Dispatches from the Creation Wars

As I've been fond of pointing out elsewhere, the next wave in strategy still isn't dropping the design argument. The concession this time is just to make it implicit rather than explicit. Like Dover showed when the people on the ground couldn't be smart enough to not talk about Jesus dying on a cross, I also doubt creationists will keep coy about it. But if you look at the DI's "Explore Evolution" they already have a section up that tips their hat on their strategy. They have in one section an exercize where students build - or create or design if you will - their own mock lung. Then in the very next section they attempt to cast doubt on the evolution of the avian lung. The wink is so hard someone bruised an eyebrow. We can all be thankful creationists are so hamfisted about things.

Posted by: Jason S. | December 22, 2008 10:06 AM

I think BaldApe is correct. Keep in mind that to be successful, the IDiots need at least a minimal winning coalition. That MWC doesn't have to be an actual majority of the population, as in elections like school board elections turnout is usually quite low. But you still have to hold it together to be successful. And I suspect there's a much smaller proportion of "sophisticated IDiots" in that coalition than there are "naive creationists" (sophisticate and naive referring to their political adeptness on this issue). That creates a fundamental problem for the sophisticated IDiots, which is a real blessing for the rest of us.

Posted by: James Hanley | December 22, 2008 11:26 AM

The truly dangerous thing would be if an organization split from the Creationist/ID camp and, while taking the heat, did try to propose things from a "purely" scientific/secularist position. I mean really most of what they are trying to do at this point is to simply get their foot in the door before wedging it open or, in their fondest dreams, yanking scientific evolution out and replacing it with supernatural creationism. If an organization were smart enough to drop all of the ties to creationist movements, evangelicals, etc., and simply propose their arguments as a secular scientific group, they would be far more dangerous. They still wouldn't have any science, research, or evidence to back their position, but the odds of them being shot down like Dover would be greatly reduced.

Posted by: dogmeatib | December 22, 2008 11:55 AM

BaldApe,

My idea here is only half formed, more of a hypothetical situation.

For such an organization to work, they would basically have to fund themselves, a single wealthy entity or small group willing to distance themselves from their normal funding mechanisms. A lot of their methodology would be similar to the existing status quo, IE., they would still quote mine, misrepresent, etc., but they would likely argue the same "weaknesses of" or "flaws in" talking points, they would simply avoid those who keep blowing the whistle on them, namely their religious supporters who are too honest/ignorant/enthusiastic to keep their mouths shut.

I'm just thinking that it would be a lot more difficult to argue against a movement that didn't constantly stick its religious foot in its "scientific" mouth. I mean our current opponent has a rather easily traceable development:

creationists --> creation "science" --> ID --> current variations

Their own supporters are generally creationists who are brought on board for support but are as ignorant of the talking points and legal issues as they are of evolution.

Ultimately I think an organization that had no ties to the religious supporters that, thankfully, muck things up for the post ID movement could create a much more difficult opponent. It's easy to blast the majority of these efforts out of the water in the courtroom because they are so obviously religious, they're trying to lose their religious tail, how difficult would it be if they actually were able to do so?

Posted by: dogmeatib | December 22, 2008 12:48 PM

What dogmeatib is contemplating wouldn't be that big of a deal, I don't think. Losing the religious angle, we can talk about ID all we want in science class. The problem for the IDiots is that, when we do this, the designer gets put on the table toward being disproven. Since we cannot disprove the existence of the designer if all we have to work with are weak handwaving arguments that something has the appearance of design, parsimony spanks the designer in the ass, we throw out the whole premise, and move back into testable propositions. The entire discussion takes about a minute.

Posted by: Josh | December 22, 2008 1:21 PM

Any group that uses the religious antievolution ensemble of arguments as its "science" is going to be hosed in court, whether or not they try a "clean room" approach to things. Teaching falsehoods has no secular purpose, and the arguments themselves testify as to the intent to propagate a narrow religious viewpoint.

Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry | December 22, 2008 3:26 PM

My above post was inadvertently placed in this thread rather than the intended blog post thread (Agreeing with Kuznicki on Gays and the Bible). Carry on. . .

Posted by: Michael Heath | December 22, 2008 4:10 PM

Hopefully they don't actually pull it off, I have to be honest I have a hard time seeing them actually come up with a format that comes even close to being mistaken for scientific.

If the science is good why would the motivations matter?

So, what if it is a religious follower that first finds evidence of synthetic biology or genetic engineering in pre-history. It could happen. The universe is a big place.

Columbus was looking for a route to India. That doesn't make America a second rate destination.

Knock down any and all arguments that don't pass muster. That is your scientific duty. But please don't discourage people from trying to come up with new ideas.

Posted by: Johnrap | December 22, 2008 6:26 PM

No one here has ever suggested that people stop trying to come up with new ideas.

Right. If ID had any basis in reality at all, then dogmeatib's idea would simply be another avenue of legitimate research. But ID is so vacuous, that the only reason anybody takes it seriously is that they want it to be true so they can believe in their sky fairy.

ID supporters can object all they like that the proposition that life had to be designed is not inherently supernatural, but the only people who take it seriously take it as a version of goddidit.

Posted by: BaldApe | December 22, 2008 9:29 PM

Johnrap,

Note carefully what I said, I didn't present the idea that such a branch of the ID movement would research actual science, I said that they would package, key term there, package, their ideas in a manner that made it look scientific. This is precisely what they've been doing for years now. What has been disrupting their efforts is that they have been unable to lose the 500 lb gorilla that is their religious core.

IF they did manage to come up with a testable, repeatable scientific model, that would be completely different. But they haven't even tried to do so let alone actually produce one.

My hypothetical scenario is one where a branch of ID basically cuts all ties with their religious supporters and attempts to present similar (not the same) arguments as a secular movement. This would likely be more difficult to deal with because what has made them so unsuccessful thus far has been the rather transparent ties to religious/creationist movements and many of their supporters making gaffs that show the world their true motivations. A "secular ID" movement would be potentially more difficult to respond to because the debate would be couched in scientific terms that most laymen, including judges, don't understand muddying the waters.

I'm not proposing a new idea, simply that ID supporters get better at it and cover their tracks better.

Posted by: dogmeatib | December 23, 2008 11:30 AM

If they lose the religion, they'll lose any desire to push such a blatantl fraudulent case.

I know that demo, I mean if they manage to lose the trappings/ties to religion. We've already seen that they are willing to lie, misrepresent, etc., so I don't mean actually "lose" the religion, just do a better job of distancing themselves.

Posted by: dogmeatib | December 23, 2008 3:41 PM