It seems that Joel Borofsky, Dembski's research assistant, is feeling a bit of heat over his comments about the Kansas science standards being "ID in disguise". He felt the need to post a long message at UD saying that he speaks only for himself and not for the ID movement. We knew that, of course, but I think he's missing the point: he essentially called the DI a bunch of liars. And now to cover that fact up, he's even misquoting himself. Here's his claim now:
I was voicing a personal opinion about what I wish would occur. As a layperson who is not involved in the movement, I do wish that ID would be taught in public schools as a scientific theory.
So now he's saying that he was only talking about how he hopes it turns out, not about the actual reality of the situation. Now let's compare that to what he actually said. The truth is that he went far beyond merely saying that he hopes it leads to ID. He said bluntly that it was designed specifically for that purpose, but that purpose was being hidden:
It (the Kansas science standards) really is ID in disguise. The entire purpose behind all of this is to shift it into schools...at least that is the hope/fear among some science teachers in the area. The problem is, if you are not going to be dogmatic in Darwinism that means you inevitably have to point out a fault or at least an alternative to Darwinism. So far, the only plausible theory is ID.If one is to challenge Darwin, then one must use ID. To challenge Darwin is to challenge natural selection/spontaneous first cause...which is what the Kansas board is attempting to do. When you do that, you have to invoke the idea of ID.
He is wrong to say that we, or at least I, jumped on this statement because we thought he spoke for the DI or other major ID advocates. I jumped on it because he is essentially calling them liars when they say that the standards have nothing to do with ID. For all practical purposes, he is saying that they are lying, that "the entire purpose" of those standards is to shift ID into schools, but that this purpose is "in disguise". That's fine wiith me - I think the same thing. Not only do I think they're lying, I've proven that they're lying, with their own words. It was just nice to see Borofsky confirm that he thinks so too.
Now, he's going to deny that this is what he meant, of course. But his words are clear and they aren't going to go away, even if he engages in the standard Dembskian behavior of post hoc editing or "disappearing" his comment. Welcome to the internet, young man. Careful what you say, the truth might just leak out, and once it's out there's no taking it back.
- Log in to post comments
"So far, the only plausible theory is ID"
He's got us there, although he gets two subtle details wrong:
1) Plausable. (A designer capable of creating the remarkably interconnected ecosystem of this planet from scratch, who can leave no evidence of their action? Yeah.)
2) Theory. (Predictions? Evidence? Anything?)
So let's say, "So far, the only implausable conjecture is ID."
My guess is that Dembski put a letter of reprimand into Joel's personnel file, and to atone for his error in speaking the truth, was instructed to write the "disclaimer. How inconvenient that his original words and intent are available!
Even "truthiness" won't get him out of this one.
So the research assistant of one of the two most prominent exponents of ID is a "layperson", is he? What does that say about ID's research programme?
Can we still say that he Gibsonned even if he wasn't drunk?
Oh golly, I wish I had read the part where Research Ass. Barofsky explained just what that theory said and what makes it plausible.
Well, I remember (as late as last weekend) when the ID crowd was crowing about a [a. position paper; b. memo; c. post] from a [a. publicity officer; b. public information director; c. influential person] which proved [a. group strategy; b. extreme contempt; c. disinformation campaign] to be used against ID forces in Kansas. Now that the shoe is on the other foot . . .
I guess people see what they want to see. Here are a few facts:
1) There was no letter of reprimand at all. I posted what I did to point out that it's quite pathetic to key in on what an insignificant person says, only so you can validate your "fears." That seems to be left out of most people quoting me for some reason.
2) It would be wise to see what I am a research assistant in. I do not help out with the DI nor am I in anyway involved with the DI. It would be wise to get one's facts straight before jumping to conclusions.
3) I was calling no one a liar. I had no idea what the DI stance on the issue was. I was stating my hopes. I think it is a little absurd to take a comment I made, one where not much thought or looking over was involved, and somehow apply this as a standard.
4) So what if I disagree with them on their approach? I know that being in the Darwinian camp thinking for yourselves or at least how to approach an issue might be a different idea, but generally when one is involved in education or learning, thinking for yourself is looked highly upon. Disagreements occur, especially over how to approach an issue. Again, this might be falling upon deaf ears and so I apologize if the concept of thinking outside of the box or original thought is foreign, dare I say offensive, to you, but that also played a role in what I was doing.
5) The above is just an opinion of some guy. That's all. I am not involved in the movement and therefore it is a lay man's opinion on the subject. You can try and squeeze what you want out of that, but when all is said and done you end up looking more like desperate children trying to prove there is a monster under the bed. As I stated in my post on UD, I am insignificant and the fact that after I stated this there would still be controversy over what I said just proves that you'd rather approach this ad hominem rather than laugh it off as some kid shooting off his mouth. Again, if ID is not credible, why the fuss?
6) The post of explanation, as I pointed out in my first point, was solely to show how low some of you will go in order to try and "prove" your point. It is sad.
I now leave you to butcher and misquote this comment.
For someone complaining about having his words distorted, you sure do a lot of distorting yourself, Joel.
I never said anything about any letter of reprimand. To whom are you responding, since it's clearly not me?
And I never said that you were in any way involved with the DI. So what facts do I not have straight?
It doesn't matter whether you intended to call anyone a liar or not. If your statement that the Kansas standards are "ID in disguise" and that the "entire purpose" of the standards is to shift ID into public schools is valid, then the DI, and those who wrote the standards, are lying - whether you want to accuse them of that or not. And the wording makes clear that your statement wasn't merely what you hoped would happen, but that you thought that they were designed intentionally to disguise that purpose. And the excuse that your statement wasn't thought out is rather silly. Are you going to only take responsibility for statements that you've thought out? Perhaps you should consider thinking through every statement before you make it. In any case, the point is that you are absolutely right - the standards were designed to disguise the goal of putting ID into science classrooms. We all knew that long before you offered your opinion. Indeed, I had already shown lots of evidence to support that charge.
Here's what I find really funny about this sarcastic "we disagree with each other unlike you dogmatic Darwinists" nonsense - ID advocates love to cite scientists disagreeing with one another. They do so all the time. So on the one hand, they say that those big bad evolutionary scientists are a monolithic horde that allows no disagreement from their positions; on the other hand, they continually point to areas of disagreement among scientists as proof that they don't know what the truth is. Seriously, you should pick one argument and stick to it because the contradiction makes you look pretty stupid.
Of course you're insignificant. No one ever suggested otherwise. But the statement you made was absolutely true. It was true before you said it. It's just a matter of some amusement that even ID advocates can admit that it's true despite the fact that the DI tries so hard to keep people mindlessly repeating their PR talking points. As for the ridiculous idea that ID must be credible because people spend time confronting it, you really should rethink that one. The "fuss" is over not wanting to see a highly dishonest PR campaign succeed over good, solid science.
Joel Borofsky-
When you wrote...
"The entire purpose behind all of this is to shift it into schools...at least that is the hope/fear among some science teachers in the area."
...you seemed to be expressing more than just your personal opinion.
In fact, you appeared to be conveying personal knowledge of the viewpoints of science teachers in Kansas. For you to now say that your post was "just the opinion of some guy" comes across as very disingenuous because you did not originally seem to be merely stating your opinion.
Your original claim was that "teachers in the area" saw the entire purpose of the Kansas Science Standards as a way of "shift[ing] it (ID) into the schools." You now claim that you were simply stating your hopes.
Well, either you weren't being honest then, or you aren't being honest now. This apparent discrepancy may be why so many people are giving you a hard time.
It is apparent Mr. Borofsky has never worked on a political campaign, or else he would know that Rule 1 is to never, ever contradict yourself. Rule 2 is to accuse anyone who says you did contradict yourself of something worse. Frankly I find his candor charming.
The fact is, he spoke truth about the Kansas science standards, and then tried to backtrack. No need to give him a hard time about that, just note the contrdiction and move on. He can thank God that he is not Mel Gibson and get on with his life.
Ed,
I do not know how to do the quotes, so I will merely go in order of what you said.
First, to the comment about "letter of reprimand," this was in response to a comment posted on this topic. I was merely clearing up that there was no letter at all and that Bill recognizes this as my own opinion.
Again, this all focuses upon one sentence that I said and takes the entire issue out of context (which is a good tactic). The problem is, if we place my comment back in context we soon realize that I had spent much time speaking about personal opinion and the opinions of others in the Kansas area. Thus, placing this back in context takes away the idea that I was somehow calling the DI "liars" or "proving" that we want ID in schools. Do I personally want ID in schools? Yes. Is the DI pushing for that? No. Do I think that the Kansas standard on science was ID in disguise? No, not in the sense that everyone is trying to make it out to be. My hope is that it would eventually allow ID to be taught and to me that is the logical conclusion if you are going to question Darwin (or anything that requires a naturalistic explanation of the universe). However, this is not the stance of the DI and is simply the stance of an undergrad. Once again, placed inside the context of what I said and instead of putting it in a vacuum we see this is the intent. I am not backtracking or covering up what I said; I am merely explaining the entire context of the issue rather than letting it be taken out of control.
You can find my sarcasm funny all you want but it still holds true. Though you may not be trying to do this, others have attempted to take what I said as some "infallible" proof that the DI is crumbling or that there is somehow a division within the ID movement. If you go to the links on my site, there is a blog pitting me against some of the more vocal proponents of ID in Kansas. To me, this is simply absurd. As for trying to say, "Stick to an argument," why? Both work when discussing the Darwinian view. We attack the method as being inconsistent, in that certain theories upon findings are so inconsistent when there should be a solid truth. At the same time, we ridicule Darwinists because they refuse to acknowledge that any intelligence could be involved in something. In other words we question why you are inconsistent in your findings on certain areas but at the same time so dogmatic in not allowing for any original thought outside of naturalistic bounds. If someone proposes that something might be designed then no matter what he has behind him, it is not science. Thus, criticizing both your disunity and unity is not a "double bind" argument; it is merely pointing out inconsistencies in two areas.
I did not make the argument that ID is credible because people argue against it; I made the argument that ID is given credibility at the point you attack someone who is insignificant for making a statement in order to "prove" your point. If ID is false then there should be no worry or reason to argue against what a research assistant has to say. It is using a machine gun to kill a fly...why use the overload unless you have something to fear?
Jeremy,
You actually quoted something in there that provides more context to what I was saying. I showed that it was the hope/fear of many teachers; this does not mean it is but merely what people were projecting it to be. It is still the opinion of some guy, but I was conveying first hand knowledge of what some science teachers think in Kansas. I worked in a public school and traveled Kansas quite a bit. The overall opinion was not in favor of the standards because they feared it would lead to ID, and they did not want to teach ID. Some, however, hoped it would lead to ID. This does not make something true though. Just because people hope for something does not mean it is inherent within the current mechanism upon which that hope is being placed.
In the end, though it was interesting to see how my comments were exploited, I think I'm done with the discussion. It has been interesting and does show me that I need to construct my sentences in a better fashion and watch what I say. I did not know the sharks were out in such force.
Joel-
Sorry, but you just can't get away with changing your words in that way. There's a big difference between "I hope this leads to the teaching of ID" and "this is nothing but ID in disguise, and you can't criticize evolution without teaching ID". The latter is what you said, quite clearly. And of course, you were right. As for the split in the ID movement, there is a split, between those who want to focus on this dishonest PR campaign to get it into schools by hook or by crook, and those who want to concentrate on developing the idea first. Paul Nelson and Bruce Gordon are on one side, the DI leadership is clearly on the other. Nelson has admitted this.
And by the way, no one attacked you. The attack was on the DI for their highly dishonest PR campaign to pretend that the new standards weren't designed to open the door to the teaching of ID. They played a slick little word game with that, saying that the standards didn't mandate the teaching of ID. But as I showed with their own words when they fought the same battle in Ohio, the "critical analysis" language is designed to allow ID to be taught. And that's the argument we've made all along, not that it mandates it but that it allows it and encourages it. You were smart enough to recognize that yourself; unfortunately, you don't seem smart enough to get yourself out of it without contradicting yourself. The bottom line is that you were right the first time, the standards are nothing more than an attempt to get ID into public schools. And yes, the DI is lying about it, as they have been for 4 years now.
For what it's worth, I am a Biology teacher in Kansas, so your original comment about "teachers in the area" applied to me and my colleagues.
Interestingly, your comment pretty much summed up the feelings of the science teachers I know here in Kansas. The standards really are "ID in disguise" in that they go as far as they can to advance the concept of Intelligent Design without overtly requiring the teaching of it. That is the apparent purpose of the standards, and it was nice (for a change) to see a supporter of ID who was willing to come right out and say it.
You're right, Joel. Just because people hope for something does not mean it is inherent within the current mechanism upon which that hope is being placed.
But what if some of those hopeful people are the ones who created the mechanism?
Some of those people were on the KSBE and on the minority of the writing committee that wrote the standards. This is well-confirmed by their public statements early in the game. Their hopes became a reality when the Board adopted the new standards that "neither mandate nor prohibit teaching about this scientific disagreement."