I've been documenting lately the many lies put out by Rev. Moon's Unification Church, and one of the reasons why I'm so fascinated by this is because the pattern is so similar to what we see from ID advocates - say one thing to the public, a different thing to the "initiated", and then when someone posts the contradictory statements, claim that they're just biased or part of some cabal out to destroy men of God. Now let me make a direct connection between the two.
One of the most prominent advocates of Intelligent Design Creationism is Jonathan Wells, author of Icons of Evolution. He has a PhD in molecular biology from Berkeley. Let me give you a textbook example of saying one thing to the public and another to one's fellow travelers. In the introduction to Icons of Evolution, Wells wrote:
During my years as a physical science undergraduate and biology graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley, I believed almost everything I read in my textbooks. I knew that the books contained a few misprints and minor factual errors, and I was skeptical of philosophical claims that went beyond the evidence, but I thought that most of what I was being taught was substantially true.
He claims this quite often, that he was an evolutionist all through grad school, but eventually he was convinced solely by the biological evidence that evolution was false. Now, what does he say to his fellow travelers? Quite the contrary:
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 reference to "Father" in this is to none other than our friend, Reverend Moon. Yes, Wells is a Moonie. And as far back as 1976, he tells his fellow Moonies, he had already dedicated his life to "destroying Darwinism" at Moon's urging. But he tells readers of his book that he was a Darwinist in the early 90s and accepted evolution as true. There's a word for this - lying. It is precisely the same behavior we're seeing from the Moonies today, telling the public that Moon's coronation ceremony in the Dirkson Senate office building was just a recognition of his work on behalf of peace, while simultaneously telling their followers that what it really means is that the US has recognized Moon's authority and submitted to him as king.
- Log in to post comments
And for a rather Dirk Gently style "interconnectedness of all things" moment, it was Jonathan Wells' debate with Stephen Palumbi at Harvard that got Richard Dawkins annoyed enough to pen a letter with Stephen Jay Gould that makes it clear that they won't debate creationists because it lends them the "respectability they crave". See Dawkins, R. "Unfinished Correspondence with a Darwinian Heavyweight", A Devil's Chaplain, p. 256 - 261.
I'm surprised that I haven't seen any of his fellow IDiots or creationists complaining because he's not a Southern Baptist who accepts Jesus Christ as his Personal Lord and Whatever.
I'm surprised that I haven't seen any of his fellow IDiots or creationists complaining because he's not a Southern Baptist who accepts Jesus Christ as his Personal Lord and Whatever.
I'm not surprised by that, I guess. On the one hand, they have a point when they say that Wells' religious beliefs don't have much to do with the veracity of his arguments. No claim contained in Icons of Evolution is either true or false because he is a follower of Moon, or even because he chooses to lie to cover up his motivations. But it should at least make one treat his claims skeptically and not accept what he says uncritically. He has already shown that he prefers to play fast and loose with the facts. If this was a court of law, we would say that his testimony has been impeached.
As far as his fellow IDers are concerned, I think that they are on a crusade and are not about to let a little thing like that stand in their way. One would think that at least in private, an honest and orthodox Christian like Paul Nelson probably despises the blasphemy of Moon. But he is useful to them because he is one of the very few genuine biologists in the ranks.
I applaud you on your deconstruction of Jonathan Wells' two paragraphs. Language is a weapon that can be used to "bamboozle" even the best of us for diplomas, Ph.Ds and other notable accomplishments do matter in an information driven society.
However, even so called idiots, meglomaniacs, and even those people that are convince they are either a ham sandwich or the center of infinity SHOULD be debated and politely discredited especially if said persons have a constituency as vast as Rev Moon's. To deny debate is dangerous, arrogant, and prevents correction and/or idea exchange. (What if Einstein didn't debate Warner Heisenberg because Albert felt "God did not play dice"?)
Also, the fact that DNA magically "self-assembled" on this planet into millions of lifeforms through a process of natural selection and evolution doesn't mean that the theory of evolution shouldn't be questioned, tested and debated. Science is not about fact. It is about preponderance of evidence. Evolution has the evidence so far but to call it "case closed" would deny further investigation, refinement and correction.
Side note: Is calling somebody a "Moonie" if they follow Rev. Moon an insult or do they used that term? If it is an insult, I suggest losing it so as to take any hint of bigotry out of the picture and elevate the discourse.
However, even so called idiots, meglomaniacs, and even those people that are convince they are either a ham sandwich or the center of infinity SHOULD be debated and politely discredited especially if said persons have a constituency as vast as Rev Moon's. To deny debate is dangerous, arrogant, and prevents correction and/or idea exchange. (What if Einstein didn't debate Warner Heisenberg because Albert felt "God did not play dice"?)
I'm honestly at a loss to understand why you bothered to address this to me, as I have never "denied debate" to anyone, least of all the ID advocates with whom I engage in debate regularly.
Also, the fact that DNA magically "self-assembled" on this planet into millions of lifeforms through a process of natural selection and evolution doesn't mean that the theory of evolution shouldn't be questioned, tested and debated. Science is not about fact. It is about preponderance of evidence. Evolution has the evidence so far but to call it "case closed" would deny further investigation, refinement and correction.
Again, I have never suggested otherwise.
Side note: Is calling somebody a "Moonie" if they follow Rev. Moon an insult or do they used that term? If it is an insult, I suggest losing it so as to take any hint of bigotry out of the picture and elevate the discourse.
I suspect they don't like to be called Moonies; I don't much care. The Moonies consider all criticism of Rev. Moon and his insane (a word I use quite intentionally) ideas to be bigotry, so I see little point in trying to convince them otherwise. Their kneejerk reaction of calling all criticism of Moon bigotry has nothing to do with actual bigotry, it is a psychological defense mechanism to insulate the belief system that they are tied to from any dispute. I do not write what I write to convince them of the absurdity of following this transparent con man; I write to convince others of the danger of that transparent con man.
I was primarily referring to the "IDiots" comments and the attribution to the late Richard Dawkins who was "...annoyed enough to pen a letter with Stephen Jay Gould that makes it clear that they won't debate creationists because it lends them the "respectability they crave". ..." In my opinion, Dawkins is wrong. Debate should always take place when large, misled, constituencies are at stake.
Ipso facto, Rev Moon is a convicted criminal. He believes long dead religious leaders talk to him. I think Rev Moon was recently "coronated" in the US Senate; (of all places), by a politician who receives campaign donations from some of his organizations and/or "front groups". The fact that a religious leader was coronated for some title or another in the US Senate is a despicable deed since we in this country celebrate that we are a republic and maintain a seperation between church and state. We don't coronate people here, especially religious leaders.
As for the my comment about bigotry... I am positive there are some reasonable people who follow Rev Moon as well as some that are not. Calling them "Moonies" rather than calling them by their official title is poor form and bad manners and will do little to "make friends and influence people.".
I was primarily referring to the "IDiots" comments and the attribution to the late Richard Dawkins who was "...annoyed enough to pen a letter with Stephen Jay Gould that makes it clear that they won't debate creationists because it lends them the "respectability they crave". ..." In my opinion, Dawkins is wrong. Debate should always take place when large, misled, constituencies are at stake.
Ah. The "IDiots" comment was not made by me, but by someone else leaving a comment. In general, I agree with you in that particular case. I do not think most ID advocates are idiots at all. Frank Beckwith, Paul Nelson, Bill Dembski - they are many things, but certainly not stupid. All bright and well educated men. There are creationists who deserve to be so labelled (Kent Hovind comes to mind), but they certainly don't.
As far as debating them goes, what Dawkins was referring to was direct, in person, public debates. He is obviously not opposed to engaging the arguments made by ID proponents, as he has done so frequently. On that one, I generally agree with him. The ID crowd gets enormous public relations mileage out of claiming that they appeared at a symposium with prominent scientists. At this point, I think their arguments should be engaged (and I often engage them on this page), but I don't think that my colleagues in this battle should continue to appear at symposia with ID advocates until they actually do something scientific - offer a model, do some research to confirm or disconfirm it, do something that suggests that ID is contributing something positive to science.
Ipso facto, Rev Moon is a convicted criminal. He believes long dead religious leaders talk to him. I think Rev Moon was recently "coronated" in the US Senate; (of all places), by a politician who receives campaign donations from some of his organizations and/or "front groups". The fact that a religious leader was coronated for some title or another in the US Senate is a despicable deed since we in this country celebrate that we are a republic and maintain a seperation between church and state. We don't coronate people here, especially religious leaders.
Yes, I've been reporting on this for the last couple of months. I have an entire archive of posts on the subject.