There’s a fascinating exchange of views in the student newspaper at SMU, where the recent “Darwin vs. Design” dog and pony show was held. Leading up to the event, the Discovery Institute shills were busy trying to lay the groundwork. In particular, there was an
editorial that tried to distance ID from old-school creationism.
What’s more, the authority he cites is nonexistent because the U.S. Supreme Court has never dealt with the teaching of intelligent design. The only time it did strike down a non-evolutionary theory was when it struck down the teaching of “creation science” in 1987. Even intelligent design’s harshest critics recognize that “most ID proponents do not embrace the Young Earth Flood Geology, and sudden creation tenets associated with [young earth creationism].” (Eugenie Scott, pg. 128, Evolution vs. Creationism). Moreover, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the teaching of “creation science,” it did so because it “embodies the religious belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of humankind.” (Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 592 (1987).) Because intelligent design does not try to address religious questions about the identity of the designer, this test does not apply to ID.
But, as we learned in the Kitzmiller trial in Dover, Intelligent Design creationism is just religiously-based creationism dressed up with a disingenuous denial of its basis. While some of its proponents deny Young Earth Creationism, others accept it, and those who advance it take the intellectually dishonest position that they will not make any decision on the age of the earth — they explicitly avoid addressing scientific evidence that might antagonize their religious base. There is just something rotten about this evasiveness—not only do they distort the scientific side of the issue, they can’t even be straight about their own position.
And speaking of rotten, here’s the byline on this article:
Sarah Levy is a third-year law student at the Dedman School of Law. She can be reached at [email protected].
Anika Smith is a recent graduate of Seattle Pacific University. She can be reached at [email protected].
Anika Smith is a paid associate of the Discovery Institute. They can’t even be forthright about their professional affiliation.
So far, this is all the same old baloney from the DI, nothing at all unfamiliar. Here’s the fun part:
some skeptical students attended the conference and wrote up a summary. Remember that Levy and Smith have just innocently declared that ID has nothing to do with religion, oh no … it’s scientific, and all those court decisions that keep religion out of the classroom don’t apply.
The night was wrapped up when, somehow, one of our flyers made it to the front of the stage, where the journalist asked the other men on stage about the quote regarding the institute’s true purpose (see first quote mentioned above) being that it wants to replace modern science with “a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”
To my shock, one of the men on stage said, “Yes that’s true, and I don’t see anything scandalous about that.”
Ooops.
I wonder which of the four said it. The journalist was Lee Strobel, who isn’t a member of the DI as far as I know, but is an evangelical Christian and creationist who is a bit dodgy on whether he’s the young or old earth variety; the others were Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, and Jay Richards, all bigwigs of the DI.
Remember that for the next court case: the DI fellows have admitted that they want to replace science with some kind of Jesus-friendly theism.
It’s rather pitiful the way the DI is desperately trying to keep being seen as relevant following the crushing blow the IDiocy movement took in Dover. The whole farce was basically over the minute Behe made the comparison to astrology on the stand. Now with the revelation that the DI is financially embattled, these little seminars are like the last act of defiance by a bunch who’ve been reality-and-integrity-challenged from the start. They’re like the neocons who still insist we’re “winning hearts and minds” in Iraq.
At risk of tripping Godwin’s circuit breaker:
The rhetorical tactics of the DI remind me of the speeches given by Hitler when he was rising to power (N.B. I am NOT proposing an equivalence between the Nazis and creationists. I’m just pointing out that they use similar propaganda techniques.) In the morning he would give a speech to workers, claiming that he supported trade unions and workers rights. In the afternoon he’d give a speech to business leaders, claiming that he’d crack down on trade unions. One day he’d be raving about the evils of socialism. The next, he’d be raving about the evils of capitalism.
In short, the DI doesn’t have a coherent message. Instead, they tailor their speeches to their audience, and tell them what they want to hear.
When Dover went down, it was noted that the judge was a conservative, Reagan appointee, etc. This gave strength to his decision somehow. But when you think about it, he actually gave Iddie (ID/DI) a chance that would really only have come from a biased judge.
He is clear in his decision that the Iddies had lied. Any prosecutor could have taken the judges decision as a starting point for a purgery case, and I’m not sure why that did not happen. Because they were christians lying?
Anyway, the judge could have cited them for contempt but did not. I think Dover was one of the most important decisions in the history of The Struggle (though it could not have happened without the earlier decisions, more or less). But it would have been extra nice with sugar on top if Behe had to spend 30 days in the slammer. Not that I want to see him in the slammer. But making an example of him would have saved a lot of trouble later, I think.
Of the four, I’m guessing its Richards. He seems the least used to equivocating about the religious content of ID (and he no longer depends on the Discovery Institute, having got a gig at the Acton Institute), as in his reaction to the recent news about the Pope:
It was interesting that, at the time, Bruce Chapman himself chose Richards’ admissions about the religious nature of ID as the DI’s response to the Pope.
Greg, “Purgery” is a lovely eggcorn.
Very funny. I think my spell checker did that. Obviously, the most likely word one must be looking for is the process of draining molasses off when processing sugar.
Which is, of course what I meant but obviously it is hard for some people to see the connection.
Here is an exchange between a student trying to leave his Ivory Tower (*cough*) to confront Creationism, and Levy/Smith.
Greg Laden wrote:
> When Dover went down, it was noted that the
> judge was a conservative, Reagan appointee,
> etc.
Actually I think Judge Jones was a George W. Bush appointee.
I just finished reading the book Forty Days and Forty Nights: Darwin, Intelligent Design, God, OxyContin®, and Other Oddities on Trial in Pennsylvania.
It was pretty good, the author has a good sense of humor. My biggest complaint would be that there were a couple of times the word atheist gets used in a perjorative sense which he lets pass pretty much without comment.
I wonder if intelligent design would include believing that we were cloned by extra-terrestrials. Or how about we were created by the Force.
Ah, really? I thought he was a) almighty and b) ineffable?
“Pejorative” has nothing to do with “perjury”. It’s from Latin peior = “worse”.
Ah, really? I thought he was a) almighty and b) ineffable?
“Pejorative” has nothing to do with “perjury”. It’s from Latin peior = “worse”.
Sarah Levy is is listed as the current leader of SMU’s Christian Legal Society. How very odd that she should be concerned about Intelligent Design since, as she insists, it has nothing to do with religion. I wonder if she has a spiffy motto for herself, like the Thomas More Law Center’s The Sword and Shield for People of Faith.
Corey Schlueter: I wonder if intelligent design would include believing that we were cloned by extra-terrestrials.
The Raelians seem to think so.
Strobel isn’t a member of the DI afaik, but in his book The Case for a Creator, he interviews a bunch of DI bigwigs, including Behe, Meyers, and Richards and essentially accepts what they have to say word for word. He’s definitely very cozy to them.
“But do not teach it in science class, because science is the study of the natural world and thus cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, who operates and exists in the supernatural world.” – Seems a little NOMA to me. I say we boot these not-as-staunch-as-they-can-be kids out of science. Burn them at the stake.
SteveC,
Matthew Chapman also wrote a book about the Scopes Trial which is much funnier. It’s called “Trial of the Monkey”.
You can experiment with NOMA at their age. Experimentation is what college is all about.
:P
Plus thats a fine example of the awesome power of fr*ming. LOL!
“I wonder which of the four said it.”
It was Stephen Meyer, actually. I’ve got the exchange virtually transcribed in my notes, and I’ll be posting a lot of the question-and-answer session on my blog later.
“…when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the teaching of “creation science,” it did so because it “embodies the religious belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of humankind.”
This is what amazes me about ID supporters. They claim no “supernatural creator” involvement. So…this intelligent….”thing” has the ability to create all life from nothing, yet isn’t supernatural. I guess it’s just really really smart. Ridiculous. I wonder how they would define the differences between “god” and an “intelligent creator”.
This is probably why the Grand Canyon debate gets so emotional. Young Earth Creationists are literally down there in the Canyon, claiming it as theirs. The information booths are overflowing with creationist literature. A visit to the National Park Service website quickly reveals that they are reluctant to use the term BILLION for it could confuse (upset) some visitors. In fact, you won’t find the word Billion used anywhere on the website, and the “science” section is carefully tucked away so as not to offend.
http://www.nps.gov/grca/index.htm
SteveC, you mean you didn’t know that all atheists are bad? That’s in the first chapter of Theology101, geez.
Deepsix, take a look around you, at the vast complexity of existence. The beauty of the sunset, the birds, the trees, the clouds, and the ocean. See, thats proof positive that this all could not have happened by chance, it must have been designed. At least that’s what the cook behind the lunch counter was telling me the other day. He had a nice chuckle at the idea that anyone (me) could even fathom a world as beautiful as ours NOT having being Created by “something”. In his defense, he cooks quite well.
Scholar,
Those are usually the arguements I get. “But, just look at how AMAZING everything is!” I usually respond with, “yes, there are some very beautiful and amazing things in the world. However, that doesn’t mean ‘goddidit’.” But that is pretty much what ID boils down to, isn’t it? “Look how complex this is! Goddidit!”. Where’s the direct correlation?
By the way, on the Grand Canyon site, I was finally able to locate referrence to millions under the FAQ. It was written as 2000 million years or 4000 million years.
Off topic (sorry) but I think many of you will like this video, especially you PZ.
Ev’ry time we say D.I.
I sigh a little
Ev’ry time they tell a lie
I wonder why a little
–PhaWRONGula
Judge Jones (Kitzmiller) is one of the few real conservatives, the theocrats are the radicals. He supports the rule of law, an independent judiciary and the seperation of church and state. As a liberal, I could have a beer with him. ;-)
“I submit to you that as citizens, we do not want and in fact we cannot possibly have a judiciary which operates according to the polls, or one which rules based on who appointed us or according to the popular will of the country at any given moment in time. And this is no small matter as it relates to how our fellow citizens view the judiciary…
….let me return to the role of the Rule of Law, which is I think so fundamental and so embedded in our system of justice. We must never forget that the Rule of Law is not a conservative or a liberal value. It is assuredly not a Republican or Democratic value. Rather, it is an American value. Confidence in the Rule of Law rests entirely at any given point in time on the character and the integrity of the individual American judge and on that judge’s absolute commitment to fairness and impartiality.”
-Judge E Jones, speech to the Anti-Defamation League.
:)
You know, I always wonder about the people who say they’d want to have a beer with Bush. To me, he just positively radiates “mean drunk”.
I have always wondered why the designer must be intelligent.Couldn’t the designer just be a designer?Could he be a mad designer like Dr.Frankenstien? I will admit I seem to be put together pretty good. However I do have a bone to pick with the designer.Squeezing soft shit thru a hair covered asshole does not seem like good design. If a Proctor and Gamble designer put a fur collar around the top of a tube of toothpaste he would be out of a job immediately. I guess it might have worked out if I had a longer neck or a few more joints in my body.Doesn’t seem to bother my dog at all. Maybe I could get an ID guy to cover this shortfall.
It’s not a coincidence that we living, breathing creatures find pleasure in things like warm, breezy, cloudless days. Creationists think this is because the world was made FOR us. I think it’s because our kind of living, breathing creature doesn’t like getting the crap kicked out of it by a Nor’easter. But that’s just me.
I can’t get excited about the Grand Canyon website using “thousand million” for “billion” when there is confusion among English-speakers (US and UK and so on…) as to whether “billion” means “thousand million” or “million million.”
As to the site itself, it seems both accurate and unequivocal:
Raven,
Hmmmm. Yeah. I mean, maybe.
I hesitate to project my distain for his politics on to his person, but he does have some of that smug, privileged, smirking-bully fratboy aura.
If I have my GWB history right, there’s a reason why he quit drinking alcohol when he did – the very pragmatic reason that he did not want to embarrass his father, who was of course President at the time.
And good for him. Bush had a problem; he recognized it and solved it. I was raised by two alcoholics. When I was eight, they both became recovering alcoholics. One of many things I’ve learned about addiction and recovery is that the very last thing you want to do with a recovering alkie is to sit him down for a couple of drinks.
Oh, the irony in people prefering Bush to Gore or Kerry on those grounds!!
It’s interesting that Bush’s past alcohol abuse (and tacitly acknowledged drug use) was promoted as an asset during his first run. I read an interesting article about how people like Bush Sr. came from a generation that had slayed the dragons of World War II, but guys like Dubya were limited to being able to boast about having slayed the dragons of their own personal substance-abuse issues. The ways in which society’s view of the problem and solution made it possible to wear his drinking and subsequent abstinence as a badge of honor.
On a personal level, I’m happy for him and his family, it’s a wonderfully positive change. But my experience also has taught me that feeling hubris about ones own recovery isn’t harmonious with the spirit of recovery. And extrapolating his recovery to “Look, he quit drinking, therefore he’s qualified to be President of the United States” doesn’t work for me. It’s kind of a neutral thing on that level.
(That Bush doesn’t claim or admit to being an alcoholic is beside the point here, though it is consistent with his inability to openly admit weakness or error, or to see the value of doing so. It’s all of-a-piece, ain’t it?)
Oops, editing error. Make that:
We now return you to your regularly-scheduled comment block.
Is there a comment space on the Grand Canyon web site where we can ask why they’re not giving fair coverage to the Paul Bunyan theory of its formation?
You fools! Don’t see they are completely different.
Creationists use smoke, Intelligent Design people use mirrors.
Just finished Monkey Girl, PZ, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Thanks much for the reference.
“Not that I want to see him in the slammer”
Elegant. But somehow, I think the polygraph might be saying otherwise.
Greg (#3) – I sure hope your comments on biology-related topics get closer to the facts than your scan of the Kitzmiller decision. Judge Jones’ reference to defendants lying on the stand (school board members, **not** the “Iddies” in the sense of anyone affiliated with the DI, nor Behe, who was an expert witness, not a fact witness) was one tangential point in a mountain of evidence showing DI is religious in nature, and thus teaching it in schools violates the First Amendment.
Tangential? Yeah, here’s why. The central dispute in the case was whether ID is religious in nature, because the decision the judge had to make was whether or not ID could legally be taught in public schools. The fact that school board members lied about where the money to buy ID-based textbooks came from goes mainly to their credibility as witnesses. It did tend to show the board members themselves felt there was a religious purpose in having ID taught (and that they knew this was wrong, so they lied about it), but that is not the same thing as proving ID theory itself is religious in nature. (If Galileo had sneaked Copernican tracts into lectures at the University of Padua, would it have proved that heliocentrism denies God?)
If you don’t want to say that out loud, the best answer I’ve come across is: “I don’t want to have a beer with my president — I want my president to care whether I can afford a beer if I like one.”
Ah, did he? What evidence for this do we have, other than the fact that he has said so?
Did you see him on TV on his birthday last year? He was so drunk he almost fell over when he tried to shake someone’s hand. It’s painfully obvious. And later, he reportedly fell off a bike.
Many people suspect the pretzel incident was another case of the Decider drinking himself under the table.
If you don’t want to say that out loud, the best answer I’ve come across is: “I don’t want to have a beer with my president — I want my president to care whether I can afford a beer if I like one.”
Ah, did he? What evidence for this do we have, other than the fact that he has said so?
Did you see him on TV on his birthday last year? He was so drunk he almost fell over when he tried to shake someone’s hand. It’s painfully obvious. And later, he reportedly fell off a bike.
Many people suspect the pretzel incident was another case of the Decider drinking himself under the table.
Японский Бог!
Holy Frangelican Monks, Batman! The things I miss…! I’m so naive sometimes.
At least he hasn’t thrown up on any world leaders. That we know of. But then there was that thing with Angela Merkel. Hmmm. I imagined that was a sitch where his friendly country boy act, combined with his blueblood sense of entitlement and his prodigious boundary issues, produced a truly embarrassing moment. Was alcohol involved?
Well, what can I say? Relapse happens. It comes with the territory. Right, Mr. Limbaugh?
Cool. I had no idea there was an equivalent to “Jesus Haploid Christ!” anywhere.
Cool. I had no idea there was an equivalent to “Jesus Haploid Christ!” anywhere.
LOL…!!! Haploid… LOL. Yup, it’s amazing what language has to offer. My friend from St. Petersburg taught me that one. I’m not sure how familiar you are with American idioms, David, but rightly or wrongly I think that expression is roughly equivalent to expressions of surprise such as “Holy smokes!” or “Holy cow!” or “Holy Toledo!”
Or “Jesus Haploid Christ” perhaps!
Or “Gadzooks!“
The Cyrillic stuff seems to read “Japanese God” – is that correct? I assume there’s some bad word sounding like the first one?
“Japanese God” is correct.
Nope, as far as I know it’s not a curse, and not a pun for a curse. It’s just an expression of surprise not unlike “Holy cow,” but presumably laden with Russian cultural overtones we can’t possibly understand and which may be lost in the mists of time, even to the average Russian. Sorta like “Holy Toledo!” … huh? Why Toledo? I dunno. But it sounds right. :-)