would be doing if one of its members agreed to participate in the recent circus in Topeka, ‘Rather than contribute to science education, [our participation] will most likely serve to confuse the public about the nature of the scientific enterprise.”

True understanding of science, to a level sufficient to judge ID creationism arguments in an equal or truly balanced format, takes time and effort. While it is important to let citizens know that the scientific community has engaged the arguments of creationists on their (absent) merits, it is inappropriate to legitimize the Hardball-style debate or point-counterpoint letters to the editor that the creationists desire above all else.

Remember, the creationists aren’t trying to advance a scientific case. The creationists aren’t trying to educate the public. As Gumbel has pointed out, the creationists are trying to confuse the public for non-scientific reasons. They argue against evolution for the sake of arguing against evolution. When Berlinski asked his questions, he succeeded in making evolution seem less well-verified than it actually was. When Jonathan Wells lies in front of audiences, he succeeds in making evolution seem less well-verified than it actually is. Being accurate, representing science, and educating the public is just not what these guys have in mind. That’s why Wells lies and that’s why Berlinski asked freshman biology questions.

This is also why the Kansas boycott was a resounding success. We denied them the opportunity to confuse the public about the nature of actual scientific revolutions. In this, we denied them legitimacy in the eyes of the public, fighting non-science arguments with non-science (but science-supported) strategies. Importantly, we engaged the public, even while we boycotted the proceedings. Indeed, we staffed a media-relations table one floor below the trial and most journalists took advantage of the opportunity to hear from scientists what science really had to say on the issues.

KCFS recommends similar strategies whenever creationists try to confuse the public. Don’t answer non-science with science. However convincing your argument might be to someone fully trained in your field, you won’t win with a general audience. Instead, have scientific support ready, but use process-oriented rather than outcomes-oriented approaches in fighting creationism. This has worked very well in Kansas and we recommend it to other states.

Develop Alliances

This essay has attempted to describe the irrational fears that lead creationists to disregard the evidence, be deceived by corrupt politicians, engage in unconventional behaviors, and confuse the public. In this strange milieu of scientific, religious, and political concerns, science advocacy that uses only science arguments simply will not be successful. Not, that is, without a unified, multifaceted front in which educators, scientists, politicians, and theologians who can stand together and make sense to people who may not know the science involved but can understand arguments based in intellect, reason, and well-placed faith.

Real evolution advocacy happens in day-to-day life. It happens when doctors explain to their patients that since the 1930s, animal research has been required to bring drugs to the market and that such research makes no sense without evolution. It happens in political discussions, as citizens learn the actual science that underpins the contentious issues being debated or supports sound policies. It happens when theologians remind creationists that God calls them to take responsibility for their beliefs and that well-meaning believers have had to reexamine their theology in the light of verified science many times throughout history. It happens when those who understand evolution advocate for it daily without embarrassment, recognizing it for the non-controversial component of essential biology education that it is.

All this is to say, intelligent design creationism has received the broad creationist support that it has — despite the unrecoverable conflicts between forms of creationism — precisely because they have a big tent strategy. To successfully advocate for science, Christians who desire strong science education should not make concessions to creationists that non-theists or those of other religions would find objectionable. Similarly, when a feature of the creationist testimony in Topeka was that evolution and modern science is incompatible with any form of legitimate Christian faith, it is politically unastute for non-theist advocates of strong science to make that very point themselves, at least without regard for creationist fears this essay has described.

Rather, to alleviate the creationist fears, all advocates of science should work together to establish mutually acceptable terms for science education. The cause of science advocacy is a big-tent issue, one which citizens of any creed or religion can endorse.

This essay has attempted to describe a new way of looking at creationism — as a fear of evolution and its perceived impact on beliefs. To the end of ameliorating creationist fears, advocates of science will hopefully undermine the strategies of the creationists better, inaugurating another era of American scientific success and returning America to her rightful place as a world leader in science.

Bio and Grateful Thanks

Burt Humburg is a graduate of and lab assistant at the University of Kansas School of Medicine. He will begin a residency in internal medicine at Penn State University -- Hershey Medical Center this summer. He is a former board member with Kansas Citizens for Science and he attended all three days of Topeka creationist testimony.

This is his first submission to the Panda’s Thumb and he wishes to thank those in Kansas Citizens for Science, Pennsylvania, and who author the Panda’s Thumb who contributed to the development of this essay.

EDIT: Included Johnston link above that I originally forgot to include. 2nd graf of “ID as Political Opportunism”

Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1045

Comment #31272

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on May 20, 2005 03:36 PM (e) (s)

What a debut!

Comment #31274

Posted by Steven Laskoske on May 20, 2005 03:38 PM (e) (s)

Mr. Humburg,

After reading all that you had written here, I can only say that you have posted a truly wonderful article.  As your maiden voyage onto PT, I can honestly say that I look forward to more from you in the future.  Congratulations.

Comment #31275

Posted by Boyce Williams on May 20, 2005 03:39 PM (e) (s)

Charles Thaxton and many other creationists testified under cross examination that science should not be restricted to natural explanations,…

This sentiment has also been expressed across the national airways and cable channel several times by Bill O’Reilly; who takes every opportunity to credit himself as a former high school history teacher “looking out for the rest of us.” With that kind of irrational thinking regarding science, I rather be looking out for myself.

Comment #31281

Posted by JRQ on May 20, 2005 03:53 PM (e) (s)

Wow. 

A most outstanding piece, Mr. Humburg.

Comment #31282

Posted by jeffw on May 20, 2005 04:00 PM (e) (s)

Second, one must consider the concept of salvation, specifically Christian salvation

IMO this is the key concept motivating most Christians. “Eternal Life”. Would there even be any Christians if their religion did not promise them immortality? And is there really much difference between this and the Darwinian survival instinct?

What is the most selfish thing that someone could possibly ask for? A billion dollars? Nope, immortality trumps everything. Even if they spend a lifetime doing charitable things, they’re still probably doing it for the perceived reward of immortality. So it could be argued that most people ultimately come to their faith through extreme selfishness!

Comment #31286

Posted by Kenneth Fair on May 20, 2005 04:17 PM (e) (s)

Thank you very much, Mr. Humburg.  I’m very glad that we’ve been able to get so much informed commentary on this entire episode by people like you who’ve attended the hearings in Kansas.  For make no mistake: ID proponents are motivated, well-funded, and coordinated, and they revise their message and political strategy based on events such as these.  Because this is a national fight — today Kansas, tomorrow Pennsylvania — it’s crucial that those of us interested in maintaining good science standards learn about and disseminate their message and strategy as widely as possible, the better to counter it with the truth.

Comment #31287

Posted by Burt Humburg on May 20, 2005 04:19 PM (e) (s)

I think the evidence would suggest that most people come to their faiths through their families and through their upbringing. For example, I was born into my faith and I haven’t left it, though it’s demonstrably changed as I’ve learned.

I disagree that Christianity represents selfishness or whatever, but I’m running a test right now and I don’t have time to support my argument.

More later, maybe.

BCH

Comment #31288

Posted by Russell on May 20, 2005 04:24 PM (e) (s)

when a feature of the creationist testimony in Topeka was that evolution and modern science is incompatible with any form of legitimate Christian faith, it is politically unastute for non-theist advocates of strong science to make that very point themselves

This is an important point. In the view of this nontheist, evolution - or any other aspect of science - may very well be incompatible with certain religions. How people of these different faiths reconcile these incompatibilities is not my concern, and none of my business. But it’s not OK to go redefining science and teaching flat-out falsehoods in order to make those incompatibilities go away.

Comment #31290

Posted by tytlal on May 20, 2005 04:34 PM (e) (s)

After the Kansas fiasco, do we have any “new” thoughts from the Dover school board?

Comment #31292

Posted by Kevin Nyberg on May 20, 2005 04:39 PM (e) (s)

Thumbs up, Burt.

kdn

Comment #31295

Posted by Ken Shackleton on May 20, 2005 04:52 PM (e) (s)

jeffw wrote:

What is the most selfish thing that someone could possibly ask for? A billion dollars? Nope, immortality trumps everything. Even if they spend a lifetime doing charitable things, they’re still probably doing it for the perceived reward of immortality. So it could be argued that most people ultimately come to their faith through extreme selfishness!

I agree completely….and I must also concure that the posted essay was excellent.

Comment #31297

Posted by Steven Laskoske on May 20, 2005 04:57 PM (e) (s)

tytlal wrote:

After the Kansas fiasco, do we have any “new” thoughts from the Dover school board?

Frankly, living not 50 miles from Dover, I wonder if the Dover school board had any “new” thoughts in their lives.  However, there has been no more news aside from the primaries which included elections for the school board on Tuesday.  I have not yet heard the results of that yet.

Comment #31300

Posted by Russell on May 20, 2005 05:10 PM (e) (s)

Here’s the latest update. Interestingly, it’s falling out along strictly party lines. All the republican nominees favor “intelligent design”; all the democrats oppose it.

Comment #31301

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 20, 2005 05:15 PM (e) (s)

interesting, maybe, but certainly not surprising. 

ID is, after all, a political movement, supported by republicans mostly just to increase their power base.

Comment #31302

Posted by Longhorm on May 20, 2005 05:18 PM (e) (s)

I don’t restrict myself to so-called “natural explanations.”  I don’t even know what that means.  I’m open to anything.  But many of the events that people claim occurred did not occur.  A deity did not turn dust — poof! — directly into two elephants (one male and one female).  The first two organisms to live on earth that were fairly similar to today’s elephants were born by their mothers in much the same way I was born by mine. 

Methusehah didn’t live to be 969 years old.  Whether we call the claim “science” or “non-science” isn’t important to me.  In fact, I think we should avoid that distinction in most contexts.  But Methuselah didn’t live to be that old. 

A lot of people think they have been abducted by aliens.  But they are mistaken.

A lot of people think that the space, matter and time that we associate with the known universe is about 6,000 years old.  But it’s not. 

Some people think Elvis is still alive and doing stuff.  But he is probably not. 

I don’t know the series of events that resulted in the first self-replicators being on earth.  But a really smart extraterrestrial probably did not use a high-tech device to turn dust directy into those things.  It is logically possible that an extraterrestrial did that.  And I’m going to keep my eyes and ears open.  But for reasons I don’t want to get into now, it probably wasn’t an extraterrestrial who did that.

Comment #31303

Posted by Longhorm on May 20, 2005 05:25 PM (e) (s)

When someone says that he or she favors “intelligent design,” my response is always the same: “Which event(s) on earth did the designer(s) cause?  For example, did a designer turn dust directly into two elephants (one male and one female)?  And what evidence, if any, suggests that a designer did what you think it did?”

Some people say: “Cells are too complicated to have come about with the special intervention of a divine being.”

Well, I’m more complex than any cell.  And I was born by my mother.  So, apparently fairly complex things come into being without a designer turning dust (or “nothingness”) — poof! — directly into those things.

Comment #31304

Posted by Barron on May 20, 2005 05:25 PM (e) (s)

Excellent essay!  I have thought for a while that the fear aspect of the debate is pivotal and too often overlooked.  I said before (http://chugg.net/rants/rant.shtml?rant_ce.shtml…) that the Creationism debate is three pronged, Scientific, Political and Emotional.  The scientific part is  settled, but the other two remain fruitful for the creatioists.  And the emotional is really the most important, IMHO.  Political plays on emotional and may apply to conservative opportunists, but the debate boils down to emotion (note, I’m not denigrating emotion as an issue, I’m just pointing out it’s role).

I also think that if creationism is to be put to rest or at least re-marginalized the key is the emotional aspect.  If someone feels that they have to choose between their faith and science, faith will always win.  The goal I think is to find a way to defuse the emotional mine field around evolution (and science in general).  Until then there will be a ready market for what the professional creatioinsts are selling.

Comment #31306

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 20, 2005 05:37 PM (e) (s)

“(note, I’m not denigrating emotion as an issue, I’m just pointing out it’s role).”

well, let me be the devil’s advocate then (pun intended), and say that I want it on record that I AM denigrating emotion as an issue in this.  It’s become abundantly clear that the debate is about nothing other than subjective interpretation on the part of the religious right.  In fact, i think we have spent considerable time here on PT pointing out that ID has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with “emotion”.

so yeah, I degigrate emotion as an issue… so much so one could consider me to be emotional about it.

“they have to choose between their faith and science, faith will always win.”

science never forced anyone to choose.  it was their own interpretations that are forcing them to choose, nothing less, nothing more.

They are selfish because they don’t WANT to make that choice, but instead would rather maintain their erroneous interpretations and force the rest of us to accept them.

Mainstream christianity accepted evolutionary theory decades ago.  Shall we change the rules to accomodate those that chose to be left behind?

Is this the true meaning of “no child left behind?”

Comment #31307

Posted by FL on May 20, 2005 05:37 PM (e) (s)

Well, I don’t mean to throw cold water on the Amen Choir’s praises of Burt’s essay, but the honest truth is that it could (and should) be challenged at several points.

I’d love to critically examine those portions of the essay that looks very much like armchair psychoanalysis (for example, the claim“Creationists are in fear”), but that will just have to wait for another day. 

However, one flaw that ~won’t~ wait, is Burt’s obvious conflation of the terms “Intelligent Design” and “Creationism.”

I agree with Mike Gene’s observation that “How we label things and how we describe things do shape our perceptions”, so let me offer Gene’s corrective article regarding the phrase “Intelligent Design Creationism”:

http://www.idthink.net/back/idc…

There is one good thing about the term “Intelligent Design Creationism.” Those who use the term to make sense of this debate give themselves away as being biased and incapable of considering this debate objectively.

—-Mike Gene

Comment #31310

Posted by Steve U. on May 20, 2005 05:41 PM (e) (s)

If someone feels that they have to choose between their faith and science, faith will always win.  The goal I think is to find a way to defuse the emotional mine field around evolution (and science in general).

The emotional mine field is nearly 100% laid down by creationist “leaders”, i.e., preachers and politicans who have found it a useful way to manipulate their followers (by telling them scary stories about “materialists”).

Defusing that mine field is impossible when the minelayers are left unassailed.  A combined strategy of diminishing the stature of the individual minelayers (e.g., by pointing out their dishonesty and hypocracy), showing that the “choice” between faith and science is a false choice presented only to manipulate and confuse people, and showing that the abandonment of the science is (and always has been) impossible should be effective.

That’s essentially what I see happening here at this site (trolls notwithstanding).

Comment #31311

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 20, 2005 05:42 PM (e) (s)

but the problem, FL, is that there has never been anything objective about this debate presented from your side.

the wedge document clearly states the legal and political strategy behind changing creationism to ID…

you have just been duped into believing that there is any real substance behind that.

Just like Ruse noted about Dembski.

You “true believers” in ID are just dupes, that the rest of us would just laugh at if there weren’t politicians involved in using you as well.

oh, and i’d love to hear your own “armchair pyschoanalysis”… not.

Comment #31312

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on May 20, 2005 05:43 PM (e) (s)

Here’s the latest update. Interestingly, it’s falling out along strictly party lines. All the republican nominees favor “intelligent design”; all the democrats oppose it.

I don’t know if I am interpreting the data on Red State Rabble correctly, but actually it would seem that Dover CARES candidates got quite a bit of votes in the republican primary as well.  The incumbent Republicans won their primary with anywhere between 1,100 and 1,300 votes, but the CARES challengers were quite close with 800-1,000 votes.  That may be a good sign come November.

Comment #31313

Posted by RBH on May 20, 2005 05:44 PM (e) (s)

Apropos of Burt’s excellent maiden effort, I’ll be so immodest as to quote myself from a year ago almost to the day:

I am beginning to understand that the core motivation driving the supporters of such proposals is fear.  Not fear for themselves — they are too strong in their faith to be corrupted by evolutionary science.  It is fear for their children and in particular, fear for their children’s souls.  There is a genuine belief that accepting an evolutionary view of biological phenomena is a giant step on the road to atheism, and in learning evolutionary theory their children are in peril of losing salvation.  Given the beliefs they hold, this is not a silly fear.  From their perspective, atheism is a deadly threat, and evolution is a door through which that threat can enter to corrupt one’s child.  No amount of scientific research, no citations of scientific studies, no detailed criticism of the Wellsian trash science offered in “teach the controversy” proposals, speaks to those fears.  If one genuinely fears that learning evolution will corrupt one’s children and damn them for eternity, scientific reasoning is wholly irrelevant.

RBH

Comment #31315

Posted by Burt Humburg on May 20, 2005 05:49 PM (e) (s)

I’m familiar with Mike Gene and I’ve heard the argument that ID != IDC before. I reject that bit of rhetorical legerdemain for the following reason:

Creationism is any sort of God-did-it explanation of origins. IDC, OEC, YEC, flat-earth, and theistic evolution are all forms of creationism. In this sense, I am myself a creationist, though I am not an anti-evolutionary creationist.

It is true that science can detect intelligent agency, but to do so presupposes either such a familiarity with the designer’s methods that the diagnosis of design is clear (c.f., 9/11) or that the diagnosis of design is confirmed by asking questions of the designer that go on to explain and predict other findings (c.f., archaeology).

The blood clotting cascade sure looks like it evolved. And whether it did or not, it obviously is not one of those former cases of design, where to question the reliability of the design diagnosis is foolish. Thus, to confirm design scientifically, one must do what scientists do when they confirm design scientifically: they ask questions about the designer.

Such as:
* Who was the designer?
* Why did the designer design?
* How can we determine other instances of design?
* How many design interventions have there been?
etc.

ID creationists defer answering those questions to “theology.” The failure to answer these questions 1) seriously detracts from the credibility of the design diagnosis and 2) firmly plants ID into the realm of IDC.

BCH

Comment #31316

Posted by Steve U. on May 20, 2005 05:50 PM (e) (s)

Mike Gene makes me laugh, FL.  Here’s a quote for Mike Gene to chew on.

There is one good thing about the term “Intelligent Design Creationism.” Those who object to the use of the term give themselves away as being biased and incapable of considering this debate objectively.

—- Steve U.

If you or Mike Gene can explain why a theory that proposes that some alien beings “somehow” designed and created all of the “complex” life forms that ever lived on earth is not “creationism”, then please do so now.

I would especially enjoy it if Mike came here and defended his statement.  It’s always more interesting to hear from the “masters” rather than the slaves who merely recite their masters’ scripts.

But Mike Gene won’t come here and explain his statement because he’s wrong, he knows it, and he’s too cowardly to face the truth.

That’s okay.  Someday he can attempt to explain his comment in a court of law.  How do you suppose that will turn out, FL?

Comment #31317

Posted by Burt Humburg on May 20, 2005 05:53 PM (e) (s)

Incidentally, can you really consider me to be “armchair psychoanalyzing” when I’ve been trained to psychoanalyze?

Granted, it’s not my area of expertise, but it’s not like I flunked my psych rotation.

BCH, MD

Comment #31318

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 20, 2005 05:56 PM (e) (s)

Pay no attention to FL, Burt, unless you have spent some time checking out his ramblings for the last few weeks or so.

He makes even less sense if you don’t.

Comment #31320

Posted by Barron on May 20, 2005 06:01 PM (e) (s)

Toejam, “science never forced anyone to choose.  it was their own interpretations that are forcing them to choose, nothing less, nothing more.”  Agreed on both counts, my point is that telling them they are just wrong is not likely to change many minds.  Recognizing that people hold these (misguided) beliefs for real, personal reasons gives a much better chance.  Afterall, the more “elitest scientists” scorn these guys the more it plays into their persecuted mindset.

SteveU, agreed also and well put.  Frankly I think that a lot of literalism builds a sort of house of cards where everything works as long as none of the beliefs are questioned.  But, when one belief is questioned, the whole sense of self is threatened.  And people can get pretty wacky in defending that sense of self.  So while the chioce is completely false, I think we have a better chance getting people to see that if we approach them respectfully.  Note, this DOES NOT apply to the minelayers!  They deserve all the derision and ruthless debunking in the world.

Comment #31321

Posted by Longhorm on May 20, 2005 06:06 PM (e) (s)

FL posts:

However, one flaw that ~won’t~ wait, is Burt’s obvious conflation of the terms “Intelligent Design” and “Creationism.”

Okay.  But which event(s) that occurred on or near earth did the designer(s) cause?  Did the designer cause the existence of some organisms and/or some parts of some organisms?  If so, which ones?  And what evidence do you have for that?  Remember, lots of fairly complex things have been born.  That’s how I got here.

Comment #31322

Posted by Russell on May 20, 2005 06:09 PM (e) (s)

Now I’m a little confused. Phil Johnson proudly claims the creationist label, but Mike Gene says we can dismiss, out of hand, the arguments of anyone using the term ID creationist.

And from various posts, I had formed the impression that FL himself was a biblical literalist, i.e. an unapologetic creationist, valiantly carrying the ID banner here at Panda’s Thumb.

Perhaps he’ll clear it up for me.

Comment #31329

Posted by tom_kbel on May 20, 2005 06:31 PM (e) (s)

FL said:

However, one flaw that ~won’t~ wait, is Burt’s obvious conflation of the terms “Intelligent Design” and “Creationism.”

I agree with Mike Gene’s observation that “How we label things and how we describe things do shape our perceptions”, so let me offer Gene’s corrective article regarding the phrase “Intelligent Design Creationism”:

I agree with the general point that how we label things shapes how we think about things.  However, that cuts BOTH ways.  The refusal to label ID as creationism also indicates a very clear bias; and in this case a bias based on tactical considerations.  It is tactically inconvenient for the ID movement to be labelled as creationist, so they reject the label without regard for its descriptive accuraccy.

If FL wishes to dispute this point, perhaps he could explain why the ID community whole hearted endorses arguments from “fine tuning” to the existance of a “designer”; and further explain how a designer of the laws of the universe themselves could be anything other than supernatural.

Comment #31339

Posted by tom_kbel on May 20, 2005 06:52 PM (e) (s)

I wish to join in congratulating Burt Humburg for his excellent essay.  However, I also wish to disagree with his policy recommendation.

Boycotting the Kansas hearings may have worked well, but in as much as they did, it was because the Kansas hearings were clearly a show trial.  All three panel members already supported the ID cause before the hearing.  They were not open to the evidence for evolution from the start, as clearly indicated by their failure to fully read the originally proposed science standards.  Further, while it is perfectly reasonable to present all the evidence favourable to ID in the space of three days (or indeed, just one), a similar presentation of the evidence for evolution would, in three days, have not begun to scratch the surface.

Despite this, the DI is spinning the failure of scientists to appear as being based on fear, on an inability to openly confront ID arguments.  Extending the Kansas strategy to other forum where the ID proponents are not clearly biassing the forum in their favour will lend support to this claim, and make it believable to much of the public.

May I suggest that a better strategy would be to engage in scientific detail in open ended fora, and to clearly draw attention to the fact that creationists of all stripes refuse to follow arguments through in their proper detail.

If, for example, a creationist raises the topic of “no transitional fossils”, attention could be drawn Kathleen Hunt’s of Clifford Cuffey’s excellent articles; and to the continuing failure of any creationist to meet Wesley Ellsberry’s challenge to go through some examples of transitional sequences.
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_00.htm…
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html…
http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/evobio/evc/argresp/tra…

The strategy is to always make it clear that, where the topic can be explored in proper detail, creationists flee the field - and to provide resources for those who wish to follow up on the actual evidence.

Comment #31343

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 20, 2005 07:10 PM (e) (s)

After the Kansas fiasco, do we have any “new” thoughts from the Dover school board?

From a little birdie:

> Lenny:
> I’m curious —- what’s the local reaction been to the Kansas
> “kangaroo court” hearings about evolution?

“Source X”:
I’m not hearing much reaction at all outside our group which is, as
you might imagine, revolted & a bit scared. Believe me, we are only
too aware of the implications of every evolutionary theory-related
event around.

We’re also aware that the local fundamentalists (our opposition) are
applauding the KS board of ed, but they do it largely under the table.
In public, they disavow any connection between ID & religion.

I personally am not sure the Kansas scientific community made the best
decision by boycotting the thing, although I certainly understand
their reasoning. But this movement is not going to go away by being
ignored.

Comment #31344

Posted by Burt Humburg on May 20, 2005 07:12 PM (e) (s)

Yes, that’s probably a better way of phrasing it. The idea I was getting at was to make an assessment about the ways the ideas were going to be settled. If it was going to be a non-scientific format, then don’t use science arguements. If it is going to be a scientific format in which the ideas are explored fully, then it’s much easier to use science arguments as scientists use them.

I’m always open to hearing better ways of putting things, but we don’t disagree on this point.

BCH

Comment #31348

Posted by Burt Humburg on May 20, 2005 07:20 PM (e) (s)

BTW, tell your birdie that KCFS was there, along with scientists, philosophers, journalism professors, theologians, and other pro-science types. We definitely did not ignore the creationists and I hope your birdie will pass that statement of fact along to anyone who thinks scientists were absent from Topeka.

The scientists were there. We just refused to testify. Science was well represented.

BCH

Comment #31350

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 20, 2005 07:27 PM (e) (s)

I have found that to back ID/creationists into an inescapable corner, thoroughly, fully and simply, requires only one of two simple questions, repeated as often as necessary until they either answer or leave the field with their tail tucked between their gonads.

The first question is posed to any ID/creationist who wants to yammer that his crap is “science”.  That question is:  What is the scientific theory of ID, and how do we test it using the scientific method?

The second question goes to those marginally-more-honest IDers who admit that ID is religious apologetics.  That question is: Why should your religious opinions have any more authority or legal backing than mine, my next door neighbor’s, my car mechanic’s, or the kid who delivers my pizzas?

Both of those questions are lethal to IDers, and they know it (which is why they always bend over backwards to avoid answering them). If ID is science, it is incumbent upon them to produce their science and show it to us.  Until they do that, they, quite literally, have nothing to argue over. And if ID is religion, they need to demonstrate why their religious opinions are better than anyone else’s and deserve to be enshrined into law.

They can do neither of these things.  They have NO scientific theory of ID to offer, and they have NO reason why their religious opinions are any better than anyone else’s (other than their say-so).  Anything else is nothing but a side issue (or a deliberate misdirection on their part). Either they have a scientific theory to offer, or they don’t.  Either they are more holy and godlike than every other mere mortal, or they’re not.

I say, force them to either put up or shut up.  Force them to either fish or cut bait.  Force them to either shit or get off the damn toilet.

For too long, we’ve been letting THEM set the agenda, and flood it with irrelevantia.  It’s time we take the fight straight to them, and force them to answer those two simple questions.

It will kill them.  Dead.  And they know it.

Comment #31352

Posted by maureen_l on May 20, 2005 07:28 PM (e) (s)

In this discussion, I’m seeing one thing left out, which frustrates me.

Arguing pseudoscience with science in an audience comprised of those unfamiliar with the science involved will lead to confusion… . Instead, have scientific support ready, but use process-oriented rather than outcomes-oriented approaches in fighting creationism.

I wish I could see more examples of such approaches. As a non-scientist, just to begin with, I’m not even certain of the definitions of “process-oriented” and “outcomes-oriented”.

Comment #31354

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 20, 2005 07:30 PM (e) (s)

“It will kill them.  Dead.  And they know it.”

I think I’m gonna start calling Lenny “Dr. Raid”.

;)

Comment #31361

Posted by FL on May 20, 2005 07:56 PM (e) (s)

But Mike Gene won’t come here and explain his statement because he’s wrong, he knows it, and he’s too cowardly to face the truth.

That’s okay.  Someday he can attempt to explain his comment in a court of law.  How do you suppose that will turn out, FL?

Honestly, Steve, I don’t know.  All I know is, when it came time to show up for the bell this time around, the non-Darwinists demonstrated the courage to face a Darwinist attorney’s cross-ex grilling in public, but the Darwinists failed to similarly demonstrate their courage by likewise sitting down for a non-Darwinist lawyer’s cross-examination grilling of their positions. 

Evolutionists have offered official attempts at explaining this failure, but for me, when the bell sounds for both parties to step forward to the center of the ring, courage is as courage does, ~right then and there~. 

You can always go visit Mike Gene’s website, Steve, and ask your questions and let him ask YOU some questions too.  But obviously, with the Great No-Show still hanging in the air, you can understand why I am automatically inclined to reject any suggestion of cowardice on Mike Gene’s part, no matter what he does or doesn’t do.

Incidentally, can you really consider me to be “armchair psychoanalyzing” when I’ve been trained to psychoanalyze?

Granted, it’s not my area of expertise, but it’s not like I flunked my psych rotation.

Well, first of all, there would have been nothing wrong with acknowledging in your essay that it’s not your area of expertise.  That would only have been honest.

And since you admit (to your credit) that it’s not your expertise, how can you be so sure your assessment and conclusions are correct?  Did you consult some PhD psychologists at the hearings and get a professional opinion from them?

I’m not any expert in psych either (just took Basic Psych and Theories of Personality), so as someone trained in journalism, I would certainly try to grab some professional expert feedback (and try to consult at least one source from “both sides”) before writing what amounts to a psychological assessment of people (people you already were in opposition to, btw).

Also, tell me something.  You mentioned Dr. Thaxton, for example.  To use your specific terms, did Dr. Thaxton  display any visible indications of “fear”, or any “irrationality”, or any “unconventional behaviors”? 
Did you speak with any professionally trained psychologists who noticed any of these problems as they observed Dr. Thaxton, and said so?

If not, then I offer Dr. Thaxton as a living counter-example to your claim of “fear.”

But I wasn’t looking to talk about all this right now.  I just wanted to offer response about the IDC conflation.  Still, it’s on the table now.
The ~non-Darwinists~ showed up and were willing to take the heat for their positions.  Whatever else you criticize them for, either by commission or omission, I don’t think “fear” fits.

FL

Comment #31362

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 20, 2005 08:02 PM (e) (s)

“All I know is, when it came time to show up for the bell this time around, the non-Darwinists demonstrated the courage to face a Darwinist attorney’s cross-ex grilling in public, but the Darwinists failed to similarly demonstrate their courage by likewise sitting down for a non-Darwinist lawyer’s cross-examination grilling of their positions. “

that is because, as has been pointed out countless times now, IT WASN’T A COURT OF LAW!

In any case where a real court of law was involved, we showed up and *ahem* kicked your *ss.

as to your critique of Burt’s armchair philosophy (which really isn’t, since he has direct training in what he is speaking of as an MD).

He wasn’t speaking of folks like Thaxton… he was speaking of folks like.. you.

perhaps you should re-read your freshman texts on how fear manifests itself, as you are a textbook case of denial induced by fear.

Comment #31363

Posted by Russell on May 20, 2005 08:03 PM (e) (s)

FL: I see you’re back. Are you going to clear up my confusion?

Comment #31366

Posted by Pierce R. Butler on May 20, 2005 08:20 PM (e) (s)

Martyrdom: The only way a man can become famous without ability.
- George Bernard Shaw

Comment #31367

Posted by afarensis on May 20, 2005 08:23 PM (e) (s)

Excellent post. One of the few I have read about creationists where I didn’t come away thinking the writer just did not understand fundamentalists.
I think Burt is right about strategy. In Kansas the school board displayed their bias loud and clear so science did not loose anything by not participating (which is quite a bit different from not showing up). The tool should be appropriate to the job being performed and in this case it was a PR battle. Rather than being sucked into a fake trial and wasting a lot of energy on that, the battle was fought where it really counted. Looking at what is currently happening around the country (Dover, Cobb County) creationists tactics seem to be driven more by the type of strategy we saw in Kansas - none of which are legitimate formats conducive to a full exploration of the issues. Which is not to say that we should endlessly mimic the tactics in Kansas. I think part of the success there was the creative way scientists responded to the challange. The media expected a replay of Scopes or McLean v Arkansas and got something completely different.
Again, great post!

Comment #31369

Posted by DonM on May 20, 2005 08:44 PM (e) (s)

I agree wholeheartedly with “Dr.Raid”, but unfortunately the only place where you can pin them down and force them to answer those questions is in a court of law.

I understand that the “Topeka 23” didn’t have to swear an oath before testifying. I’m sure that the utterances of all those god-fearing folk would have been quite different if they had been under oath.

Comment #31370

Posted by DrJohn on May 20, 2005 08:46 PM (e) (s)

tom_kbel wrote:

I agree with the general point that how we label things shapes how we think about things.  However, that cuts BOTH ways.  The refusal to label ID as creationism also indicates a very clear bias; and in this case a bias based on tactical considerations.  It is tactically inconvenient for the ID movement to be labelled as creationist, so they reject the label without regard for its descriptive accuraccy.

This is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and even in its strong form.  It is really and quite sincerely dead (except, of course, in the humanities) killed by a nice color perception experiment by Eleanor Rosch.  A long time ago, even!

The weak form, mostly a connotative version, still lives and is probably well worth considering valid.  You imply as much in your last sentence.

FL wrote:

Well, first of all, there would have been nothing wrong with acknowledging in your essay that it’s not your area of expertise.  That would only have been honest.

And since you admit (to your credit) that it’s not your expertise, how can you be so sure your assessment and conclusions are correct?  Did you consult some PhD psychologists at the hearings and get a professional opinion from them?

I’m not any expert in psych either (just took Basic Psych and Theories of Personality), so as someone trained in journalism, I would certainly try to grab some professional expert feedback (and try to consult at least one source from “both sides”) before writing what amounts to a psychological assessment of people (people you already were in opposition to, btw).

Thanks for explicating your level of knowledge.  Psychoanalysis is decidedly not psychology.  Freud’s little tirade has yet to have any real scientific basis for the theoretical, and shows no true benefit when compared with other therapies (since it is long, it is supposed to be much better!).  See any of the writings by Crews, Webster, and a hoard of others.  Freud was a coke sniffing egoist who’s only real scientific work was with eels.

As to the essay, it was written by an MD.  The psych rotation would have been in psychiatry, not psychology.  I am not amazed you did not know this!  Additionally, if you’d look into psychoanalysis, you don’t need two people - one can give you both sides as it is a hermeneutic enterprise with little to no relation to real data.  You should look into it.  Sounds right up your alley.

Comment #31372

Posted by FL on May 20, 2005 09:20 PM (e) (s)

Sure, Russell, let’s work this thing.

Now I’m a little confused. Phil Johnson proudly claims the creationist label, but Mike Gene says we can dismiss, out of hand, the arguments of anyone using the term ID creationist.

So, does Phil Johnson use the term “ID creationist”?  If not, (and the correct answer is indeed “not”, from what I’ve read of his books),
then there’s no contradiction with what Mike Gene said. 

Really, the “confusion” should be settled right there, just going by the wording you yourself used.
No way to escape it.  If Johnson doesn’t himself use the term “Intelligent Design Creationist”, that’s the end of the claimed discrepancy, right there.

But if you are seeing some sort of “maybe” contradiction merely because “Phil Johnson proudly claims the creationist label”, then go back and re-read what Mike Gene said.  “Creationists accept ID.”
That’s cool; still no contradiction with what Mike Gene said in your paragraph.  It’s just that “the inverse is not true”, that is, not all ID folks accept creationism. 

Either way, the “IDC” label can be challenged, of course.  It’s redundant in the first instance (creationists who accept ID), and misrepresenting in the second instance (ID’ers who do not accept creationism.)  There you go.

And from various posts, I had formed the impression that FL himself was a biblical literalist, i.e. an unapologetic creationist, valiantly carrying the ID banner here at Panda’s Thumb.

Sure.  I am a biblical creationist.  I place my trust in Jesus’ placing HIS complete trust in an “unbreakable” Bible, the “word of God”, right down to the historical claims denied by evolutionists and materialists.  A literal Adam and Eve?  Global Noahic Flood?  Jonah and the Big Fish?  Sure.  Jesus accepted all that, so I accept all that too.  It’s only what you’d expect from a follower of Jesus, no? 

Dr. GW Carver (and Dr. J.Baumgardner, more recently) showed that you could get a lot of science work done if you just trust God and God’s Word first.

Apologetics?  Sure.  To ME, it’s fun, like working Dell crossword puzzles or figuring out how to beat a video game on the Playstation. 
Plus there’s the added joy of occasionally answering somebody’s question(s) and contributing to them hanging on to (or even increasing) their Biblical faith rather than the opposite. 

And I also like ID too, as you already know.  Some people see adventure in skiing, sports, running for political office, serving hospital patients, makin’ discoveries in science labs, even regular janitorial services, keeping people safe and sanitary from day to day.

Me, I honestly see real adventure in the modern ID hypothesis and the cataclysmic Science Paradigm Shift it potentially could trigger someday, (sooner rather than later, hopefully!).  Great opportunities for exploration, for discovery, imo.
 
This debate is like a great chess game for extremely high stakes—-the very hearts and minds and worldviews of science-loving people, young and old.  One heart, one mind, one person at a time.

It excites me and I plan on making it my avocation, just like some of you evolutionists have already done the same with Darwinism.  (Only you’re on the wrong team, of course.)

Anyway, Russell, I don’t use the term “ID creationist” either.  So I’m kewl relative to Mike Gene’s remarks, no discrepancy, just like Phil Johnson, even though I’m a biblical creationist who favors ID.

(Btw,I keep an eye open for new angles and responses from the OEC’s and YEC’s too.  Shoot, I’ll even listen to an occasional “Theistic Evolutionist”——IF his name is Dr. Gordon Mills or Dr. Michael Denton.) 

Sorry for being lengthy, Russell, but I trust this clears things up.  There’s no discrepancy there.

FL

Comment #31374

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 20, 2005 09:43 PM (e) (s)

“  Great opportunities for exploration, for discovery, imo.”

well, good luck with that.  do let us know if you ever manage to accomplish any actual science with it.

at least you have now admitted, which was obvious anyway, that ID is nothing more than religious apologetics.

“the very hearts and minds and worldviews of science-loving people, young and old.  One heart, one mind, one person at a time.”

the words science and loving juxtaposed coming out of your mouth just shows your ignorance.  You have not enough comprehension of what science is or does to claim a love for it.  Especially since your goal is to replace it with religious philosophy.

However, having now admited that… can you admit your fear in the face of the evidence against YEC?

blind faith is not honest faith, FL.

Moreover, you still have not answered my question…

Of what practical value is ID?  Can you predict how it will help us solve any practical problem?

since i have asked you multiple times, and you haven’t answered, I will answer for you. 

you can’t, simply because you will not realize that there is no scientific basis for ID, and so it can’t solve problems in the real world.  God and faith lie outside of the natural realm, so even if you utilize every word of your bible, it will not explain anything you can see around you in practical terms.  it never has, which is why creationism was abandoned by critical thinkers in favor of the scientific method to begin with, and it never will.

the only reason you persist in trying to change the rest of us is that nagging fear that you deny so readily.

Comment #31381

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 20, 2005 10:15 PM (e) (s)

So, does Phil Johnson use the term “ID creationist”?

Can you point to any ID argument that was not amde by creation “scientists” twenty years ago?

No?

Why not?

Comment #31383

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 20, 2005 10:20 PM (e) (s)

All I know is, when it came time to show up for the bell this time around, the non-Darwinists demonstrated the courage to face a Darwinist attorney’s cross-ex grilling in public, but the Darwinists failed to similarly demonstrate their courage by likewise sitting down for a non-Darwinist lawyer’s cross-examination grilling of their positions.

Um, you mean like in the Epperson case, where all the “darwinists” sat down for a non-darwinist lawyer’s cross examination grilling of their positions?

Or Maclean?

Or Aguillard? 

Or Webster?

Or Selman?

Or any of the other Federal court cases that ID/creationists have lost?

Why have ID/creationists lost every single federal court case they have ever been involved with, FL. Every single solitary one. Ya know, the kind of court cases where everyone has to testify under oath in front of everyone else, subject to whatever cross-examination the opposition lawyer can give?

Oh, and why won’t you answer that simple quesitonf or me, FL?

Is something the matter?

Comment #31385

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 20, 2005 10:22 PM (e) (s)

This debate is like a great chess game for extremely high stakes—-the very hearts and minds and worldviews of science-loving people, young and old.  One heart, one mind, one person at a time.

I see.  So ID/creationism is nothing but a religious crusade against science, and IDers/creationists are simply lying to us when they claim otherwise.

Got it.  Thanks for making it so clear for us.

Are you willing to come to Dover and testify to that under oath?

Comment #31386

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 20, 2005 10:25 PM (e) (s)

I agree wholeheartedly with “Dr.Raid”, but unfortunately the only place where you can pin them down and force them to answer those questions is in a court of law.

That’s right.  And that is where we should drag creationist/IDers.  As often as we can.  They have lost every single Federalc ourt case they have ever been involved with, and it is solely and only that unbroken string of losses that has kept their crap out of school classrooms so far.

I say it’s time to start dragging THEIR ass into court, instead of the other way around.

Comment #31387

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 20, 2005 10:27 PM (e) (s)

I understand that the “Topeka 23” didn’t have to swear an oath before testifying. I’m sure that the utterances of all those god-fearing folk would have been quite different if they had been under oath.

Some of them WILL be testifying udner oath, in Dover.  And if, as I expect, the Kansas fiasco ends up in court too, some more of them will be testifying there.

And if any of them make any statement under oath that they did NOT make during the Kangaroo Kourt, they will find themselves in an EXTREMELY uncomfortable position … . Lawyers refer to the experience as “tearing them a new asshole”.

Comment #31391

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 20, 2005 10:37 PM (e) (s)

“I say it’s time to start dragging THEIR ass into court, instead of the other way around.”

hmm. i seem to recall Wesley mentioning he was going to talk to legal about your idea.

Did you ever hear back?  I’d love to see that idea come to fruition, my own minor criticisms aside.

Comment #31393

Posted by Arden Chatfield on May 20, 2005 11:34 PM (e) (s)

“What is the most selfish thing that someone could possibly ask for? A billion dollars? Nope, immortality trumps everything. Even if they spend a lifetime doing charitable things, they’re still probably doing it for the perceived reward of immortality. So it could be argued that most people ultimately come to their faith through extreme selfishness!”

Or, alternately, the flipside of *this* argument is the notion held by certain fundamentalists that people cannot possibly behave in a moral or ethical manner without the threat of God’s punishment hanging over their heads.

This is how the fundies convince themselves that society ‘needs’ them. Never mind that much of Europe is much less religious than America but also far less violent.

Comment #31394

Posted by Arden Chatfield on May 20, 2005 11:37 PM (e) (s)

“I think the evidence would suggest that most people come to their faiths through their families and through their upbringing. For example, I was born into my faith and I haven’t left it, though it’s demonstrably changed as I’ve learned.”

This too is a good point that’s often overlooked — the bulk of people are whatever religion most of the people around them are. This is why it seems to be missing the point when someone gives some explanation of why they’re a Christian (or whatever) — would we expect, say, your average Saudi to have a reason why they ‘chose’ to be Moslem?

Comment #31397

Posted by Henry J on May 21, 2005 12:01 AM (e) (s)

Longhorm,

Re “Methusehah didn’t live to be 969 years old.”
Then maybe he didn’t drown after all? ;)

Re “Some people think Elvis is still alive and doing stuff.”
Well, there was that cameo in the movie “Death Becomes Her”. On second thought, ignore that remark.

Re “Which event(s) on earth did the designer(s) cause? “
I’d suggest saying “engineer” rather than “designer”, to emphasize that something or somebody would have had to do the actual work, rather than just punching data into a CAD* terminal (or its supernatural equivalent). It just seems to me that their use of the term “design” is an attempt to mask that fact.
*(CAD = Computer Aided Design)

—-

Barron,

Re “The goal I think is to find a way to defuse the emotional mine field around evolution”

Wish I knew how to find a convincing way to tell somebody that “God is behind it” does not logically contradict “it looks like it happened in a way consistent with known physical processes”.

Henry

Comment #31401

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 21, 2005 01:21 AM (e) (s)

er, speaking of creationist behaviors…

the latest post on Dembski’s blog is very strange.

it starts off accusing evolutionists of saying students are too stupid to understand evolutionary theory, but then provides two links in “support” that don’t quite mesh, to say the least:

“Teenagers, high school students, take note. The evolutionary establishment thinks you are just too stupid to grasp weaknesses and alternatives to the theory of evolution that gets peddled in all your high school biology textbooks (i.e., neo-Darwinism). For a sampler of just how intellectually challenged they think you are, go here (http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2001/05/04/darwin/prin…) and here (http://www.lacitybeat.com/article.php?id=2085&IssueNum=102…). “

uh, the first accuses darwinists of being racists (does anyone remember the discussion we had in another thread about the role-reversal creationists play?)

and the second talks about the laughability of the kansas BOE in the face of the spread of creationism.  the only quote Dr. Dembento finds of use is one related to trying to teach ID’s “finer points” as too complex for students to deal with in high school.  and that is saying students are too dumb to learn evolutionary theory?  hmm.  sounds like exactly the opposite to me.

he even includes the counter to his own argument in the very quote he mines from the article:

“The only reason for raising such questions before state education authorities is not to deepen the scientific understanding of teenagers but rather to sow deliberate confusion.”

Has Dembski lost it?

Comment #31402

Posted by Air Bear on May 21, 2005 01:55 AM (e) (s)

“the latest post on Dembski’s blog is very strange.”

But not unusual.

Over on the New York Times forums, rabid policital conservatives sometimes post a link to some web page that they claim has “proof” of something.  Invariably, the referenced web page is barely on the same subject, and offers no support for the claims they’re making.  Standards of evidence apparently don’t matter to these people.

Comment #31404

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on May 21, 2005 09:01 AM (e) (s)

Andrew Gumbel wrote:

It is about denigrating mainstream science as biased against religion – which it is not; it merely regards questions of the supernatural to be outside the realm of scientific inquiry

This mistake crops up pretty regularly. It contains a couple of hidden, and mistaken, assumptions.
* Religion is monolithic. There are numerous contradictory religions.
* Religion restricts itself to the supernatural. This is clearly incorrect. Various implementations of religion have made claims about the natural world ranging from levitation to geocentricity to global flooding to prayer healing to creationism to human cloning.

Any religion making claims about the natural world opens itself up to scientific investigation, and possibly, opposition. The only question is whether this opposition can be labeled “bias”.

Comment #31409

Posted by lamuella on May 21, 2005 10:51 AM (e) (s)

regarding the supposed differences between ID and creationism:

What, precisely is the difference between saying “someone created this” and “someone designed this” with regards to life on earth?

Comment #31410

Posted by Dan S. on May 21, 2005 11:18 AM (e) (s)

FL says “This debate is like a great chess game for extremely high stakes—-the very hearts and minds and worldviews of science-loving people, young and old. ”

Yes, capturing the hearts, minds, and worldviews of people, and imprisoning them in little cages - cages not of faith but of fear, provoked by the relentless drumbeat of “Darwinism is atheistic!  Science is atheistic!  Etc!” 
This stuff is really beginning to bug me . .
*****

Bayesian Bouffant, FCD says “It contains a couple of hidden, and mistaken, assumptions.…”

I dunno about that second one.  I think the explicit part of this claim - science restricts itself to the natural - is the only part; it’s politely, nonconfrontationally not bringing up whether religion stays on its side of the fence or jumps over and starts wandering around. In other words, we’re staying within our borders, and the fact that certain factions seem convinced that all of Upper and Lower Naturalia happens to belong to them, so anything we do is an attack on their territorial integrity, well, we don’t have to bring that up, do we?

But of course, this  view accepts these borders (which many don’t accept/understand), so I guess I see what you’re saying …

Comment #31412

Posted by Dan S. on May 21, 2005 11:26 AM (e) (s)

“What, precisely is the difference between saying “someone created this” and “someone designed this” with regards to life on earth?”

The old-school creationists are at least honest and upfront about who they think the Creator was, leading to easy-hypothesis testing and swift legal butt-kicking.  The IDers coyly (for the most part, some may actually be sincere) avoid talking about the Designer’s identity in public, away from their core religiously-motivated supporters, so as to avoid said swift legal butt-kicking. 

Also, “designed” conjures up all sorts of quasi-scientific sounding stuff, adding to their protective coloration and surface plausibility, while “created” is unabashedly theological.

Etc.

Comment #31414

Posted by Dan S. on May 21, 2005 11:30 AM (e) (s)

Also - what Henry J. said

Comment #31417

Posted by Cubist on May 21, 2005 12:22 PM (e) (s)

Henry J wrote:

Wish I knew how to find a convincing way to tell somebody that “God is behind it” does not logically contradict “it looks like it happened in a way consiste