This keeps getting funnier. In this comment on his own blog, he says the following about the Wedge Document:
Cody, you are quoting from various parts of the "wedge document" and so forth. These are documents that we, including DI, do not necessarily agree with. Meaning, we have seen certain errors with intelligent design in the past and with promoting it and have worked to change those errors so we can stay honest. Honesty, something evolutionists have none of.
How do you top that punchline? While claiming that "evolutionists" have no honesty, he says with a straight face that the DI doesn't necessarily agree with the Wedge Document. Except that the Wedge Document was written by the DI. They don't necessarily agree with their own mission statements and stated goals? And we're the dishonest ones? Folks, you can't even begin to parody this - the reality is funnier than anything I could invent.
As for the claim that they've changed the way they promote ID so they can "stay honest", is there anyone with an IQ in double digits who would fall for that line? He seriously expects someone to believe that all that religious stuff they were saying before, they didn't really mean it. And the fact that the old position was damaging to them in court and the new position, conveniently, is not is purely coincidental. No, no, this was all an honest mistake.
In 1998, you see, they thought that their goal was to replace materialistic naturalism with a theistic science more consonant with Christian beliefs. Back then they were just sure that they were trying to "affirm the reality of God". In fact, they publicly referred to themselves as "theistic realists", in opposition to "methodological naturalists." But now they no longer think that this is their goal. All that talk of a theistic revolution, renewing America's Christian culture and reaffirming its Christian roots, that was an error. They didn't really mean it.
Oh, one more problem with this claim: the DI has actually reaffirmed the statements in the Wedge Document. In a response on their webpage to criticism of the Wedge Document, the DI says:
"In what follows we cite and discuss the document's major points and offending passages, none of which support the claims that our opponents have made about us, and all of which we continue to affirm."
Included in the passages they discuss are the ones we are using for evidence that the DI is now covering up the fact that they are a conservative Christian thinktank for PR purposes. All of this reminds me of Steve Reuland's brilliant list of paraphrases of ID positions in No Free Hunch, the first of which is:
"ID is whatever we say it is, and we don't agree."
Update: Wow, this guy is entering the rarified territory of DaveScot - he's actually deleting his own comments now. He deleted the comment that said that the DI didn't necessarily support their own published statements; apparently, Chen doesn't support his own published statements either, so this one will disappear down the memory hole. Except that it's already been quoted in other comments and here. Bloody hilarious. Talk about ducking right into the punch. Trevor Berbick would be in awe of this performance.
- Log in to post comments
I don't understand the dissembling I see in a lot of Christianists. If what you honestly believe is that naturalism is bad and that we can find signs of intelligent design, then just come on out and say so. If you believe the Constitution should be overthrown for a Bible-based system of laws, then come on out and say so. If your positions are unpopular, then so be it, but the constant lying, misrepresentation, and disingenuous deceipt are disgusting. It's like they're ashamed of their ideas and beliefs. Just be honest, for Christ's sake (and I mean that literally).
This guy is some piece of work. Check out his piece entitled Wayne Stayskal on Evolution and Intelligent Design.
Emphasis added.
But dammit, stop saying that ID is a form of creationism!
Aww Dave, just because the world's first ID textbook (so-called by the DI itself) used the very same definition for ID that it previously used for "creation" doesn't mean that they're the same thing. Just because A = B and C = B doesn't mean that A = C. I mean, I'm sure there's some alternate universe where that might be the case.
Anyone else notice that he's deleting his own comments now?
I see that Coby. Certainly in keeping with his policy of "honesty", isn't it?
Ed -
For an even more hilarious read from the legal standpoint, and I do mean hilarious, check out his analysis of the Kitzmiller trial, Kitzmiller v. Dover: The Truth Behind the Politics. Too bad the plaintiffs failed his "spot test" (see page 11 as I'm laughing too hard to type out what this is), lest they may have had a case. I mean seriously, I can't do it justice as there's just one howler after another. And it goes on for 51 pages (including references and a mini-bio).
Sorry Cody...got the 'd' flipped around in your name. Danmed dyslexia! :)
I agree with you, Jeff Hebert, that the right-wing fundamentalist Christians are fooling no one with their constant white lies. This is especially apparent when it comes to science, where the creationists try to hide their true aims (i.e. a complete dependence on literalist interpretations of Genesis) with "science-y" jargon and big words that are semantically dubious or null. It's all just a matter of the fundies attempting to come off as informed and educated--and failing miserably.