Mike Dunford is a graduate student in the Department of Zoology at the University of Hawaii, Manoa, where he studies evolution. He's also a contributer to 
Denyse O'Leary notes some of the differences between creationists and Intelligent Design proponents:
Then the creationists in turn help the ID theorists by making clear what creationism is and what it is not. Creationism is about the BIBLE, see? It's not about intelligent design theories like Behe's* Edge of Evolution or Dembski's design inference.
It's extremely uncommon for me to find myself in agreement with Denyse on anything (and it's not a comfortable feeling), but in this case I do think she's got a good point. Creationism is certainly explicitly based on the Bible, and Intelligent Design certainly is not. In fact, that's probably the Achilles' Heel of the entire Intelligent Design movement.
Say what you will about the Young-Earth creationists, about Ken Ham and Kent "Prisoner #06452-017" Hovind, they are steadfast in their belief in the literal truth of the Bible, and steadfast in their refusal to lie about that belief. They believe that they are right, and they are not willing to publicly deny their faith. In that, they stand in stark contrast to Intelligent Design.
The Intelligent Design folks, on the other hand, loudly declare that they are indifferent to religion every chance that they get. They have no choice. Their mission is to destroy good science education for every child in the public schools of America, and they can't do that if they are obviously driven by religious motives. That's why you see them conceal the theological basis for their beliefs when they are talking to a governmental group - as Jonathan Wells did when he testified in Kansas a few years back:
Q. Is it true that as early as the 1970s you were a member of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church?
A. Yes.
Q. And is it a fact that while involved with that church you became convinced that evolution was false because it reflected-- it conflicted with your church belief that humankind was specifically designed by God?
A. I became convinced that the Darwinian theory is false because it conflicts with the evidence.
The problem with that approach is that most of the people who want to see the Intelligent Design folks succeed could care less about the science. They really are motivated by religion. They really do believe strongly that their religious views are absolutely right, and that they should make sure that their religious views are taught in public. They don't want to hear that Intelligent Design - or the "weaknesses" in evolution - are good science. They want to hear that their religious views are right. They're also the strongest base of support for the Intelligent Design proponents. That's why you find the very same folks - like Wells - who deny faith in front of government professing faith in front of religious audiences:
He also spoke out against the evils in the world; among them, he frequently criticized Darwin's theory that living things originated without God's purposeful, creative activity. My studies included modern theologians who took Darwinism for granted and thus saw no room for God's involvement in nature or history; in the process, they re- interpreted the fall, the incarnation, and even God as products of human imagination.
Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.
The two-faced nature of the Intelligent Design movement has not gone unnoticed - and it's not just the scientific community that's turned off by the "plausible denial" tactics. Some of the leaders of the Young-Earth creationists have issues with it, too:
As indicated earlier, we also don't believe that one can, or should attempt to, artificially separate 'Biblical' from 'scientific' creation in order to gain a hearing in the public arena. This has been attempted by Biblical creationists, again for tactical reasons, with good motives. But, like the IDM's broader but ultimately similar stratagem, it appears to us to be philosophically flawed.
Personally, I'd suggest that watering down your beliefs in public for "tactical reasons" is more of a moral flaw than a philosophical one. In any case, though, it's an ironic truth that the greatest barrier faced by the Intelligent Design movement is the honesty of those who would otherwise be their greatest supporters.
[Minor edit: fixed formatting on Wells quote. Thanks for pointing it out. -MD]
Comments
Ken Ham and Kent Hovind certainly don't lie about their literal interpretation of the bible, but they lie thru their teeth all the time about science and the findings of science.
They lie to children, and they lie to the credulous adults who raise those children in their world of ignorance and superstition.
Posted by: waldteufel | August 4, 2007 12:33 PM
As Judge Jones noted in his 2005 Dover decision, "We have concluded that (intelligent design) is not [science], and moreover that (intelligent design) cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."
Philip Johnson, one of the originators of the intelligent-design movement, said on a Christian radio talk show in 2003: "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit, so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." And here's a 1996 quote from Philip Johnson: "This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science. It's about religion." This is as good as it gets, straight from their prophet's mouth.
William Dembski, a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute, wrote: "Christ is never an addendum to a scientific theory but always a completion." - from his book, Intelligent Design, page 207.) More quotes from Dembski's book: "[A]ny view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient." and "[T]he conceptual soundness of a scientific theory cannot be maintained apart from Christ."
Judge Jones also noted in his 2005 Dover decision: "It is ironic that several of these individuals (sworn witnesses), who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the (Intelligent Design) Policy." These religious fanatics have lied to us before, and they will continue to lie to us. Remember that.
Posted by: Paul Burnett | August 4, 2007 12:44 PM
I suspect the greatest barrier is that it's both mathematically and biologically a load of nonsense.
Still, the dishonesty probably runs a close second.
Posted by: Patrick C | August 4, 2007 1:14 PM
It is true that their actions are the best confirmation of the movements religious motivation, but it is also a problem for them that it started out as an identifiable immediate successor to "creation science", and that it veers more and more towards confessional apologetics. (Behe, Dembski, Dover.)
And pseudoscience bollocks in a larger sense - no predictivity without a mechanistic (and so natural) designer, so no science but an empty post-description (restatement) of data at best.
While forensic science shows how easy it is done by describing designer agents (of crimes) in order to understand, identify and even anticipate them.
Posted by: Torbj�rn Larsson, OM | August 4, 2007 2:00 PM
I disagree that creationism is restricted to Bible-based beliefs.
Such early creationists as Agassiz were not conventional Bible-believing Christians.
Young Earth Creationism was originally more or less confined to Seventh Day Adventists, who, I believe, relied on the revelations of Ellen G. White in addition to the Bible. YEC did not become popular among Fundamentalists until the 1950s or '60s.
Posted by: TomS | August 4, 2007 2:14 PM
Mike, you stated,
I have to disagree. In talking with a lot of creationists over the years, one thing I've learned is that it isn't so much that the Bible isn't taught that bothers them, it's that evolution is taught with such certainty.
I think many creationists would be just fine with biology classes that don't mention the Bible or creationism, as long as they also don't teach evolution, or at the very least teach evolution in a negative way.
If they can get their kids to come out of biology class thinking evolution is wrong, that's good enough. All they then have to do is fill in the gap with the Bible.
Posted by: Jason F. | August 4, 2007 2:31 PM
O'Leary seems to have virtually taken over most of the postings at Uncommon Descent, and the tone of the board has become much more overtly anti-materialist than it even was before she turned up. She seems to spend most of her time attacking atheism, declaring it to be on its last legs (despite all the evidence to the contrary), and promoting her weird dualist ideas about the mind and brain.
I've noticed that the old UD curmudgeon, Dave Scott Springer, seems to have slunk away from the board. He's an agnostic, and no fan of O'Leary, and I think he must have gone off to sulk in a quiet corner somewhere.
But at least O'Leary serves one purpose. Since she started posting at UD, it's impossible to miss the religious underpinnings of Intelligent Design any more.
Posted by: tacitus | August 4, 2007 3:18 PM
We are already hearing from the islamic creationists, which should make for a very interesting fight when the inroads made by creationists will have to be shared, by court decisions, between christian and islamic creationists.
The christians have themselves to blame for pushing their own camel's nose into the tent, confident the rest of their camel will follow, but they will find the islamic camel in there with them, getting equal billing.
And both are unwittingly opening themselves to a ferocious legal assault from scientology to make themselves first among equals in the creationism business.
Posted by: Crikey | August 4, 2007 3:26 PM
Mike,
The number one problem with your side is that you conflate the motives and purposes of a movement with the rational force of propositions. This style of argumentation is known as red herring logical fallacy. The bare bones fact of the matter is this: The explanatory power of materialistic evolutionary propositions and the epistemological justification of design in observable nature are not at all "religious" or metaphysical. Propositions under these categories stand or fall on their own without any recourse to religious motives or purposes. This should be very obvious.
It's sloppy (dare I say deceitful?) thinking like this which actually compels me to think very hard about the truth of YEC, geocentrism, and even flat-earthism much more than anything the actual proponents of these views have to say.
Posted by: Crandaddy | August 4, 2007 3:55 PM
Hmmm, that's interesting. Denyse says that:
--------
Creationism is about the BIBLE, see? It's not about intelligent design theories like Behe's* Edge of Evolution or Dembski's design inference.
----------
I then turn to Truth in Science,
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/
a UK lobbying organisation set up to push Creationism in schools, and find that they push all the old Creationist lies, from the evolution of horses not showing that speciation can take place, to peppered moths etc.
Oddly enough however, their information pack, as two of the outcomes, has:
"Know that Dr Michael Behe is an example of a
scientist who questions whether Darwin�s theory can
account for the complexity of the cell
� Understand the process which Behe went through
as a scientist in changing his ideas"
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/custom/TiS_Pack_Teachers_Manual.pdf
When I see things like that, added to blog entries where they explicitly tie themselves into ID:
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/203/63/
I wonder who is trying to fool whom.
Finally, TiS link to ID websites, yet never once mention that they are a Creationist organisation.
Maybe Denyse didn't get the memo.
Oh, and Crandaddy, there is little difference between ID'ers and Creatonists, due to their propensity to lie.
Posted by: guthrie | August 4, 2007 4:09 PM
Mr Dunford, your quote of Wells starting with 'Father's words,' did not process correctly.
Sincerely,
Posted by: Paul Flocken | August 4, 2007 4:10 PM
Crandaddy -
This is factually incorrect. The vast majority of arguments against creationist/ID address their gross factual and logical errors.
It is also illogical. When an obviously false argument is put forth by someone who should know better, a hidden motivation or agenda should be considered. In my opinion, the motivation of ID types has been examined somewhat less than it should be.
(I would add that their religious motivation cannot be cleanly seperated from their social and political agenda. It is the political and social agenda which creates the problem; if they were merely going off to monasteries or otherwise expressing themselves in ways that respect the rights of others, rather than attempting to manipulate taxpayer funded public schools and other aspects of public policy, there would be no problem.)
Really? That certainly makes no sense at all. Even if your charge were true, a bad idea doesn't get any better if somebody makes a bad argument against it.
I suspect it is you who are being deceptive here. I'm willing to guess that you feel political kinship with creationism/ID proponents. So at one level, you know they're wrong, perhaps, but at another level, you want to defend them.
As I said, "When an obviously false argument is put forth by someone who should know better, a hidden motivation or agenda should be considered". What's your hidden motivation for posting something that anyone can see is untrue, and a couple of patently illogical arguments, all dressed up in phoney outrage?
Posted by: harold | August 4, 2007 5:30 PM
Crandaddy said:
The explanatory power of materialistic evolutionary propositions and the epistemological justification of design in observable nature are not at all "religious" or metaphysical. Propositions under these categories stand or fall on their own without any recourse to religious motives or purposes. This should be very obvious.
It is obvious. The propositions of creationists fall, and they fall hard. There is no epistemological justification for design in nature, except for the sense in which the unintelligent, unguided process of natural selection operating on variation is in fact a very effective path to "well-designed" (i.e. functionally adequate) organisms and parts of organisms.
But let me be even clearer: There can be no "rational force of propositions" when those propositions entirely consist in logical fallacies, distortions or outright lies, and sometimes even total nonsense. There is no "rational force" conveyed by arguments which cherry-pick, distort, and often even manufacture empirical evidence. There is no "rational force" behind criticisms made of real science by quote-mining ignoramuses who willfully misunderstand or willingly lie about the overwhelming and unified scientific evidence for evolution by natural selection. Since these tactics are used by all creationists - including the poorly-disguised creationists who call themselves Intelligent Design Theorists (even though they have no actual scientific theory, nor even a single legitimate hypothesis) - their arguments utterly lack any rational force.
Nor is there any conflation of motives and arguments among critics of creationism. Genuinely rational people - people who think critically rather than engage in rationalizations to support whatever propositions they prefer to believe - are forced to examine the motives and aims of creationists precisely because the arguments offered by creationists are so very, very bad. No one could possibly be convinced on the basis of reason by the pseudo-evidence and outrageously bad logic of creationist arguments, so it is necessary to look for other, non-rational bases for creationist beliefs.
Not that we have to look very hard. Both those who propose creationist arguments and those who find them persuasive in spite of their (usually quite transparent) evidentiary and logical flaws never hide their religious motivations very well - as Mike's quotation from Jonathan Wells illustrates.
Mike, apologies for feeding the troll. I cite boredom and irritation.
Posted by: G Felis | August 4, 2007 5:31 PM
Go easy on Crandaddy. Anybody who can't tell that in 20 years ID has produced no actual science, is a little slow on the uptake.
Posted by: steve s | August 4, 2007 6:14 PM
Crandaddy revealed: It's sloppy (dare I say deceitful?) thinking like this which actually compels me to think very hard about the truth of YEC, geocentrism, and even flat-earthism much more than anything the actual proponents of these views have to say.
OK, so your personal epistemology is so flawed that you'll consider demonstrably absurd positions. And this adds credibility to your support of ID, um, how again?
Your argument is akin to a defender of the supply-side Laffer-curve tax cuts claiming that he considered the criticisms of it sufficiently sloppy that he is now reconsidering the labor theory of value.
Really, you gotta love it when all it takes to win a debate is to let your opponent talk. Just ask Colbert...
Posted by: Science Avenger | August 4, 2007 8:04 PM
There's very little commentary my remarks have generated worth addressing, but since I'm also bored--and irritated--I'll touch on a few points:
Guthrie,
"Oh, and Crandaddy, there is little difference between ID'ers and Creatonists, due to their propensity to lie.
Where have I lied?
Harold,
"When an obviously false argument is put forth by someone who should know better, a hidden motivation or agenda should be considered."
I agree with this completely.
"In my opinion, the motivation of ID types has been examined somewhat less than it should be."
Replace "ID" with "materialist" there, and I agree with this as well.
"That certainly makes no sense at all. Even if your charge were true, a bad idea doesn't get any better if somebody makes a bad argument against it."
By what standard am I to judge a bad argument either for or against a position?
G Felis is the most absurd of all.
"There is no epistemological justification for design in nature, except for the sense in which the unintelligent, unguided process of natural selection operating on variation is in fact a very effective path to "well-designed" (i.e. functionally adequate) organisms and parts of organisms."
If there is no epistemological design, then there are no epistemological functions. There are no epistemological reasons. There are no epistemological actions, words, or meanings either. You have effectively undermined the entire semantic content of your comment. Congratulations.
Posted by: Crandaddy | August 4, 2007 8:25 PM
Paul Burnett said ( August 4, 2007 12:44 PM ) --
Judge Jones was talking through his hat. How could the Dover school board members both "staunchly and proudly [tout] their religious convictions in public" in promoting the ID policy and at the same time "cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the (Intelligent Design) Policy"?
The school board members didn't lie. Some of them would have preferred to have biblical creationism taught in the science classes and merely saw the ID policy -- putting the ID books in the library and mentioning them in a one-minute statement -- as being as much as they could hope to get.
Albert Alschuler, a law professor emeritus at Northwestern University Law School, wrote of the Kitzmiller v. Dover case,
-- from
http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2005/12/the_dover_intel.html
Also, contrary to popular belief, the Dover decision was not an inevitable slam-dunk shoo-in. Another decision against an evolution disclaimer, Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish, came within one vote of being granted an en banc (full court) rehearing in the appeals court and within one vote of being accepted for review by the Supreme Court. In another decision against an evolution disclaimer, Selman v. Cobb County, the appeals court judges strongly indicated that they were leaning towards reversal but then vacated and remanded the decision because of missing evidence (the school board then took a dive by settling out of court).
There is no constitutional separation of bad science and state.
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | August 4, 2007 8:56 PM
Larry, if you think the dover school board members didn't lie, you clearly weren't paying attention. They were so blatant in some of their lies - including while under oath - that it lead Judge Jones to actually personally question some of them on some of their more outrageous comments.
Posted by: Mike Dunford | August 4, 2007 10:16 PM
Larry, read the transcript.
Idiot.
Posted by: waldteufel | August 4, 2007 11:40 PM
Here is a Dembski quote that I feel illuminates his feelings and motivations concerning ID...
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ids-cultured-theological-despisers-3/This post appeared in Uncommon Descent over a year ago while I was still forming my opinion of Dr. Dembski. I posted a reaction on the TalkOrigins newsgroup pointing out how this pretty much showed Dembski's ID was all about God. The next day, the post was modified to add a parenthetical.
In a way, that made it worse. Dembski's defenders were trying to suggest that I was misinterpreting the quote. The parenthetical showed I was not. You can almost feel the distain Dembski must have for the ID-is-not-religious alternative he needs to keep around for legal reasons.
Yea, I know, this is old news. But I thought you might like to see it.
Posted by: Thought Provoker (aka Quantum Quack) | August 5, 2007 12:18 AM
Mike Dunford said,
No one has paid more attention to Judge Jones and the Dover decision than I have. My blog has dozens of articles bashing Jones and the Dover decision. Bashing them is sort of a hobby with me.
When I said they didn't lie, I meant that they didn't lie about their religious motivations. That is what we were discussing -- their religious motivations. In the quotation from the Dover opinion, Jones wrongly claimed that they lied about their religious motivations. They were quite open about their religious motivations in the Dover school board's public meetings and private communications. One or two of them did lie about where they got the money for the purchase of the ID books for the library, and that is what Jones personally questioned them about.
Here is an excerpt from the book Monkey Girl:
-- from http://www.edwardhumes.com/books/monkey-girl/#excerpt
So with a record like that, how could the board make a credible "insistence that it had no religious agenda"? And how could the board "time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the (Intelligent Design) Policy," as Judge Jones put it? The board members' religious motivations were so blatant that there was no way that they could have covered them up. Judge Jones was full of crap.
waldteufel said (August 4, 2007 11:40 PM) --
Larry, read the transcript. Idiot.
You're the idiot -- for jumping on me before I had a chance to respond.
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | August 5, 2007 12:36 AM
Larry, go to a quiet corner where you can read your wholly babble and move your lips without bothering anyone.
Read the transcript. At least two of the Dover board members were bald faced liars. Follow the money.
Idiot.
Posted by: waldteufel | August 5, 2007 12:48 AM
Hi Larry,
While I don't have a web site dedicated to it, I might give you are run for your money in knowing the Dover case. I have read the transcripts multiple times during the trial. They are easily accessible on the web.
Why didn't you quote Bonsell's testimony about when he said "Two thousand years ago, someone died on a cross. Can we have the courage to stand up for him?" He lied on the stand about that.
There is also the part about where Bonsell claimed he never said "creationism" and it was something the newspapers just made up. Of course when the TV news video was played on cross examination, it was rather effectively discredited Bonsell's testimony.
Judge Jones ruled based on the evidence and testimony presented in the trial. If you want to make a convincing case, use THAT testimony. Your use of a book written after the trial was over doesn't make sense unless, of course, your didn't use the trial transcripts are because you know how devastating they are.
Please excuse the rough tone, but frankly, this is a put up or shut up moment. If you present trial transcripts making your case, I will gladly present trial transcripts making mine. I suggest you will lose that debate...
again.
Posted by: Thought Provoker (aka Quantum Quack) | August 5, 2007 12:55 AM
Thought Provoker said,
Before you make such a bold statement, why don't you visit my blog and see my articles about Jones and the Dover decision? The post labels are in the sidebar. A link to my blog is embedded in my name below.
It was Buckingham -- not Bonsell -- who said that. You don't know as much about the case as you pretend to know.
So if they caught him on a TV news video, then how in the hell could he "conceal [his] tracks" and "disguise the real purpose behind the (Intelligent Design) Policy," as Judge Jones falsely claimed?
My point is that the defendants were candid about their religious motivations when discussing ID at the public board meetings and other occasions, even if they later lied about their motivations when testifying on the witness stand, which I don't care about because the evidence of their religious motivations was overwhelming.
There is a hell of a lot more to the case than what is in the transcripts. You people are making a big deal over the defendants' lies on the witness stand in order to obscure my quotation of Prof. Alschuler's scathing condemnation of the Dover decision. Again, here is the link to Prof. Alschuler's article --
http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2005/12/the_dover_intel.html
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | August 5, 2007 1:55 AM
Crandaddy,
Read some history of science before you jump to YEC because of what somebody said yesterday on a blog. Sincere scientists (who were, by and large, also sincere Christians) had given up on a 6000 year old earth by the end of the 18th century, at least a decade before Charles Darwin was born.
Posted by: hoary puccoon | August 5, 2007 2:11 AM
It's OK, Crandaddy, I didn't accuse you personally of lying. Maybe you have done, I'll have to go and read uncommondescent to find out.
I did also say "propensity", which is defined as:
"an inclination to do something"
Posted by: guthrie | August 5, 2007 5:52 AM
I'm sorry, but I think people make too much of the gap between creationism and ID. Sure the hard core creationists disapprove of the ID supporters who deny the bible three times before the cock crows, but they seem to be glad that somebody has "proved" evolution collapses within its own scientific framework. They don't accept as much of that scientific framework as some IDists, but this doesn't affect the mightily relieving fact that evolution cannot be right either way
Posted by: snaxalotl | August 5, 2007 6:00 AM
Any bets that Hovind can read Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek?
Isnt' it ironic that people who believe in the the literial truth of the Bible so rarely have actually it. Typically, they base their positions on a translation authorized by a 17th centure English king.
Posted by: Jim Ramsey | August 5, 2007 7:05 AM
British King, Jim. James the 6th and First was reared as a Protestant, although precisely what affect the Scottish Calvinist variety had on his authorised translation, I do not know.
Posted by: guthrie | August 5, 2007 8:11 AM
I see. Judge Jones was "full of crap" for saying that they lied about their religious motivations because he was talking about what they did on the witness stand while under oath when he clearly should have just ignored what they said and focused on what they said before the trial. Because lies under oath are, we all know, not worth caring about when anyone outside the beltway does it.
Posted by: Mike Dunford | August 5, 2007 9:00 AM
Mike Dunford said,
The problem was that Jones exaggerated. He didn't just say that they lied under oath -- he said that they "would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy," which they obviously couldn't do because as Jones himself indicated, "they . . . staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public" in promoting the ID policy. Also, the main issue about their lies under oath was their lies about the source of the money to buy the ID books -- that is what Jones questioned Buckingham about. I didn't even know that they lied about their religious motivations when testifying under oath -- that was really stupid because there were many witnesses and it was all in the public record. Anyway, I clarified my statement that the defendants didn't lie -- I meant that they didn't lie about their religious motivations when speaking at public board meetings and on other occasions. My main focus regarding the defendants' religious motivations was Prof. Anschuler's excellent article, which I quoted in my comment of August 4 @ 08:56 PM.
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | August 5, 2007 11:34 AM
Crandaddy dissembled thusly: Replace "ID" with "materialist" there, and I agree with this as well.
It is worth noting for the uninitiated that "materialist" is just a creationist straw man.
By what standard am I to judge a bad argument either for or against a position?
By the evidence of course. Given your pompous pontifications, it's a little late in the game to be asking such an inane question.
If there is no epistemological design, then there are no epistemological functions. There are no epistemological reasons. There are no epistemological actions, words, or meanings either.
Do you always write entire paragraphs full of words whose meaning escapes you?
You have effectively undermined the entire semantic content of your comment.
And we all know how much IDer/creationists love to play semantic games. Doing science is just too damned much trouble.
Posted by: Science Avenger | August 5, 2007 11:35 AM
Crandaddy -
"I know you are, but what am I?" argumentation.
However, I do appreciate that you concede that your original post was entirely wrong. Originally you said "The number one problem with your side is that you conflate the motives and purposes of a movement with the rational force of propositions. This style of argumentation is known as red herring logical fallacy". Now you concede that examination of motive is often reasonable.
I don't know what a "materialist" is; it's certainly not a term I use to describe myself. At any rate, we're talking about the theory of evolution and creationism/ID here. Creationism/ID is independently at odds with the evidence, and logically false. This would be true even if we didn't have a theory of evolution.
Since the theory of evolution is strongly supported by objective evidence, no special motivation need be attributed to those who accept it.
The obvious answer is that scientific positions should be judged by the available evidence, as well as by their logical coherence of lack thereof if necessary, as in the case of ID.
Posted by: harold | August 5, 2007 11:39 AM
Larry,
Judge Jones didn't exaggerate at all. You seem to be misreading the text. If Judge Jones says they "lied to cover their tracks", this does not mean: they lied and managed to cover their tracks. It means (of course, of course) that they intended to cover their tracks. And that they lied. Both of which are pretty obvious from the transcripts.
Uri
Posted by: Uri | August 5, 2007 12:03 PM
Larry Faraman: "Judge Jones was talking through his hat. How could the Dover school board members both "staunchly and proudly [tout] their religious convictions in public" in promoting the ID policy and at the same time "cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the (Intelligent Design) Policy"?"
I disagree. First, some board members tried to cover up what they said in public in order to mitigate the damage done by their original statements *in the courtroom*. Secondly, Jones' did not say these happened "at the same time", he said they happened "time and again".
In a later post Larry writes:
"My point is that the defendants were candid about their religious motivations when discussing ID at the public board meetings and other occasions, even if they later lied about their motivations when testifying on the witness stand, which I don't care about because the evidence of their religious motivations was overwhelming."
So, Jones wasn't talking through his hat and some of the board members and defendants did lie. Thanks for the clarification, Larry. I understand now that we should ignore your original statements. Are there any others that we should likewise ignore or would it be safer to read most with some skepticism?
Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | August 5, 2007 12:11 PM
Larry now writes: "The problem was that Jones exaggerated."
Sometimes people find that in trying to dig themselves out of a hole they actually dig themselves in deeper. Often, it's better to just stop.
Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | August 5, 2007 12:17 PM
Hi Larry,
I knew I was running a risk in responded to you at 1am in the morning after having a long day (I was tired). Hopefully, this comment will be more thoughtful.
I took a look at your web site. I found it better than I had expected. There are a few things I even agree with (e.g. the confusion of "liberal" amd "conservative" political labels).
Of course it was Buckingham not Bonsell was who got caught on tape saying the words "creationism". Bonsell was the one who lied in his January deposition that he had never suggested creationism should be taught when it is clear that he specifically proposed that creationism should be taught "50/50" along with evolution during the first board member retreat he organised.
Here is some if his testomony from the Dover trial...
Q. And when you were deposed, you denied that creationism had been discussed at the June board meetings, right? Do you remember that?
A. Can you show me that?
Q. Sure. Please go to your January 3rd deposition, page 45, line 22. You were shown an article, and then Mr. Rothschild asked you the following question, and you gave the following answers: Quote, Does this article accurately report that creationism was being debated at school board meetings? Answer, Absolutely not.
Question, There was no discussion about creationism? Answer, No. Question, So as we look through these articles, this uninterrupted series of articles about June meetings that talk about creationism being debated at the school board meetings and statements made by school board members, including yourself, about creationism, all of those are just fabricated? Answer, Fabricated?
Question, Yes, fabricated. Answer, Fabricated? You mean, she just made them up -- all up, is that what you mean? Question, There are a lot of statements in here about people talking about creationism. I think you are suggesting to me it never happened. Answer, All this debate about creationism, yes, that never did happen. It was not a debate about creationism.
A. Okay.
Bonsell lied, under oath.
It is interesting that you seem to be condemning Judge Jones for suggesting the Dover school tried to hide their desire to have creationism taught in school because they got catch lying. It is kind of like arguing in inept bank robber is innocent because there was no way he could ever successfully rob a bank.
With Mike Dunford's indulgence there is just a couple more points to summarize why I think Judge Jones had no choice but to rule the way he did.
The obvious question behind all of this "Is Intelligent Design creationism?" (the thread topic). What does the term "Intelligent Design" mean? In the Dover case, the book Of Pandas and People was the main authority in answering that question. The overwhelming focus of the board's actions was to get that book into student's hands.
From page 92 of this book...
and then there is the infamous page 99...
It was clear that the Dover school board intended to include creationism in a public school curriculum and they lied to the court about it. They were caught and found guilty. Ineptness is not a very convincing argument for the defense.
Posted by: Thought Provoker (aka Quantum Quack) | August 5, 2007 12:41 PM
SciCre (scientific creationism, recently dubbed ID) is creationism's bread and butter. A big part of SciCre is arguing that evolutionary intermediates are in many cases impossible, or prohibitively improbable, and therefore the Designer, formerly known as God, did it. Behe's and Dembski's arguments are slight variations on this standard theme, with clever names to sound different and impressive.
Old and young earth creationists disagree about the age of the earth. The Disco Fellows, bringers of the Gospel of Intelligent Design Creationism, eschew that argument in favor of their big tent strategy. Instead they say that their claims of evolution not working are disclosures of the Designer's creative speaking, or Logos of John:
I'm afraid you're helping Ms O'Leary get away with murder.
Posted by: Pete Dunkelberg | August 5, 2007 12:57 PM
(the links here must be copied and pasted -- I removed http:// prefixes because of limit of one link per comment)
You people just don't know when to lay off. I said that I didn't know that the Dover defendants lied under oath about their religious motivations and that I don't care. You are trying to distract attention from my original comment's main focus, which was a blog article by Prof. Alschuler -- see
uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2005/12/the_dover_intel.html
Also, Judge Jones himself was not upfront about his own motivations. After the decision, he said in a Dickinson College commencement speech that organized religions are not "true" religions. He should have recused himself. See --
im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/07/judge-jones-wrong-about-founding.html
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | August 5, 2007 1:49 PM
Hi Larry,
After admitting your lack of knowledge and your apathy about the amount of lying that occured in the Dover case, you wrote...
Your fallback position comes close to sounding like an appeal to authority.Here is what Prof. Alshuler wrote...
"These board members apparently accepted intelligent design as a compromise, the nearest they could come to their objective within the law. Does that make any mention of intelligent design unconstitutional?"
This is why I included the quotes from the Of Pandas and People book. It is clear that in the Dover case Intelligent Design WAS a form or creationism and it is equally clear it WAS unconstitutional as presented.
Of course there has been an immediate scramble to change definitions. This scramble started as soon as it was obvious the Dover case was going to go badly for ID.
In 2007, we are now discussing the nuanced tailoring to ID's cheap tuxedo. Have they changed it enough to pass inspection. it is clear that in 2005 it did not.
Your next attempt to change the subject is almost comical. Do you really want the Court of Appeals to force a new trial under a new Judge using the SAME EVIDENCE? I think very few ID proponents would like to see that happen.
While it may be important to you to rationalise, by any means possible, that Judge Jones somehow made a bad decision, this latest attempt is off the topic of whether or not ID is creationism.
Posted by: Thought Provoker (aka Quantum Quack) | August 5, 2007 2:38 PM
To Mike,
Thank you for your indulgence of my verbose comment on the Dover case. I trust you didn't mind.
Believe me, it could have been longer. I look forward to opportunities to put to use the hours I spent studying the case as it happened. I found it extremely fascinating. I still do. I started writing another long thesis on it but you will be happy to know I deleted the multiple paragraphs and will just point out that...
BOTH sides asked Judge Jones to rule on whether or not ID was science!
Judge Jones would have had to be an activitist judge to forgo making the decision both sides of the litigation asked for.
Thanks again for the opportunity. That was fun. ;)
For the record, I like what I read in your blog but I wish you would every once in a while write something I could disagree with. I like to argue.
Posted by: Thought Provoker (aka Quantum Quack) | August 5, 2007 3:38 PM
Larry Fafarman: "Judge Jones himself was not upfront about his own motivations. After the decision, he said in a Dickinson College commencement speech that organized religions are not "true" religions. He should have recused himself."
Why? Because anyone who has opinions about religion can't be trusted to rule fairly in an ID-related case? If that's the case, they're gonna be looking for a new judge for the retrial for a loooong time.
Besides, I thought ID was about the science and not religion. It's so confusing trying to keep track of these things. Or is it about both? Does that mean also that any judge who has opinions about science should recuse himself?
Posted by: MPW | August 5, 2007 7:18 PM
Science Avenger,
No it's not. Anti-IDists are materialistic eliminative reductionists about design in certain parts of nature. They believe design is to be explained away by material processes.
I know exactly what I'm saying. The meaning escapes you. If you don't understand a word I use, look it up; that's what I do. Nobody has ever spoon-fed me this shit, and there's no way I'll do that for a know-it-all mocker like you. If you want to play hardball with me, you better put up or shut up.
Harold,
I concede nothing. I stand by both of my statements. That it can be enlightening to understand the motives and purposes of the proponents of a certain view does not preclude the fact that the rational force of their arguments stands or falls independently of those motives and purposes.
The epistemic warrant of scientific arguments and propositions is grounded in observation of nature. Their ultimate truth is not. Nor is it clear why one should not believe in the metaphysical actuality of a logically possible state of affairs which lacks epistemic warrant.
Posted by: Crandaddy | August 5, 2007 7:49 PM
Hi Crandaddy,
I happen to be a strong critic of the ID Movement. It is obvious that the likes of Dembski and Wells will do and say just about anything to promote their religious agenda.
I also happen to spend a lot of time at Telic Thoughts where the likes of MikeGene are promoting ID Science. MikeGene and I disagree strongly on politics but we are cooperating on the science. I have even outlined a scientific hypothesis that I consider to be consistent with Mike's front-loading hypothesis.
You are probably just another troll, but in case you aren't, check out my web site or, better yet, go to Telic Thoughts and learn something.
You wrote...
With all that we have learned in quantum mechanics it is almost laughable to call oneself a "materialist". There isn't any such thing as atomic matter. It is all one big wavefunction. The only argument left is whether or not there is only one wavefunction of multiple wavefunctions existing in multiple worlds (I personally think there is only one wavefunction).
What have you "put up"? What are you proposing?
I have presented a scientific, mechanistic model. It still has a long way to go to challenge the existing evolutionary model. But, there are several peer reviewed papers in support of it (Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR). All I generally hear from ID Movement leaders is a lot of hot air and mathematical equations that measure random hypotheses against each other in a bombastic fashion. Where is the SCIENCE? Once again, MikeGene and Telic Thoughts is an outstanding exception.
Of course you concede nothing since you haven't said anything of substance. You have nothing to concede.
What are your "propositions"? Anyone can ask questions or make fuzzy unsubstantial musings. Where is the mechanistic model that can be tested against scientific observations?
There goes your science credentials. Science has never been about the "ultimate truth". It has been about gaining knowledge, useful knowledge. A belief in something that happens to be true isn't knowledge. It isn't that useful either. The ultimate truth is the business of philosophers and religions. Both have their uses. For example, the first western philosopher, Socrates, taught us that no one knows the Truth. It's a good lesson to learn.
P.S. Mike Dunford accept my apologies (again) for having too much fun on your blog by feeding the probable troll.
Posted by: Thought Provoker (aka Quantum Quack) | August 5, 2007 9:59 PM
Thought Provoker (aka Quantum Quack) said (August 5, 2007 02:38 PM) --
No, I did not admit to lack of knowledge, and I don't care about the amount of lying under oath because it is not relevant to the points I am trying to make.
No, it is an appeal to what I think is a very good opinion.
If Judge Jones did not like Of Pandas and People, he could have asked the Dover school board to use some other anti-evolution book(s).
So you agree that ID now passes "inspection"? Also, there are several non-ID criticisms of evolution -- e.g., scientific (or pseudoscientific, to some) criticisms concerning co-evolution, the propagation of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction, and chromosome counts. I discuss these criticisms on my blog.
That would not be possible -- the decision is now unappealable.
IMO a lot of ID proponents would like to see that happen but they know that it is impossible.
He made a very bad decision -- for example, he virtually copied the opinion's entire ID-as-science section from the plaintiffs' opening post-trial brief while ignoring the defendants' opening post-trial brief and the plaintiffs' and defendants' answering post-trial briefs. Also, my comment was not off-topic; if ID is not creationism, then -- as Prof. Alschuler argues -- Judge Jones should not have ruled against the Dover defendants.
Thought Provoker (aka Quantum Quack) said (August 5, 2007 03:38 PM) --
Of course he shouldn't mind -- that's what comment sections are for.
I don't know where Judge Jones and others got this cockamamie idea that a judge has to rule on a question just because both sides ask him to do it. You can argue with me. Also, it is not necessary to disagree with the blogger in order to post comments, even when there is no one to argue with.
MPW said (August 5, 2007 07:18 PM) --
Judge Jones' opinions about religion were particularly bad -- he said that organized religions are not "true" religions. If Judge Jones thinks ID is just about religion, then it doesn't matter whether ID is about science or religion or both. If his opinions are sufficiently prejudicial and he feels that he cannot repress them when making a decision, then I would say yes.
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | August 5, 2007 10:42 PM
Thought Provoker (aka Quantum Quack) said (August 5, 2007 09:59 PM) --
Please stop apologizing so much -- you're going to make me sick. Mike should be grateful to you for posting comments here that are on-topic, serious, and reasonably polite.
The worst case of groveling by a commenter that I ever saw on the Internet was on Ed Brayton's Dispatches from the Culture Wars blog. Ed's pal "Dan" posted a good on-topic comment but invited Ed to delete it if it was not moving the thread in the direction that Ed wanted it to go.
Fatheaded Ed kicked me off his blog permanently because he disagreed with my literal interpretation of a federal court rule. I don't see why arbitrarily censoring bloggers are considered to have any credibility at all.
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | August 5, 2007 11:21 PM
Hi Larry,
You would have been better off not responding. As it is now, you have clearly demonstrated you don't know the first thing about jurisprudence. Judges are restricted to ruling on what they are asked to rule on. They are ethically prohibited from ordering a remedy that wasn't requested by one of the litigants. It takes a very activist Judge indeed to violate these rules. When the rare Judge does so, the Court of Appeals summarily, in the strongest possible language, vacates the ruling/order.
Posted by: Thought Provoker (aka Quantum Quack) | August 5, 2007 11:30 PM
The methods and language of ID seemed to based in Fred Hoyles Cosmic Ancestry, Hoyle was an self-declared atheist however ID proponents are religous. This appropriation does seem to have been voluntary; eg, Wickramasinghe appearing in the Dover trial IIRC.
http://telicthoughts.com/sir-fred-hoyle-and-the-origins-of-id/
Posted by: max_torq | August 6, 2007 12:44 AM
Thought Provoker driveled,
On the contrary, I know more about the law than most laypeople. I even filed two appeals in the US Supreme Court.
Sheeeesh -- we were talking about judges ruling on things that both sides asked them to rule on, not about judges ruling on things that neither side asked them to rule on. And judges can do the latter -- such rulings are called sua sponte rulings, from Latin roots meaning "self" and "spontaneous."
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | August 6, 2007 2:33 AM
Hi Larry,
LOL
Saying it in Latin changes nothing. Appeal Courts aren't supposed to retry cases "De Novo" either. Nice try though.
Posted by: Thought Provoker (aka Quantum Quack) | August 6, 2007 8:14 AM
Previously, Larry wrote (August 5, 2007 12:36 AM): "No one has paid more attention to Judge Jones and the Dover decision than I have."
We thought Larry was a big "Dover trail" buff, but...
A little later Larry writes (August 5, 2007 01:49 PM): "I said that I didn't know that the Dover defendants lied under oath about their religious motivations and that I don't care."
It was a pretty big thing and it was highly relevant to the case when it was determined that some of the key Dover board members (and associates) lied under oath and that they really wanted to push creationism/ID. But if you say didn't know that some board members and others lied (despite that evidence being included in the trial and spread across the blogosphere), well OK, I guess Larry lacked knowledge about that.
More recently:
Larry - August 5, 2007 10:42 PM: "No, I did not admit to lack of knowledge, and I don't care about the amount of lying under oath because it is not relevant to the points I am trying to make."
Hmm... OK, is this another case where we should ignore Larry's earlier statements? Or should be ignore his latest statement?
Along the same lines, Thought Provoker writes to Larry: "You would have been better off not responding."
Yep.
Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | August 6, 2007 10:22 AM
At the risk of troll-feeding, I went back to the Altschuler "articles" that, apparently, were the basis of whatever "point" the Rev. Dr. Larry is trying to make. The one true thing the Rev. Dr. Larry says is: "There is no constitutional separation of bad science and state."
Indeed, there is none. If the Dover school board wanted to mandate the teaching of phlogiston theory in chemistry classes, because they are ignorant, there would be no constitutional issue. If they wanted to mandate teaching a certain view of global warming because they were paid off by the carbon-fuel industry, there would be no constitutional issue.
Only when "bad science" gets taught specifically for religious reasons is there a constitutional issue. How do we determine that? Two ways, both amply demonstrated in Judge Jones's courtroom: examining the evidence concerning the motives of the Board and examining the scientific content -- or lack thereof -- of the "bad science" at issue. There was abundant evidence on motive, and neither the Rev. Dr. Larry or Prof. Altschuler (whose "article" was two short and superficial blog posts) suggests otherwise. There was also abundant evidence, which both the Rev. Dr. Larry and Prof. Altschuler ignore, that there is no actual, working "science" of intelligent design. There is no observable research program. There are no results. There aren't going to be, because it is obvious to any candid observer that ID is a philosophical or religious idea that, whatever its philosophical or religious validity, can fit nearly any imaginable state of affairs and is not subject to experiment, testing, or empirical research of any kind.
Anyone who has been around the block a time or two knows that "bad science" is almost always pushed for religious reasons. (Unlike, for example, bad history or bad social studies, often pushed for political or economic reasons and, as such, largely immune to constitutional challenge.) School boards are rarely paid off by special interests to slant science a particular way. When not concerned with real or imagined conflicts with their religious beliefs, most school board members know what they don't know and don't mandate bad science out of sincere ignorance. (Think of all the physics and chemistry that they never touch because nobody has told them about the inconsistencies between certain facts of physics and chemistry and their religious beliefs.) What we know as sentient adults was amply proved in Judge Jones's courtroom. Prof. Altschuler is off his game. The Rev. Dr. Larry was never on.
Posted by: