Telic Thoughts on Nelson, Crowther and Dishonesty

Krauze has a post up at Telic Thoughts that responds, at least in part, to my post accusing Rob Crowther of dishonesty in his post about Paul Nelson and Karen Armstrong's misquote of him. I didn't mince words. I accused Crowther of telling a baldfaced lie and I stand behind that accusation now. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Crowther's wording was intentionally (though not intelligently) designed to paint an inaccurate picture of the situation. Here's how it started. Crowther said this:

Today there is another urban myth building up a head of steam, and being helped along by Darwinists, about Discovery Fellow Paul Nelson. Gaurdian reporter Karen Armstrong reports: 'Great shakings and darkness are descending on Planet Earth,' says the ID philosopher Paul Nelson, 'but they will be overshadowed by even more amazing displays of God's power and light.' And yet this is pure rubbish because Nelson never said anything like this, and it turns out that Armstrong never even interviewed him. Nelson points this out in his letter to the Guardian demanding a correction. (Note to Paul: don't hold your breath)

But in fact, this myth is not only not being "helped along by Darwinists", it was caught, publicized and pointed out to Nelson by Nick Matzke at the Panda's Thumb. Our side has not only not helped it along, we were the ones trying to stop it and bashing Armstrong for it, before their side even knew about it. In other words, Crowther is lying, plain and simple. Krauze takes exception to that, claiming that Crowther may have been referring to Armstrong as the one "helping it along":

The "being helped along by Darwinists" part was picked up by critics, who indignately pointed out that, indeed, it was Matzke who had first brooken the story. With headlines like "Rob Crowther's Baldfaced Lie" and "There's gall, there's flaming dishonesty, and then there's the Discovery Institute", critics reminded everyone that they don't like being mealy-mouthed for too long. There were no possibility that Crowther might simply have "goofed up", or that by "Darwinists helping it along", he was talking about Karen Armstrong and those who uncritically spread her article. No, Crowther was a liar, and if he tells you that the sky is blue, then you better get outside and check it for yourself.

This was my first reply, in a comment at Telic Thoughts:

Sorry Krauze, I can't agree with you on this one. It is hardly reasonable to refer to Karen Armstrong as a "Darwinist". She has nothing at all to do with evolutionary biology, she is a religion scholar. She's written virtually nothing on the subject. It is absurd and dishonest to stick her into our side and pretend that we "Darwinists" are the ones responsible for the misquote, especially in light of the fact that it was our side that pointed it out and publicized it in the first place. Crowther was playing the game that PR flaks always play, and it is extremely dishonest. Paul Nelson's post on the subject was honest and accurate; Crowther's was quite the opposite.

I then posted a second comment as a follow up, on the subject of whether Armstrong was lying or just being sloppy:

As far as the question of whether Armstrong was lying, we can't really know at this point. It's possible that she received the quote from someone else, or read it somewhere else, and used it without verifying it. That would make her an incredibly sloppy scholar rather than a liar. Either way, it is incumbent upon her to retract the claim, explain how it happened, and apologize for it. And whether she turns out to be dishonest or sloppy, this will - and should - tarnish her reputation and influence how others view her. But that is equally true of Crowther. For that matter, it's equally true of Paul Nelson, who has his own serious problems with misrepresenting the views of others, as I demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt on my blog a few weeks ago. Still, that does not justify or excuse what Armstrong did in any way. The point is that people who engage in this sort of thing should be held accountable for it, regardless of whether they're on our side or the other side.

I have gone out of my way to correct misquotes from people on my own side of various conflicts, including this one. I pointed one out to Michael Shermer and prevented it from being repeated in his most recent book on the subject, a misquote of Phillip Johnson (Shermer wasn't lying about it, the same quote appears on hundreds of webpages and he just assumed it must be accurate as a result). But this quote from Nelson appears nowhere other than in Armstrong's article, so she clearly bears far more responsibility for either supporting it or retracting it and apologizing for it. At the same time, Crowther knew damn well that he was spinning the situation to make us "Darwinists" look like the bad guys in a situation where that was not justified. That is highly dishonest.

And in response to Mike Gene's statement that Matzke is the only one who saw fit to demand a correction, I can assure him that everyone at the Panda's Thumb agrees with him completely. He just happened to be the one who read the article, which the rest of us were not aware of until he brought it up. The point is that we "Darwinists" responded with integrity and helped to publicize it and even made Nelson aware of it. To then be accused of "helping it along" by Crowther is an outrage. Armstrong is not the only one who owes a retraction and an apology.

I then noticed that Mike Gene had posted a comment in the meantime, to which I replied. Mike Gene's comments will be in italics in the quote below:

Mike Gene wrote:

Is that the same Paul Nelson you and John Rennie were calling a liar a few months ago?

Indeed it is. And indeed he was outrageously dishonest in his representation of Keith Miller's position. I think I proved that beyond all reasonable doubt. But that doesn't mean that everything he writes is going to be dishonest. Indeed, that was the first time I had ever seen Nelson display behavior like that and I was taken very much by surprise. But the fact is that his post on this subject was entirely honest, while Crowther's was highly dishonest. There is no contradiction between accusing Paul of lying in one situation (and supporting the charge with his own words, I might add) and then noting in another situation that his response was honest.

Tell us Ed, is there a reason why you have refused to call Karen Armstrong a liar? Tell us Ed, did Karen Armstrong lie?

As I explained in the comment I left above, before I saw this one, it is possible that she was being sloppy rather than dishonest if she got the quote from someone else and repeated it without verifying it. That would still make her look very bad - as it should - but would not be lying. I don't know which is the case at this point and neither do you. She owes us all an explanation and documentation so we can distinguish between the two. If she got the quote from someone else, then she needs to tell us who gave it to her and document where it came from. If in fact she just made it up out of thin air, then not only is she lying, she frankly should be removed from her position at Harvard for it. Yes, I take it that seriously. Inventing quotes from a fellow scholar is serious enough to warrant firing someone, even someone of her stature.

For those who didn't see the series of posts on Paul Nelson's blatant and absurd misrepresentation (i.e. lie) of Keith Miller's position, see these posts in chronological order: First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth. Mike Gene then responded with this comment:

Sounds good. But we're left with a glaring fact.

You've publicly accused Nelson of telling lies.

You've publicly accused Crowther of telling lies.

You refuse to accuse Armstrong of telling lies.

But there are more glaring facts that justify this one, which Mike is ignoring. I supported my accusation against Nelson, and Mike has not offered a single argument to the contrary. I supported my accusation against Crowther, and again, Mike has not offered a single argument to the contrary. And I explained why we I have not yet accused Armstrong of lying in this situation - because there is at least a minimally plausible explanation that would lead one to conclude sloppiness rather than dishonesty. And again, Mike has not offered a single argument against that position. He just keeps pointing out that I've treated the situations differently without bothering to engage the perfectly logical reasons that distinguish them at this point.

I just don't know whether she deliberately did it or not. It is possible that she had some reason to believe, perhaps based on information from another source, that Nelson said those words. But I also know this - the burden is on Armstrong and Armstrong alone to clear it up. If she got this from some other source, then she needs to document it so that we can then rightfully accuse that other source of dishonesty (someone, obviously, chose to lie about it at some point). And if she can't do that, then we can only presume that she made it up deliberately, at which point I think she should be fired. She's a prominent scholar and a big name in academia, but inventing quotes from fellow scholars is unacceptable, period, no excuses.

If she was merely being sloppy in accepting a quote from another source without verifying it, that will tarnish her reputation but it's forgivable. I've done the same thing myself and been embarrassed by it. I suspect most others have as well. The key is in how you handle the situation afterwards. When it is documented that you passed on a false quote from someone without knowing it was false, an honest person retracts it and apologizes and tries to make sure it never happens again. That's how I've handled it in the past. So far, Armstrong hasn't said a word about this that I am aware of and that doesn't help her case any. So far, Crowther hasn't said a word about it either, but anyone who expects a retraction and an apology is probably kidding themselves. Nelson, meanwhile, made up a lot of absurd excuses and tried to get out of his misrepresentation of Miller, which only made him look far worse.

But the active controversy at this point is Armstrong's misquote of Nelson, and there are really only two ways this can go now. Either she got it from some other source and passed it on without verifying it, in which case she needs to document where it came from, retract the quote and issue a public apology to Nelson; or she made it up herself, in which case Harvard should begin an investigation for academic misconduct and fire her for it. And the longer she puts off the first option, the more likely the second one looks.

Update: Sal Cordova jumped into the conversation with this irritating and lame comment:

Frankly Ed and Nick, though I'm very glad you're visiting TelicThoughts, what's all the fuss about? I got the impression you all think ID's days are numbered anyway.

Why worry about defending your reputation before the TTers and their readers who are part of a dying cause? I guess Mike, Krauze, Joy, Guts and others here are special to you, then. Thus, I can understand you wanting to reassure them that you're impartial and have no double standard whatsoever.

I couldn't possibly care any less whether you or any other ID advocate thinks I have a double standard; I care about the truth. And when false accusations are made against me, I have this tendency to refute them with the truth. Krauze is a relatively reasonable person with whom I've had cordial exchanges in the past, so he might actually be persuaded by rational argument. You, on the other hand, I wouldn't waste my time trying to persuade of anything, particularly if it happens to be true. But the truth should be spoken regardless of who is objective enough to accept it.

Is it not reasonable to suppose that Crowther may have been thinking of the Darwinists running the UK Guardian as well the Darwinist subscribership who swallow Guardian reporting hook line and sinker, and follow the Guradian's view of things?

I'm mean, the UK Guardian has a reputation of applealing to readers with "leftist or liberal politics rooted in the 1960s, working in the public sector, regularly eating lentils and muesli, living in north London wearing sandals and believing in alternative medicine and natural medicine " (wikipedia stereotype).

No, this is not a reasonable supposition for several reasons. First, because the casual equation of evolution with leftist or liberal politics is shallow thinking at best. Second, because the Guardian isn't responsible for the content of Armstrong's writing. Even if Armstrong told a complete lie - and it's entirely possible that she did; in fact, I'm rather leaning in that direction - the Guardian would have no way of knowing that and thus could not reasonably be accused of "helping the myth along". If Crowther is using the term "Darwinists" that broadly and absurdly, he's an even bigger joke than I thought and dishonesty may well be the least of his problems.

In any case I think you're over reacting, grasping to find reasons to vilify the Discovery Institute as ID's numbered days count down to the end. The way you're acting, I would have thought you guys actually lost Dover, Ohio, and Kansas.

This is pure idiocy. This whole "if we aren't such a threat to you why do you respond to us" argument is complete and utter nonsense, the sort of rhetoric engaged in by juveniles and morons. The fact is that Crowther was engaged in plain old fashioned deceit, trying to make his enemies look bad in a situation where his enemies had done everything right and went above and beyond the call of honor to set the record straight about their enemies. To accuse us of a double standard in this situation is a textbook example of ignoring the log in your own eye to point out the speck in someone else's. It's a Biblical metaphor, you might wanna look it up.