Hey, residents of the North Mason School District on Hood Canal in Washington state! Don’t put John Campbell on your school board!
You may be wondering who he is and why we should care. John Campbell is better known by his full name, John Angus Campbell, and he’s a professional stealth creationist. He has long been a fellow of the Discovery Institute, and his specialty is something now called “framing” — he tries to weasel himself into positions where he praises Darwin fulsomely, calling him a master rhetorician, gushing over the guy to such a degree that you begin to wonder what’s wrong with Campbell … and then he pulls the con. Darwin was a master of logic who, in The Origin, directly addressed the controversies of his day, so in order to better teach evolution, he oozes smarmily, we should now also teach the controversy in our public school classrooms.
Of course, what Campbell thinks are equivalent controversies are not; what were valid concerns in the 19th century have been repeatedly dismissed now that we’re in the 21st. We gain nothing by resurrecting the rotting corpse of Paley and asking it to trundle about the classroom anymore.
If you ever get to listen to him, you’ll discover that he’s friendly and charming, and he really tries to cozen up to you by flattering your side of the issues: you’ll get to experience what it’s like to be on the receiving side of a framing effort. And let me tell you, I don’t like it one bit. I find Campbell utterly repellent — it’s not quite at the Sal Cordova level of repugnance, but it’s close. My impression is of profound dishonesty and untrustworthiness, that he’s a kind of Wormtongue of the creationist movement.
Wesley has much more, and points out that Campbell’s school board campaign makes no mention of Intelligent Design or the Discovery Institute, and that he seems to be distancing himself from the kiss of death of being tied to ID. I’m afraid I don’t see that as very significant in his case — Campbell has always tried to do exactly that, presenting himself as the middle-of-the-road voice of reason who loves Darwin as a pretext for smuggling design into the classroom.
I’m sure that he’ll avoid the issue while campaigning, and if pressed, will reassure everyone that it’s very important for students to understand evolution. Then, if he gets in, expect him to suggest to the board that he has some suggestions for more effective teaching of biology…and presto, North Mason schools will suddenly find themselves offering Explore Evolution to the students. Don’t trust him!
It’s worse than I thought. Campbell even calls himself a “Darwinist”. Talk about tone-deaf and dishonest!
Say, do you think it would work if I ran for the Morris school board by saying I wanted to strengthen our students’ faith by exposing them to the arguments against atheism, and by the way, I too have recently found Jebus and am a Christianist, too?
What strikes me as especially unfortunate about this particular style of scum is that it’s likely to succeed. People apparently -want- IDC in the classroom; someone that can fly in under the radar of most opponents is going to be a success story in this field.
John Angus(where’s the beef)Campbell’s website lists several lectures given at various universities and a co-written book. He neglects to give the titles of these effusions.
This links to the book co-written with DI’s Stephan C Meyers.
Darwinism, Design, & Public Education
http://msupress.msu.edu/bookTemplate.php?bookID=725
I’m still trying to find out the content of his lectures. I wonder what I’ll find?
What’s the deal with the Discovery Institute? They’re all liars and they have to know they are liars. What motivates these assholes? What’s in it for them?
Fire is caused when combustible materials release phlogiston. Teach the controversy!!!
I too have recently found Jebus and am a Christianist,
And, has thou slain the Jebus-Not? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!’ I chortled in my joy.
Something tells me you’ll get more of the faith-heads to vote for you if you spell it “Jesus,” and pronounce it “Jaheezus!” or “Jayzus!”
If materialism can’t adequately explain the Big Bang…and recent evidence points to stunning complexity in the cell, which severely strains the credulity of purely material causes, How can you honestly say that there is no controversy,,Especially when the deleterious mutation rate to DNA is commonly known to be exceedingly high if not what many would argue is complete..(Sanford PhD. Geneticists, inventor of the “Gene Gun” process for one notable example!)
It is truly like a alcoholic denying he has a severe problem for you to deny that Neo-Darwinism has no severe problems.
Hmmm, I’m thinking that factoid may be useful in the near future.
Yeesh… These bastards have no shame. No morals. They will lie, they will cheat, and they will abandon and forsake their supposed sacred beliefs to achieve some worthless, dishonest goal.
Bond.. Not only is *partially* quoting debunked creationist websites even less coherent than what you where doing before, but its all quite meaningless. Just so we can be clear… Why is it a *bad thing* for materialism to be “looking for” answers, instead of already claiming to have them? I mean, you claim you do, but you can’t *explain* anything about the Big Bang at all **period**. And, worse, its the same BS argument that has been used by church types since well before Galileo, as a means to try to stop anyone for answering anything. Its always the same, “If you can’t explain X, then Y in the answer, therefor you shouldn’t even bother to try to explain X any other way.”
Mr. Bond’s post (#7) is a perfect example of neo-creationist incoherent prose and ignorance of the simplest scientific facts.
Sanford completely lost it when he found his personal savior. Sad…
Yeah. And. So. What?
Saying that incomplete knowledge of something that happened 13.7 billion years ago long before life itself arose affects our ability to understand the evolution of living things is like saying that because we don’t know the exact details of daily life in ancient Babylon means we can’t say who won the American Revolution. Or: because I can’t tell you the day of the year my paternal grandparents met, I can’t know where I grew up.
Nonsense.
Nope. It doesn’t. In fact, it does exactly the opposite. If the cell were really a bag of jelly glop with no detectable internal structure, we’d have a real puzzle: how does a featureless bag of glop digest food, move around, respond to its environment and reproduce itself? Instead, we’ve found all sorts of smaller-scale structure within the cell, structure which helps us explain how the cell does what it needs to do. Score: science 1, vague mysticism 0.
Dude. Science has gotten us this far, and I for one ain’t gonna change horses in the middle of the stream.
To the truly committed, (to Christ and not an asylum), any means of promoting the gospel can be justified. Take Paul for example. In I Corinthians 9 he writes:
“20And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
21To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
22To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
23And this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.”
So you see, these nuts have precedent for doing whatever it takes to further their agenda. Lying is rather tame compared to what has been done in the past.
It’s as if they are stupid enough to think that if ID was taught then the overwhelming truth would cause a domino effect that would put Christ in his rightful place as lord and master, blah, blah, blah. Hey IDiots. I hate liars as do most decent people. Stop lying and face the facts. ID is crap based on lies and you have no integrity.
As always, Darwiniacs try to present atheism in the guise of “science”. Science doesnt need the kind of alarmist nonsense PZ posted above. What he posted above is the religious response of someone who sees his worldview under attack. I see the same mentality among Muslims.
PZ, the part of the page below the fold starts with “&uot” in an odd font. You have a typo in your code. Maybe part of the page doesn’t display.
They don’t follow Jesus so much as L. Ron Hubbard. Behold the sacred words of many a Reptilian’s favorite political philosopher: “Make money. Make more money.”
Double zero, stop acting as if you understood what you were talking about.
The microtubuli in our cells (look up what they are) are composed of a protein called tubulin. That is just about the same as a bacterial protein called FtsZ, which has a similar function. And like tubulin, FtsZ is just another GTPase, except that it sticks to its own kind rather than being soluble.
Behold the bacterial flagellum! Have a look at the type III secretion system and tell me how either of them is “irreducibly complex”.
I could go on for the rest of the day.
Then why haven’t we all already died from cancer? Is that a miracle?
Complete what?
You are like an alcoholic who honestly believes all he drinks is water.
Get a molecular biology textbook (I recommend “Molecular Biology of the Cell” by Alberts and many others — make sure you get the latest edition) and start reading. Sure, it will take you a couple of weeks, but so what — there are more than 007 facts known in biology. You’ll learn something.
PZ, the part of the page below the fold starts with “&uot” in an odd font. You have a typo in your code. Maybe part of the page doesn’t display.
They don’t follow Jesus so much as L. Ron Hubbard. Behold the sacred words of many a Reptilian’s favorite political philosopher: “Make money. Make more money.”
Double zero, stop acting as if you understood what you were talking about.
The microtubuli in our cells (look up what they are) are composed of a protein called tubulin. That is just about the same as a bacterial protein called FtsZ, which has a similar function. And like tubulin, FtsZ is just another GTPase, except that it sticks to its own kind rather than being soluble.
Behold the bacterial flagellum! Have a look at the type III secretion system and tell me how either of them is “irreducibly complex”.
I could go on for the rest of the day.
Then why haven’t we all already died from cancer? Is that a miracle?
Complete what?
You are like an alcoholic who honestly believes all he drinks is water.
Get a molecular biology textbook (I recommend “Molecular Biology of the Cell” by Alberts and many others — make sure you get the latest edition) and start reading. Sure, it will take you a couple of weeks, but so what — there are more than 007 facts known in biology. You’ll learn something.
Glamdring couldn’t have done a better job of cutting someone down to size.
The theory of evolution is atheistic?
The theory of evolution is atheistic?
Hey, was it Bond who argued in a previous thread that DNA was really, really hard to react? Now he is saying it mutates too fast! Can they even get their lies straight?
Whenever anyone uses the term “Darwinist” it is a big tip-off. No one but creationists use that term.
Funny how it’s only the creationists who actually use the word “Darwinist” (probably because it implies a sort of dogmatic following). You can always tell the creationists-in-disguise when they say they’re Darwinists.
Unlucky #7
A so-called deleterious mutation may be deleterious in one environment, but not in another. The mutation may actually become beneficial under different (external or internal) conditions. And a beneficial mutation in one environment, may become harmful in another.
The severe problems seem to exist in the mind of the beholder. And they are willful ignorance of the science and a propagandist mentality to promote the supernatural. But whether or not the supernatural is included in scientific research is a philosophical question. And the results have spoken. No new knowledge of the natural world has ever come from including the unmeasurable and untestable.
Intelligent design believers have had centuries to bring something new to the table, besides a whiny attitude. But they have only produced speculation and political organizations (The Discovery Institute).
Intelligent design needs to learn to walk before it can ride a bike.
This is one of the major problems with having municipal elections in off-years (non Federal election years.) Turnout tends to be low, and so people like Campbell can get onto the school board without spending much money; nor for that matter doing much more than putting up lawn signs to get name recognition. Sure, some forums and local access cable shows may give voters the opportunity to learn a little bit about each of the candidates. But the Q & A just before the election that the local paper publishes is usually very thin on actual issues such as the teaching of creationism disguised as “controversy.”
The conservative machine realized this a few years ago, and pushed themselves into Republican caucuses in the off-years so they could “slide under the door” without people knowing much about the candidates. And most people only start paying attention during federal election years. When turnout is low, candidates don’t need many votes.
It’s how Michele Bachmannnnnnn got her start in politics.
The most blatant problem with James Bonds’s post seems to me to be a leap in logic (or perhaps a misunderstanding of what IDers mean when they say “Teach the Controversy”).
When actual scientists say there is no controversy in this context, they mean there is no competition between science and religion. Science (i.e., scientists) actually explores reality, forms testable hypotheses, tests them either in a laboratory or in the real world (past and present), forms conclusions, increases its knowledge, adjusts its overall theory, and moves on to the next question.
Religion manages all of this by fiat, and virtually all of its pronouncements have long been shown to be incompatible with reality. Thus, when it comes to what to teach children in school, there is no “controversy” between science and religion/creationism/ID. One is valid (science) and the other is not (religion), as a method of exploring the origins and working of the world.
Saying there is no controversy does not mean there are not problems with our current understanding of origins and workings. There are disagreements (sometimes running very deep) between various scientists, but such imperfections in our knowledge does not mean that any posited alternative (e.g., religion) suddenly merits being included in the discussion. Even where scientists disagree, they agree about the proper method for finding the answer—and that is the scientific method, not reversion to outdated myths to explain what we haven’t figured out YET.
There is controversy within science, but that does not invite mythology back in, any more than disagreement about whether to eat Italian or Mexican for dinner means we should go to church instead.
Given the ignorance you displayed on the last thread regarding Big Bang cosmology, and GR in general, I’d stay well away from that topic this time.
Hey #14
Only a fool would call rationality and science “a world view”. The problem with creationists is that they view science as a religion. They’re just as bad as post-modernists, confusing what they think ought to be with what is.
wow, i was caught by surprise because that’s where i went to school! i grew up on the hood canal and attended k-12 in the north mason school district.
i would describe my experience with the science courses in the north mason school district as “acceptable”, and from 90’s-2000 ID was not taught (at least to me, by my science teachers) but only mentioned as an alternative view point.
however, many of my former teachers were active members in church organizations, (namely young life). participation in these church groups was popularly encouraged by student peers for social stature.
this very small town school district and from what i recall, has had quite a few unsuitable school board members due to lack of community interest, coupled with a long history of failed levies.
i think that if he were to garner enough support from key interest groups in the community he would have a very good shot at the position.
Well, yes, it is atheistic, isn’t it? It doesn’t take into account any gods, nor it needs them. It’s not that it positively denies god. But it doesn’t deny astrology either. There’s the difference, and it’s one of the problems that I see with us who don’t believe in such nonsense even having a name (“atheists”). I don’t call myself an “atheist” just because if I feel the need to deny it more than other superstition “theism” is made more important than astrology and other nonsense.
This has been debated before to the death I guess, and I do see the counterpoint (having a name unites people) so I’m just pointing out that evolution, as any scientific theory, is and should be a-theistic (and unastrologist, and a-unicorniologist, etc.). It’s just that it shouldn’t even be worth mentioning it.
Darwinist? Maybe he’s changing his middle initial to Q? John Quisling Campbell?
Campbell’s claims about the pedagogy of teaching biology should be questioned. Teaching the wrong stuff is never conducive to kids getting the right stuff into their heads. That’s just nutty.
Campbell is an advocate for pigs-flying ID — he thinks it should be a good discussion point, if ID is found to be good science. The difficulty, of course, is that ID isn’t science at all, let alone good science.
I addressed the issue in a post about ID last October, referring to Francis Beckwith’s claim that he makes no science judgment about evolution in his urging that the Constitution allows the teaching of evolution (a position which, I believe, Campbell endorses), here:
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2006/10/09/intelligent-design-a-pig-that-doesnt-fly/
That makes it agnostic. Apathetic agnostic: it doesn’t know, and it doesn’t care. “Sire, je n’ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse.”
But I agree it shouldn’t be considered worth mention.
That makes it agnostic. Apathetic agnostic: it doesn’t know, and it doesn’t care. “Sire, je n’ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse.”
But I agree it shouldn’t be considered worth mention.
Rick: Brilliant bible quotes! I’m going to put that on my blog next sunday. instead of praying and stuff.
#22 When actual scientists say there is no controversy in this context, they mean there is no competition between science and religion. Science (i.e., scientists) actually explores reality, forms testable hypotheses, tests them either in a laboratory or in the real world (past and present), forms conclusions, increases its knowledge, adjusts its overall theory, and moves on to the next question.
If there is no design then ID will be a science stopper. Yet if there truly is design, (which science, in foundational principle, can not rule out prior to investigation!), then Neo-Darwinism is a science stopper!
The problem with Neo-Darwinism is that it claims there can be no answers beyond material explanations we already accept. Yet science by its nature seeks to explain what we don’t know. Claiming we already do know the answer prior to investigation, as Neo-Darwinism does, is the very definition of un-scientific!
#7 Especially when the deleterious mutation rate to DNA is commonly known to be exceedingly high if not what many would argue is complete..(Sanford PhD. Geneticists, inventor of the “Gene Gun” process for one notable example!
No, you’ve got it entirely wrong. God doesn’t design stuff like mutating DNA and inefficient repair mechanisms. Us IDers have got to get our stories straight!
(John Angus Campbell…what a prick!)
Who is this Bond person that keeps popping up? Reading his comments is like standing next to the fattest, ugliest person in your high school class – it makes you feel so attractive by comparison. Has Bond never heard of the “God of the Gaps”? He’s the magical mystery solution that always gets invoked by xtians whenever there’s a question that they feel science can’t adequately explain. Just because all the intricacies of evolution have not been explained yet in no way implies the existence of God (or Intelligent design, or whatever hocus-pocus name you want to give him/it/whatever.
Boko999: PZ is correct. I heard him speak once, on “Why Was Darwin Believed?” before I knew his affiliation with the DI folks. It was a very good talk (well presented, well researched – as far as I could tell, at any rate, not being a rhetorician), but incomplete – he (like many pomos, which he superficially sounded like, and that a lot of rhetoric-of-science people are) went too far, so I suggested that in order to show that rhetoric was an important factor (to whatever degree) he would have to show that cognitive factors, social, etc. didn’t contribute as significantly, etc. He just smiled and said I was basically right. I waited a bit for a followup remark, like what he was going to do (as a rhetorician) to deal with that, but the answer didn’t come and I thanked him and returned to my seat. It was only later that I learned his affiliation and more of it clicked into place.
“Intelligent design needs to learn to walk before it can ride a bike. ”
Walk? Heck, it needs to get out of the womb first.
Stuart
If Buddhists and Hindus were more militant, they’d be pushing chakras, prana, and bindu as worthy of inclusion in textbook discussions of the nervous system. And their claims would be more credible than those of creationists…after all, practitioners meditate on these ethereal things and change brain waves, body temperature, etc.
The problem with Neo-Darwinism is that it claims there can be no answers beyond material explanations we already accept.
Isn’t that true for all branches of science? Why do you single out Neo-Darwinism for this critique? Hmmmmmm.
Please HELP US!
I live in the North Mason School district. His chances of winning are 2 to 1 in his favor. He has the full support of the Democratic party. (I don’t know if they know) He has full support from the local teachers union.(I don’t know if they know)The PDC shows who is giving him money. He has not been here very long. He claims two years but I know he was in another state teaching 6 months ago. Letters to the Editor in our local paper would help. ‘the Bremerton Sun” “The Shelton Journal” Please don’t attack him on the ID issue because that may backfire. His integrity and his taking advantage of a board that represents the public and not the teachers union. I have come to recognize him as a phony and a carpetbagger but others have not.
PLEASE HELP US!
[email protected]
Thank you
Steve