 |
| ASkepticaltheist panel announces new ahumanisttheist dogma: "DOGMA-FREE AMERICA". |
(Dissociated Press) Leading aDarwiniststheists today called a press conference to express outrage at the deceptive tactics used by proponents of intelligent design.
"They are invidiously deceptive", said Dr. Richard Dewkins, former professor of the Public IUnderstandingndoctrination in aSciencetheism at Oxford. "Everyone knows the story of the 'cdesign proponentsists' typo in the Dover Intelligent Design trial".
"It's an outrage", said Dewkins, a renowned hbiologistasbeenscientist.
His colleague, Minnesota abiologytheist bprofessorlogger and tsceptichirdratescientist P.T. Byers, concurred.
"Intelligent design proponents' whole agenda is to pose as objective, rational experts, when in fact they are devoted to an agenda so radical and anti-science that they dare not name it."
The gscientistsodlessbrownshirts, meeting at the hastily prepared press conference, implored Americans to root out intelligent design proponents wherever they find them.
"We need to insulate asciencetheistideology from cattacksritiques by Acreationistsmericans", thundered Byers. "Aanti-scientismcademicfreedom is a mortal danger to asciencetheism."
"Cvigilanceensorship is our only hope" noted Professor Byers, solemnly. "Intelligent design proponents constantly lie about their real agenda."
aDarwiniststheists? That's so original!
ReplyDeleteIf you can't beat them, join them.
What does this work of art tell us?
ReplyDeleteMy interpretation is that Kitzmiller v Dover is forever seared in the memory of cdesign proponentsists. 7 years after the trial, they are still suffering from the public humiliation. Post-traumatic stress disorder is still haunting them. So they try exposure therapy.
Does my theory make sense?
I am not sure what a cdesign proponent is actually supposed to be?
ReplyDeleteA person who prefers compact discs to analogue recordings?
Or is it some sort of strange scientifistic attempt to wax philosophical?
I keep reading about it (usually from Atheists) but I just don't get what this bogeyman is supposed to be this time.
Maybe someone could explain?
Thanks.
They are a transitional form between creationists and ID pseudoscience.
DeleteClick on the link in my first comment, crusader.
ReplyDeleteAh...okay. So it is a term used for Creationists who support the ID model by atheistic evolutionists.
DeleteNow I properly understand the joke.
Cheers, Oleg!
Close.
DeleteIt is a term inadvertantly created by Creationists trying to hide the fact that ID was really creationism by another name. Their bad cut and paste job was the smoking gun that forced Jones to find in favour of the plaintiff in the Kitzmiller case. And it came from a draft manuscript that the publishers gleefully handed over to the plaintiffs lawyers not realizing the harm it would do to their case. In the history of own-goals this is a big one.
Look up "Of Pandas and People" on Wikipedia. It does a much better, and more neutral, job of explaining the origin of this phrase than Conservapaedia.
-L
L,
DeleteGod, not more Pandas! Pandas on Wiki :P No thanks.
So CD is a self descriptive term, then? They call themselves that?
As a creationist myself, I do not see ID as creationism. Rather I see it as a teleological study of evolutionary science. Just another angle on the subject.
I know atheists say it IS creationism, but I beg to differ. It is no more creationism than Darwinism is atheism. ID may attract a certain set of creationists and theists, just as Darwinism attracts a certain set of atheists and nihilists. I really don't see the problem with that. So it results in debate?
That is a good thing.
Debate, especially in matters of conjecture and broad philosophical stance, is a good thing. The kids should hear about BOTH in schools. They should have the agenda of BOTH camps explained to them.
They sure do here, and we have not reverted to a theocracy or morphed into a technocracy....so I don't understand why they don't there.
Dogma, I suppose.
No, I don't think you understand.
DeleteThe first drafts of "Of Pandas ..." was a straight up creationist textbook. Then in 1987, SCOTUS ruled creationism could not be taught as a scientific theory in public schools. So, what were the authors to do?
Rather than avoiding distribution to public schools, each instance of 'creationist' or its variant was replaced with 'design proponent'. This was the only major change made to the manuscript between the SCOTUS decision and publication.
One of the first intelligent design textbooks was nothing more than a marked up copy of a creationist textbook, edited as a means of trying to skirt the notion that intelligent design was in essence a religious viewpoint. There is no doubt the design proponents involved were really creationists and that "Of Pandas..." is a creationist textbook.
They didn't just get caught with their hand in the cookie jar. They had chocolately Chips Ahoy smeared all over their faces.
-L
L,
DeleteSo let me get this straight.
An ID text of some sort (of the dreaded panda variety) was banned by the Supreme court because it had used the word 'creation' or 'creator'. This because it is deemed unfit for a science class, being a philosophical position. But, on the other hand (human - not panda paw) books that include the philosophical position of autobiogenesis are allowed because they ARE scientific?
LAUGHABLE.
Neither position is scientific. Both are assumptive.
So either hear them both out, or censor them both and relegate them to discussions on philosophy (ie courses or lectures of that nature).
You folks are doing your children no favour by hiding the BELIEFS of either camp from them. To do so is indoctrination, not education.
"But, on the other hand (human - not panda paw) books that include the philosophical position of autobiogenesis are allowed because they ARE scientific?"
DeleteEvolution isn't about auto biogenesis, though.
crusadeRex:
DeleteI’m working under the assumption that you have entered this discussion in good faith and your inability to understand the facts arises from my inability to explain them. So to put it as simply as I possibly can, here is why “cdesign proponentists” is of importance to understanding the equivalency of ID and creationism:
1791 - The First Amendment to the US Constitution, which prohibits laws respecting an establishment of religion (the Establishment Clause), is adopted
1868 - The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, which requires states to recognize individual rights, is adopted
1897 - The Supreme Court of the United States first establishes the Incorporation Doctrine, claiming that the Fourteenth Amendment extends the limitations of the US Constitution and its subsequent amendments on federal government to the state and local government
1925 - The Supreme Court rules that the Incorporation Doctrine applies to the First Amendment
1947 - Beginning with Everson v. Board of Education, and reaffirmed by subsequent cases for the next few decades, the Supreme Court rules that the Establishment Clause is subject to the Incorporation Doctrine i.e. states may not respect an establishment of religion
1983 - The initial draft of the creation science textbook “Of Pandas and People” is finished
1987 - The Supreme Court rules that creation science is ostensibly religious education not science; therefore the teaching of creationism in publicly funded science classrooms is a violation of the Establishment Clause
1989 - The first edition of “Of Pandas and People” is published. Following the Sumpreme court decision the editors removed all appearances of the word “creationist” in their textbook and replaced it with “design proponents”. There are no other substantive changes to the book.
2004 - The Dover, PA public school district attempts to include intelligent design in their science curriculum and use “Of Pandas and People” as a reference. A suit is brought against the Dover school district claiming that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and therefore is ostensibly religious education and violates the Establishment Clause.
2005 - Drafts of “Of Pandas and People” are entered into evidence in the Dover case. Comparisons of early and late drafts show that the only changes made from the early “creationist” draft and the later “design proponent” draft was the exchange of these two phrases. In one case the editors didn't even do it properly, leaving the phrase “cdesign proponentists” in the draft.
2005 - Based on the essentially equivalent nature of the intelligent design textbook with it’s creationist predecessor, Judge Jones ruled that intelligent design was essentially creationism by another name and therefore the teaching of intelligent design would constitute an establishment of religion.
Imagine that I said I discovered the one true religion and handed you my holy book. Looking through you notice that I have just taken the New Testament, crossed out the name Jesus Christ, and put in the word Shmeezus Shmist. Would you still believe my claim that Shmistianity is a totally new and different religion?
-L
crusadeRex
DeleteTo respond to you point by point:
“An ID text of some sort (of the dreaded panda variety) was banned by the Supreme court because it had used the word 'creation' or 'creator'.”
This book was not banned. The government establishment of religion is banned. Teaching creationism in a public science classroom violates that ban. Reading the book is just dandy. I think using it in a public school for comparative religion or philosophy classes would be just dandy too.
“This because it is deemed unfit for a science class, being a philosophical position.”
Had this book been developed de novo with references to philosophical arguments you would be right. But it was created by creationists trying to hide the fact that they were creationists. It is not a philosophical position, but a religious one.
Despite this, the book is a poor one to teach in science class since it takes a scientific position that is poorly articulated, untestable, and unsupported. But that alone wouldn’t mean that the school board was breaking the law. Just that they were incompetent.
“But, on the other hand (human - not panda paw) books that include the philosophical position of autobiogenesis are allowed because they ARE scientific?”
As Mulder has said autobiogenisis is not what was being discussed but the origin of differences amongst species. The origin of species via the mechanism of natural selection is a scientific position, not a philosophical one.
“So either hear them both out, or censor them both and relegate them to discussions on philosophy (ie courses or lectures of that nature).”
I went to a public high school in which we discussed comparative religion in our history class, social studies class, and philosophy class. Creationism came up several times. There was no problem there because in the context of the class it was a discussion of how religious views interact with the study of society and philosophy. In the science class, there is no science to teach from creationism. It’s only purpose is espouse a religious viewpoint, i.e. establish a religion.
“You folks are doing your children no favour by hiding the BELIEFS of either camp from them. To do so is indoctrination, not education.”
There is no hiding going on. Children are perfectly aware of the religious viewpoints of creationists via other classwork. A science classroom is, however, not the proper venue for that.
At this point Rex, I can’t explain it any simpler than this. I’m willing to continue the discussion but I have to have some evidence that you are acting in good faith and trying to understand the facts as I have laid them out.
-L
" I’m willing to continue the discussion but I have to have some evidence that you are acting in good faith and trying to understand the facts as I have laid them out. "
DeleteWell then, L... There is no point. I am trying to understand your position, but I will interpret the facts as I see fit and in accordance with my own experiences and perception of reality.
That is my own prerogative, you see.
I appreciate you laying out your position on this subject, sincerely. But, my own ideas on where and when classes should teach positions on philosophical ideas such as ABG and ID remain intact.
If you wish to converse, we may move on.
If you wish to indoctrinate, you're wasting precious time.
Evidence has little or nothing to do with this back and forth, as it deals with philosophical positions. Reason and logic are the elements at hand.
When you’re reduced to making fun of caricatures of your opponents it’s a sign that you’ve lost the argument.
ReplyDelete-KW
"Everyone knows the story of the 'cdesign proponentsists' typo in the Dover Intelligent Design trial".
ReplyDeleteExcept it wasn't a typo. It was a badly done find and replace error that illustrated the attempt to turn a creationist textbook into an intelligent design textbook, destroying the fiction that "intelligent design" is not merely religious apologia dressed up in drag. Intelligent design is not science. It is religion pretending to be science.
People would take you more seriously if you didn't compare people you disagree with to Nazi's and use 'The Trusworthy Encyclopedia' as a reference.
ReplyDeleteFor satire to be funny, there needs to be an element of truth to it. And there is none here. I don't even know if you understand why the 'cdesign proponentsist' was more than just an editor's error, as Conservapaedia implies.
-L
I can't decide whether linking to Conservapedia was part of the satire or just a dumb move.
ReplyDeleteOleg,
DeleteI vote for 'a dumb move'.
Rex:"Debate, especially in matters of conjecture and broad philosophical stance, is a good thing. The kids should hear about BOTH in schools. They should have the agenda of BOTH camps explained to them."
ReplyDeleteBroad philosophical stances should be taught in philosophy class, not science classrooms.
"As a creationist myself, I do not see ID as creationism. Rather I see it as a teleological study of evolutionary science. Just another angle on the subject. "
Care to elaborate?
"Broad philosophical stances should be taught in philosophy class, not science classrooms. "
DeleteSure, I agree. The creationism and ABG ideas are of a philosophical nature, and should be the subject of interested students of philosophy, not pushed as science. In a philosophy course it is possible to discuss the general effects and historic examples of these philosophies put into social practice.
I also think history and philosophy should be a credit/course equivalent to science. They are, after all, just as important.
"Care to elaborate?"
Sure.
Evolution as a theory is mainly about adaptation. The variations of living beings and their ability to adapt and flourish in an ever changing environment. The nature of how those changes are achieved is important to understanding our own physiology and that of other organisms. That is the science.
The reasons WHY those changes occur is also fascinating and the real subject of the debate between the ID/Teleology crowd and the NS/Darwinist crowd.
They are both positions that claim to have data that supports them.
Often it is the same data, interpreted differently.
Censoring one group because of the implications of that data and the interpretations of that data is just flat stupid.
On a personal level, I see no need for data in this matter. It makes no difference to me what some 'how' fellow thinks about 'why'.
It may be interesting, but it bears no real relevance to my beliefs.
If I want a painting, I will seek a painter.
If I want a sculpture, I will seek a sculptor.
ID and Darwinism are both the paintings of sculptors.
Sculptors that have just begun their art classes, at that.
That's an interesting take, crus. Along the same lines, should we also teach the controversy and let YECs "interpret the same data" alongside mainstream cosmologists? Should medical schools offer homeopathy courses?
Delete"That's an interesting take, crus."
DeleteThanks, Oleg.
'Along the same lines, should we also teach the controversy and let YECs "interpret the same data" alongside mainstream cosmologists?"
In a philosophy course, sure. YEC is not as simplistic as it is painted. I am no proponent of the concept, myself - but I would not disregard their concepts so quickly.
As a very intelligent YEC once explained to me of his view: The Creator is assumed to be beyond and not subject to time. He is assumed to have created time. This, combined with modern cosmological/physical ideas about man's ability to moderate reality with his perception (observer/participant theory etc) could point to a Creator that began creation and ended it for the present. In other words the past could be created in the future, and may well be conforming to our beliefs as we develop them. The 'data' in such a universe would only be important to those people living within that 'present' and could very well be as adaptive as time and space itself.
Again, I stress I do not 'buy' this version of reality. I tend to be more pragmatic. But it is a well thought out point, and I think it deserves as much attention as conjecture about mating habits of long extinct animals - but in it's proper place. Fascinated in the conjecture and evidences on potential rutting methods of Silurians? Take a palaeontology course!
Interested in the conjecture of scientists and philosophers on the origins of life and/or everything? Take a philosophy course.
But leave the science courses to science. The study of the method and understood means to gather data.
That is science. No more, no less.
Where that data leads us is no longer within its realm.
So, to be brief in my reply: I would say if philosophic positions (like autobiogenesis, creationism, or ID) are to be discussed in science classes, then yes YEC should be hit on as well.
My own opinion is that these ideas (all of them) should be only mentioned in passing so that interested students may further study them in the proper courses/venues. That proper venue would be in a class dedicated to philosophical implications of scientific thinking and assumptions. In my part of the world we call that 'The Philosophy of Science'. Cosmology in general fits neatly into that sphere.
"Should medical schools offer homeopathy courses?"
I am not sure that is a valid comparison, Oleg.
But, I don't see why homeopathic treatments should not be studied or completely discarded.
Should placebo?
Even if only to study psychosomatic response these concepts should be considered.
The changing of "creationist" to "design proponent" wasn't to hide the fact that intelligent design was creationism; that's a Darwinist conspiracy theory.
ReplyDeleteThe real reason was damn near the exact opposite -- to make sure to distinguish that what the author were promoting was not six-day creationism. This is the authors' claims, and it can be verified by - GASP! - actually reading the context in which they use the term. They're clearly not referring to Biblical creationism, and they explicitly denounce bringing the so-called supernatural into science.
Evolution News & Views has a great piece on this, including the context of the term: Response to Barbara Forrest's Kitzmiller Account Part V: Phillip Johnson and Of Pandas and People
Since this has fallen off the main page I am posting this comment for posterity.
DeleteJared Jammer: “The real reason was damn near the exact opposite -- to make sure to distinguish that what the author were promoting was not six-day creationism.”
There is a different reason they did this. In McClean v Arkansas (1982) the court ruled that six-day biblical creationism could not be taught as science. The Arkansas law in question made explicit references to six-day biblical creationism, citing that creation science necessitated a belief in catastrophism and a “relatively recent inception of the earth”.
Lousiana, not wanting to repeat the same mistake, passed a similar law but cited creation science as “evidences [sic] for creation and inferences from those scientific evidences [sic]”. They left it vague enough that it would not necessitate belief in catastrophism or a young earth.
An affidavit was entered by biologist Dean Kenyon, himself a creationist, on behalf of the defense that stated:
“Creation-science does not include as essential parts the concepts of catastrophism, a world-wide flood, a recent inception of the earth or life, from nothingness (ex nihilo), the concept of kinds, or any concepts from Genesis or other religious texts.”
So the Louisiana law in question during Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) was believed by some its proponents and those within the creation science community to be inclusive of old-earth creationism. This form of creation science was also struck down by the court. So, young-earth … old-earth … both forms of creationism have been struck down by the court. It doesn’t matter which form was put forth in the original drafts of Of Pandas and People, both are illegal to teach in public school science classes.
By the way, you may have heard of Dean Kenyon. He was the author of Of Pandas and People. He clearly understood that the pre-Edwards draft of his book would not fly because he was the one who rallied for that specific type of creationism before the court. And the court didn’t buy it.
So let’s give “intelligent design” a try. The text was altered to distinguish that what the author was promoting was neither six-day creationism nor old earth creationism. Only that’s hard to do just by replacing one word with another.
After Kitzmiller v Dover (2005) intelligent design was struck down as another form of creationism. Three strikes and you’re out is what I think they say.
-L
Jared -
ReplyDelete“The changing of "creationist" to "design proponent" wasn't to hide the fact that intelligent design was creationism; that's a Darwinist conspiracy theory.
The real reason was damn near the exact opposite -- to make sure to distinguish that what the author were promoting was not six-day creationism. This is the authors' claims, and it can be verified by - GASP! - actually reading the context in which they use the term. They're clearly not referring to Biblical creationism, and they explicitly denounce bringing the so-called supernatural into science.”
The book Of Pandas was derived from the explicitly creationist book Creation Biology which had little problem with the ssupernatural. This book was slowly, and slightly, modified until the 1987 Edwards decision, following which the editors, for some inexplicable reason, thought intelligent design was a better phrase than creation. You can look at the word counts between the drafts on the NCSE website. I would be more trusting of Luskin’s assertion that they were trying to avoid references to the supernatural if they had used the phrase “intelligent design” from day one.
They used the term intelligent design because they claimed it had been widely used in biology. However, there are a total of three (three!) uses of this phrase in the history of modern biology (perhaps there are more but they are hiding in the literature pretty well). Once by Darwin (who mentioned it in passing to explicitly say there was no evidence for it), once in the explicitly creationist text book The Natural Limits of Biological Change, and once by Arthur Wilder-Smith, a creationist who referred to an “intelligent nipple designer”. A long and storied history for the phrase indeed.
Creationism is the belief that God did it. Old earth, young earth, doesn’t matter both are creationism. Nobody is arguing that Of Pandas was young earth creationism.
The ENV post is not great, it is Luskin dissembling.
-L
Years ago Huston Smith and Alvin Plantinga lobbied the NABT to remove the theologically motivated words "unsupervised" and "impersonal" from their definition of evolution back in 1995. We should be able to sue them now for what their definition almost was, apparently. Their phrasing evolved to remove the latent atheism/deism underlying their worldview from being part of the definition. L is obviously unable to answer Jared's point about judging Pandas and People based entirely on the content. I think it demonstrates the cynicism of Barbara Forrest's genetic fallacy in reaching back into Pandas' "evolutionary history," and the cynicism of Judge Jones in conflating the ID community, the Discovery Institute, the authors of Pandas and any number of others with the defendants, and thus trying people who weren't the subject of the suit and thus who had no representation in the trial. As Jared points out, if one looks at the context in Pandas, the "creationism" in that early version, and indeed Dean Kenyon's views at the time, were something different than the caricature that past Supreme Court rulings have targeted. The only reason why Forrest and people like L will not talk about the book on its own merits, and are instead hyperfocused on phrasing without dealing with the significant substantive differences between ID and creation science, is that the red herring is absolutely necessary. By Forrest's logic, we are all fish, since in her view you can trace us back to those origins. Neo-Darwinism is the uncritical belief that Evolution Did It (using selection in an "important" way), whatever version(s) of Evolution happens to be fashionable, allowing an infinitude of papers on how many speculated evolutionary mechanisms can dance on the head of a pin.
ReplyDeleteYou would think that Darwinists would be able to understand better than most people that having enough "slight modifications" can turn one thing into a qualitatively different thing. But it isn't so. ... L's last comment also makes a roundabout argument about Kenyon's work without taking into account the influence of Kenyon's philosophy of science on the final version of P&P, and sidesteps the obvious fact that what Kenyon meant by 'creationism' was very different from--in fact the amicus brief by the laureates specifically argued. One might say that this was merely a cynical tactical move to secure a decision against creationism by limiting the definition to the 'orthodox' meaning based on the Bible rather than Kenyon's version based solely on empirical evidences without supernatural conclusions. To shuffle past this glaring point is to argue for a ratcheted legal strategy in which the objections to 'creation science' based on Biblical dependencies were a diversion to gain a legal beachhead against an emerging competitor to neo-Darwinism, for which later rulings like Edwards and Kitzmiller would employ guilt-by-association arguments to incrementally evolve the scope of that precedent to idea-suppression which would have been beyond the reach of the court for McLean. Of course, in retrospect that does seem possible.
ReplyDelete