Paul Nelson responds to Amanda Marcotte, who mentioned that the poor quality of his debate explains why Nelson thinks ID should not be taught in schools.
Amanda, Sahotra and I spent three hours talking at an Austin bar the night before the debate. I reiterated to him what I've said for years: I'm not interested in getting ID into the public schools. He allowed as much in his spoken remarks (which should be available soon as streaming video from the UPA), but still stood up a straw-man ID bad guy. What's funny is Sahotra and I have been debating/discussing design since we met in 1985, and in that whole time I've consistently told him that it doesn't much matter to me if design is taught in public schools. We push that issue out of the way and move on to empirical and philosophical particulars.
Hmmm. Let's take a look at the Wedge document, shall we?
Phase I of the wedge was supposed to be about research, writing, and publication. They were supposed to have a group of scientists doing pioneering work to "crack the materialist edifice". This hasn't worked out so well—nobody is actually doing any ID science—but let's be charitable and assume that Nelson thinks his lecturing and debating and philosophizing is part of this phase.
What about Phase II? That's titled "Publicity & Opinion-making", and includes in its activities teacher training, as well as putting together apologetics seminars (revealing in its title, eh?) and television programs. Maybe Nelson isn't thinking about getting this stuff in public schools, but his fellow travelers are—it's in the plan. The DI must think they're in Phase II, since they're also publishing Teacher's Guides for high school and undergraduate instructors. That awful textbook, "Of Pandas and People", is intended for high schools and is clearly an ID-friendly book, even if it is nominally disavowed by the DI.
Phase III is "Cultural Confrontation and Renewal". The DI plans to "pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula". That's blatant, I think. Since several prominent members (Behe and Minnich, for instance) of the DI provided legal assistance in response to the recent resistance in Dover, at least some part of the DI is ready to push ID into the schools.
Maybe Nelson doesn't himself want ID taught in the public schools right now. But it is disingenuous to pretend that that isn't the goal of the movement he is fronting.
I'd add that since he is completely lacking in "empirical" particulars, and his philosophy is painfully shallow and goofy, it's awfully hard to figure out what exactly he is trying to accomplish. We'll have to be forgiven if we speculate on the basis of the actions his backers are carrying out in the absence of plausible statements about their goals…it sure looks to me like they're trying to peddle pseudoscience to the gullible, with Nelson's assistance.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
This hasn't worked out so wellnobody is actually doing any ID sciencebut let's be charitable and assume that Nelson thinks his lecturing and debating and philosophizing is part of this phase.
Has Nelson's "forthcoming" monograph "On Common Descent" been published yet? That might count.
Isn't Intelligent Design dead, yet? It seems like it has been flopping around on the ground, like a dying fish, forever.
Do we have Nelson on record as to whether or not he believes that "teaching the controversy" is appropriate? That's the usual tactic to try to force ID, which has no positive evidence, into the schools, to re-baptize it as a legitimate position from which to criticize evolution.
He should be pressed on this matter. If he'll disavow the "teach the controversy" nonsense, then I'd grant that he's the first IDist that I've know about whose words are contrary to the normal ID desire to destroy good science education to make room for stupidity. If, like other DI minions, he favors "teach the controversy", there is precious little difference between that and teaching the vacuous concept of ID. I'll even grant that there is a small difference. Certainly there's not enough difference to void the charge that those pushing "teach the controversy" are effectively in favor of dumbing down science to make room for ID.
No one should ever let a DI fellow off with statements like this one: "it doesn't much matter to me if design is taught in public schools," (note the "much" while you're at it). They don't do science, they don't do research, they learn to be quite good at misdirection and relabeling their pseudoscience in order to avoid telling the truth and the whole of the truth. Nelson is going to have to deny that he wants the DI's BS "criticisms of evolution" taught in schools if I am even going to entertain the idea that he does not have plans for idiocy in mind for hapless students.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
Do these people want anything other than to screw up science education? I'm having the hardest time seeing the "facilitators" motivation in this. Is it just cash? Is there some mental problem I just can't see?
I can imagine that the prime movers, the money-people, are in favor of a general, across-the-board "dumbing down" of our country, because it makes us easier to control, we get paid less, and miss more insane corporate looting. But what about guys like this Nelson character? What's he get out of "debating" a non-science, non-theory for 21 years? Its almost incomprehensible to me that anyone could care that much to something, especially something which has a basic argument of shrugging your shoulders and saying "I don't care what the facts are, this is what I believe".
Also, by "disingenuous", you mean lying, right?
Nelson says he isn't pushing to get ID taught in schools. Does he specifically disavow the teach the controversy language? I'm not interested in any disavowal that is based on judicious definitions.
Maybe Nelson doesn't himself want ID taught in the public schools right now. But it is disingenuous to pretend that that isn't the goal of the movement he is fronting.
No shit. Nelson is just reciting the script that he's been handed.
If you press him on it, Nelson will take the approach of some of the third tier cheerleaders (e.g., Heddle, DaveScot) and adopt the position that they don't PROMOTE the teaching of ID in public schools but they "don't see what possible harm could come of it. Oh, and by the way, there is great disagreement among scientists about blah blah blah blah this is notthing to do with my religious beliefs blah blah blah ...."
Nelson suffers from fundie psychosis. Nelson's a "nice guy" in the same way that a lot of old white grannies in Alabama are "nice ladies." They make great peach pies and can stitch you a nice sweater but the word "nigger" is etched in acid deep inside their brains.
Nelson's the same way only he's hung up on the "faggots" and the "baby killers."
Like all deeply committed fundies, he's on auto-pilot, unable to recognize when his own pants have been pulled down and his shortcomings revealed.
Nice guy, though.
I'm not sure I find credible the idea that anyone would espouse something with a claim of "scientific" and at the same time not hope it would be taught. Surely scientific ideas get verified and get upgraded to facts or theories, and we want to teach facts and theories, right? Why would we not? If someone firmly believes in ID as IDers describe it (that is, scientific) then it's just not believable that they would not want it taught. The only thing I can think of is that he doesn't believe it's science. Or he doesn't believe it at all.
One further observation: No one would care what nonsensical dilletantism Nelson was up to with ID if he didn't belong to a political force that was threatening education. Their "empirical and philosophical particulars" aren't worthy of discussion by anyone who understand either empiricism or philosophy--so only the threat gets his sophomoric "philosophy" a hearing.
He's feeding off of political forces who pay him to divulge his bilge for their benefit.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
Because they promote Darwinist materialism and the moral decay of society. Instead we need to teach happy religious lies to people to make them feel and behave better.
Have you read the Wedge document?
Why not 'teach the contoversy'? Literally. Teach what it's really all about, and why ID is such a vacuous 'theory'.
Teach em the wedge document, and how the DI are lias and charlatans. Teach em everything!
I like BrianJ's idea. Why not tailor the science education a bit specifically to show that ID and YEC are both nonsense? We all know the typical points they like to raise, so lets have our science teachers give the kids the knowledge they need to see through the lies.
Because they promote Darwinist materialism and the moral decay of society. Instead we need to teach happy religious lies to people to make them feel and behave better.
You miss my point -- religious people think their faith is fact. They really do. So of course they want it taught. IDers claim their position is scientific fact. Nelson is promoting ID. Consequently his position that he is not promoting that it be taught in schools in nonsensical. If he believes it to be true and believes it to be scientific, then what possible obstacle is there for him in believing it ought to be taught?
I think Nelson is being disingenuous or at least his position is not very well thought out. Maybe it's just a bone he throws in order to be more likable.
See the religious position is not that facts promote moral decay. It is that their faith has revealed the facts, and that the lies of Darwinism promote moral decay. They have to really believe they have the truth in order to stay this course, and if they really believe they have the truth then it makes no sense for them to not want to propogate it.
As for the Wedge document, I am not certain I think we ought to rely on it much. It's not really very interesting insofar as its sources are ill documented, its use within the ID movement is not clear, and it's readily disavowed by that movement. It could easily become our "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" if we aren't careful and it's just not worth using against them for that reason. It was handy in Dover but I think its value is transient at best.
Their actual position as they state it is readily assailable.
Oops, HTML cite doesn't work -- that first paragraph is a quote from wamba.
I'm sure acid etches a lot of things into IDer brains.
Are you aware that the Discovery Institute finally 'fessed up to the Wedge Document in about 2002?
Are you aware that the Discovery Institute finally 'fessed up to the Wedge Document in about 2002?
Yes, and their detailed response there is precisely why we shouldn't bother with it. It is easily dismissed by them and it doesn't really do us any service.
If an ID proponent claims a motive other than that described in the document, one might want to bring it up (though I am not certain it's useful). In the case of Nelson, however, I think his claims regarding teaching ID are inexplicable from first principles -- there's no need to go anywhere near the Wedge in order to discredit them. So why would we?
The Wedge is a very useful document, since it states right up front what their goals are, which are essentially entirely religious. Why not use it? When we've got the words straight out of their mouths, it's a peculiar thing to say we should avoid using them.
In an ideal world, where people pay attention to the content of arguments, rather than the motive behind them, there'd be no point to bringing up the Wedge. Such a world wouldn't be dealing with ID to start with, though.
I tend to think of the Wedge as a way of calling attention to their goal, to try to make people aware that they can't take their eyes off of ID or just think about it as one of those ideas floating out there. It's a very real, political movement, and we need to keep people aware of that.
The Wedge is a very useful document, since it states right up front what their goals are, which are essentially entirely religious. Why not use it? When we've got the words straight out of their mouths, it's a peculiar thing to say we should avoid using them.
Yes, but in order to use the document against an individual you have to make this huge body of assumptions: they know what it says, they ascribe to it, they understand it to mean the same thing that others do, and so on. Unless someone comes out and claims full support of the document before proposing his argument you can't use it effectively. And just assuming they all know it is like refuting a specific argument of yours just by shouting "Blind Watchmaker" or, maybe more stingingly, "Darwin's Dangerous Idea".
Nelson's claims are on the face of them assailable without building the supporting case for his association with this document. And attacking him by shouting the document's name or contents at him without building that supporting case is just petty and unconvincing.
Globally, as a way to discredit the movement as you describe above, I agree that the Wedge is an interesting document. Even more interesting is their defense of it. We should endeavour in these cases to take into account their detailed defense of it as well as put less weight on the portions of it that they claim are out of date -- we wouldn't want to attack a position they don't hold.
The Wedge is a priceless document for revealing what kind of religiously motivated political hoax that ID theory actually is.
And in the real world, that matters a lot. It's one thing to say that ID theory is bullshit, on scientific grounds that you can only sketch out in a brief talk or debate. Given the usual obfuscation and red herrings from the other side, you just don't have time to convincingly make your case and convincingly refute all of their seemingly-good arguments. A lot of ignorant people are going to be wondering "Is it really that bad? If it was that bad, would anybody really be pushing it?"
That's a big problem with the debate format.
(And not just about ID. If you've ever done a public debate with religious debaters, you probably know why P.Z. doesn't like the debate format. They can quickly throw out a bunch of good-sounding shallow crap that you simply don't have time to address, and the audience can't tell that you could address it just fine if you had the time to explain the actual underlying issues. It's frustrating how much it comes down to credibility and trust---on a lot of points, you have to say "that's wrong because of X," without having the time to actually explain X.)
The Wedge fills in an important part of the picture---yes, those particular people really would perpetrate that particular kind of hoax. And that makes the god-awfulness of ID theory far more credible, in lieu of actually having the time to thoroughly pound the IDer's on every point.
Unfortunately, that's often decisive in the debate format; you have to be selective in which points you really address, and which you mostly dismiss, implying that people should trust you about them. If they do find you credible and trustworthy, they'll mostly assume you chose to say the most important things; if not, they'll guess that you are glossing over important flaws in your position. That's one reason why most people come away from most debates without changing their minds much, no matter how good the debaters are.
BM
Nelson's claims are on the face of them assailable without building the supporting case for his association with this document. And attacking him by shouting the document's name or contents at him without building that supporting case is just petty and unconvincing.
So build the supporting case. Takes about five seconds.
BM,
Paul Nelson is a Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute, which wrote (and has admitted they wrote) the Wedge Document. How is he not associated with the document that set forth their goals?
And after reading the other comments (in the link) I find myself wondering why Nelson readily "answered" the question of his speaking fee, but did so only by referring to the one event he'd just talked at (he explained they paid hotel and travel, he said). But by cutting the question down to just that one time, he pretends to answer the question withoiut actually answering it. Is that his usual -- no fee, but travel and hotel? -- or is that a special case? His "answer" doesn't answer that, but of course gives the appearance of answering, so he can say he's answered. Why so convoluted a non-response? (PZ, in constrast, succinctly provided info about his own fees: "My going rate has been around $150, and if they can?t cover it, I don?t worry about it."
Hey we have round two of the ID debate coming up in University of Kentucky. Dr. Shermer is taking on William Dembski. This(I hope) will convince our governer to not introduce ID into our schools.
Yes, but in order to use the [Wedge] document against an individual you have to make this huge body of assumptions: they know what it says, they ascribe to it, they understand it to mean the same thing that others do, and so on. Unless someone comes out and claims full support of the document before proposing his argument you can't use it effectively.
That's not really so. Most sensible audiences (and some less so) are pretty good at understanding that quacking, duck-walking things that look taste like ducks are not zebras. When the history of the CS/ID movement is so clearly about dissembling and gaming the system, the onus is on anyone who presents themselves as part of that movement to dissociate themselves clearly (if they can) from its anti-fact endeavor. Even if they haven't read the document, that makes them at the most charitable what used to be called "fellow travelers" or "useful idiots".
"they're trying to peddle pseudoscience to the gullible,"
Well, there's no shortage of that - that's for sure!