Mark Hoofnagle has a PhD in physiology from the University of Virginia and is currently a 3rd year medical student. His interest in denialism concerns the use of denialist tactics to confuse public understanding of scientific knowledge.
It's softer than the outright denial of evolution that was assumed when he raised his hand at the debate, and certainly doesn't sound like young-earth creationism. It seems to be intelligent design creationism without explicitly mentioning intelligent design - although some keywords are present. He, of course, uses many of the classic denialist arguments.
For instance:
We have a classic divide-and-conquer tactic of asserting that because there is some dispute over different evolutionary theories, there is room for doubt. I consider this a goal-post moving argument - you can't believe in any science until there is absolutely no conflict within a scientific field.
If belief in evolution means simply assenting to microevolution, small changes over time within a species, I am happy to say, as I have in the past, that I believe it to be true. If, on the other hand, it means assenting to an exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world that holds no place for a guiding intelligence, then I reject it.There is no one single theory of evolution, as proponents of punctuated equilibrium and classical Darwinism continue to feud today. Many questions raised by evolutionary theory -- like whether man has a unique place in the world or is merely the chance product of random mutations -- go beyond empirical science and are better addressed in the realm of philosophy or theology.
Denial of macroevolution:
Ultimately, on the question of the origins of the universe, I am happy to let the facts speak for themselves. There are aspects of evolutionary biology that reveal a great deal about the nature of the world, like the small changes that take place within a species.
Evolution means we're dirty apes:
The unique and special place of each and every person in creation is a fundamental truth that must be safeguarded. I am wary of any theory that seeks to undermine man's essential dignity and unique and intended place in the cosmos.
And finally, an atheist materialistic conspiracy theory (mixed with impossible-to-prove assertions):
While no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the nature of man's origins, we can say with conviction that we know with certainty at least part of the outcome. Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.
Blogs 4Brownback (my new favorite blog) is already declaring victory! You see, everything is a victory for a crank.
Comments
So, is Blogs4Brownback a satire site? I really hope so, but it's not quite as obvious as jonswift.blogspot.com
Posted by: factician | May 31, 2007 1:45 PM
I suspect it is. Their recent insanity about NASA is just too silly. They talk about ether, screw up basic newtonian concepts, and suggest orbiting the earth would require faster-than-light speed.
Posted by: MarkH | May 31, 2007 1:53 PM
That is funny! Stupid, but funny.
Posted by: J-Dog | May 31, 2007 2:18 PM
Despite the application of enough political spin to make a Dervish envious, the good news is that Brownback, and Huckabee before him, feel the need to spin it. It is especially heartening that, this long after the debate, Brownback was still feeing enough heat to backtrack in the New York Times.
I think that probably shows that creationism is a laughingstock among big Republican money-givers and that the Righteous Right is perceived by professional politicians to have less of a grip on the party than it once had.
Posted by: John Pieret | May 31, 2007 5:14 PM
You know, when I read this earlier today, I wondered if it would make it on here. I almost disrupted my entire lab with my guffaws. Just goes to show that politicians need not have functional logic centres...
Posted by: AdamG | June 1, 2007 2:59 AM
Pssh, whatever. You Hoofnagles are just Baraminology deniers.
Posted by: Dustin | June 1, 2007 3:42 AM
Nah, it's not goalpost moving, it's impossible expectations - the goalposts aren't being moved, they're just put on the Moon in the first place.
And the last Brownback quote reads like something out of AiG...
- JS
Posted by: JS | June 1, 2007 6:50 AM
Way to correct me on my own terminology JS. You're right of course.
Posted by: MarkH | June 1, 2007 11:32 AM
I noticed this:
He points out a false dichotomy. Fine. But later:
He hasn't dispelled the false dichotomy at all, he has merely moved the line of demarcation. Accepting macroevolution would be giving in to materialism, etc. Apparently his God is not powerful enough to work through means of macroevolution.
Posted by: Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD | June 1, 2007 11:35 AM
1) The age of the universe
2) The age of the Earth and life on Earth
3) Common descent of all known life on Earth
4) including common descent between humans and apes
On the question of common descent, is he happy to let the facts speak for themselves?
Posted by: Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD | June 1, 2007 11:39 AM
Posted by: Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD | June 1, 2007 11:41 AM
Posted by: Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD | June 1, 2007 11:46 AM
As has been pointed out somewhere else recently, "What Sam Brownback thinks about evolution" is right up there with "What Paris Hilton thinks about partial differential equations." Brownback is an attorney and career politician, not a scientist or a biologist. Thus he speaks as a layman when speaking on evolution. But his religious background adds some insight: His religious beliefs have evolved (heh heh) from Methodist to evangelical to the Opus Dei flavor of Catholicism. Anybody know if Opus Dei is opposed to Pope John Paul's nominal acceptance of evolution?
Posted by: PaulBurnett![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 1, 2007 1:47 PM
I visited the Blogs 4Brownback site, and am really confused. I'm worried that it has been written in all seriousness, even though they get just about everything WRONG...
It is bewildering to witness such endless stupidity.
Posted by: Manboy | June 1, 2007 1:57 PM
Posted by: Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD | June 1, 2007 2:26 PM
Don't you know? All them dumb animals are more or less alike, just puppets to be ground beneath man's heel as we exploit them as God commanded us to.
Or, perhaps Brownback was thinking of the Mottled Boringsnake of central Australia, a creature with a unique form of mimicry. Its appearance is designed to give the distinct impression in the viewer that "meh, I've seen that kind of snake before", as his mind wanders to other topics, such as lunch.
Then BAM! The boringsnake eats its prey whole.
Really a fascinating case.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 1, 2007 5:06 PM
Really a fascinating case.
Is it related to the dropbear?
Posted by: Graculus | June 3, 2007 11:23 AM
Not unless she's in the running for American Idol.
Posted by: MarkH | June 3, 2007 11:29 AM