Dispatches from the Creation Wars

Elsberry on “Galvanizing Christians”

Wes Elsberry has a great response up to a statement made by William Dembski the day of the Dover ruling. Dembski said:

“This galvanizes the Christian community,” said William Dembski, a leading proponent of the theory and a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle think tank that promotes intelligent design research. “People I’m talking to say we’re going to be raising a whole lot more funds now.”

Wes gives a compelling response from a more genuinely Christian point of view:

Well, I do think that the Christian community should be galvanized, but certainly in a way different from what Dembski thinks. Judge Jones’ decision clearly lays out how both the specific actions of the Dover school district and the general tactics of “intelligent design” advocates have been based upon deception, subterfuge, and lies. We as Christians should reject utterly the sort of lies, mendacity, and innuendo that not just characterize antievolution, but comprise it. It is a blot upon the reputation of the body of Christ, an erroneous and injurious digression from the serious business of making our lives an example to the world…

In the second instance, Christians should be repulsed by the notion that we are simply seen as a complicit source of ready cash, ready to be squeezed by sensational broadsides into giving money to people whose aim is to spread misinformation. In these times, there are so many worthy causes to be supported that it should be inconceivable that one would instead send even a dime to folks whose only product is misinformation, and whose claims to be doing Christian work is an offense.

There’s more to his post, so go read it in full.

Comments

  1. #1 Matthew
    December 23, 2005

    So I’m guessing they will use these new funds to finance science research, correct?

  2. #2 Dave S.
    December 23, 2005

    Yeah, I wasn’t aware that it was really just the lack of funds holding them back.

  3. #3 ZacharySmith
    December 23, 2005

    Hey Dembski –

    If ID is “all about the science”, why is this ruling of such urgent concern to CHRISTIANS?

    I mean, if this ruling is bad for science education, can’t Muslims, Jews, Wiccans, Agnostics and Atheists be concerned also?

  4. #4 Wesley R. Elsberry
    December 23, 2005

    It didn’t take long for some of the innuendo to be aimed my way.

    As for comparing me to Prof. Mirecki, I’ll note that my brother died a little over nine years ago, murdered on a lonely rural road. I have a certain … distaste … for those who encourage violence, even by implication. Or is that, too, evidence that my motivations are suspect?

  5. #5 Ed Brayton
    December 23, 2005

    I’m a bit disappointed in that post from Krauze, with whom I’ve had friendly exchanges in the past (and who, I know, reads this blog regularly). He seems to imply that because you’ve written that pointing out lies is good strategy for our side, you can’t be sincere about opposing such lies. But there are two problems with that implication. First, an argument can be both true and strategically useful. And second, he doesn’t even attempt to make a case that you are wrong in pointing to those lies. Certainly in regard to the actions of some prominent ID advocates (Mr. Dembski, call your office), establishing their duplicity is trivially easy. And in regard to the Dover school board, establishing that they lied is even easier. The judge was absolutely right to point to the duplicity of both the local school board members and the Discovery Institute. I’ve documented the strategy-driven deceits of the DI for two years on this blog and have yet to hear any coherent defense of the actions I’ve criticized. At any rate, if he’s going to argue that your objection to dishonesty is stated for ulterior motives, he at least needs to establish that your criticisms are unjustified. And in this case, they clearly are not.

  6. #6 Ed Darrell
    December 28, 2005

    Weirdest thing. Regarding Wes’s and Ed Brayton’s comments above — I’ve been dabbling in that thread over there. Mike Gene made a reference to an earlier post of mine on that blog dealing with ACT scores. Now, it was a post made very early in the morning, but the post of mine she refers to appears now in a thread that I don’t think I put it in, and it’s got a phrase in it that I don’t think I wrote.

    Well, long way of saying, Wes, you don’t need to post there. Your original note was clear and to the point. I regret the loss of your brother, and I hope the Mirecki thing blows over quickly so it need not remind you of it.