Fatal fruit of an evil tree

That's pretty cool typesetting. Illegible, but cool nonetheless.

Or maybe my eyes are defective from too much inbreeding in my family tree.

Irony to the nth degree!! I cannot stop laughing. Precious, really precious.

As a general question re: the ID'ers, especially the real scientists among them: can someone please explain (perhaps with paraphrased scientific studies) how people who can obviously think and learn things can be so wildly idiotic in some intellectual pursuits. I mean it is one thing to be misinformed or ignorant, but it is another to study something and despite your IQ in genius range still sound like an idiot. I am not asking why someone retains faith, or adheres to religious practices or affiliation, those can be compartmentalized; rather I'm asking how can you be idiotic (while not being an idiot) within a compartment that should be up your alley??? Thanks.

I'm afraid the creationists will be very busy in the near future, a veritable quote-mining hurricane looms on the horizon.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6657237.stm

Nice biblical allusion too!

Stupidity is a thing people do; high intellectual capacity is something people have. They're not at all incompatible - in fact, some kinds of stupidity require high intelligence, because they're too complicated for lesser minds to perform.

Quality of judgment is a more subtle and complex thing. It's also totally unrelated to IQ (which tests performance on relatively basic and primitive processing tasks) and only part of what we mean by 'intelligence'.

Ah well, I guess this is what happens when you accept that damnable doctrine of... MICROEVOLUTION!!

I advocate having all members of the Bush & Cheney clans sterilized.

"Stupid is as stupid does"

Forrest Gump

ConcernedJoe,

Read Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things, specifically the paperback edition with the extra chapter, "Why Smart People Believe Weird Things".

Basically, Shermer argues that intelligent and educated people arrive at irrational beliefs the same way that other people do, because of upbringing or culture or what have you. But their intelligence and education makes them better at justifying their irrational beliefs. They can easily intimidate laypeople and the unprepared (eg, your typical journalist) with jargon and complex chains of reasoning (built on sand, of course), and even their peers might have trouble constructing rebuttals to their arguments.

For example, not even his most bitter ideological foe would deny that William Dembski is a brilliant mathematician. This gives him the scientific-sounding language he can use to defend his creationist/ID views. But those views arose because of his religious faith, not because of his scientific research.

In short, educated people can subscribe to dumb ideas just like uneducated people, they are just better at looking smart while advocating for dumb ideas.

not even his most bitter ideological foe would deny that William Dembski is a brilliant mathematician

'Brilliant' might be a bit strong. 'Competent' would be better.

Alas, neither applies to his powers of reasoning.

Sweet! I've bookmarked the article in case I happen to come across another creationist who spouts that Darwinism -> eugenics nonsense.

Sweet! I've bookmarked the article in case I happen to come across another creationist who spouts that Darwinism -> eugenics nonsense.

There's something about the creationists connecting Darwinism and eugenics that confuses me. No creationist argues against "microevolution", or the efficacy of selective breeding. And none but the most radical eugenicist has ever claimed that they are trying to create a completely separate species, but rather simply improve the human race, using techniques no different in principle than used with domesticated animals. Given this, why is eugenics supposedly the child of evolution? What is it about Darwin's theory that supposedly provides the foundation for eugenics? One might argue that its intellectual popularity provided some political support for eugenics, but there's nothing that creationists believe that would argue against the efficacy of eugenics (as the incident recounted in the post shows).

It's just another example of intellectual dishonesty.

Tinkle would have LOVED "The Marching Morons."

" What is it about Darwin's theory that supposedly provides the foundation for eugenics? "

I don't know, but maybe it has something to do with the catchphrase most associated with Darwinism, "survival of the fittest". Taken out of context, it can be interpreted as an imperitive that the unfit must be eliminated from the gene pool. In this way eugenics is not just a choice to improve the race (like breeding dogs) but a dictate of nature.

Sweet!

I guess this is what happens when you accept that damnable doctrine of... MICROEVOLUTION!!

I guess it finally explains... how it is there are PYGMIES + DWARFS!

'Competent' would be better.

Even that is too nice IMHO.

'Formal competence' would perhaps be better, seeing that he in fact succeeded in publishing a math paper before he tried and failed in applications of math.

Mostly because he deals in lost causes. But also because he can't choose a good definition and stick with it. Whether that is because he is incompetent or because it would reveal his shell games doesn't matter. He hasn't yet shown ability in this area of math. In fact, there are mathematicians that calls his later efforts "pseudo-mathematics".

Up into the 1960s, he was advocating sterilization of the feeble-minded to improve the human race.

I'm all for it, but we need to consider costs. Given a current US population of 350 million, we'll have to sterilize about 98 million people, assuming Bush's 28% approval rating is genuinely representative. That's an awful lot of ligations and -ectomies to pay for.

Also, Christian -- I don't think that was typeset; I think the "banner text" effect was hand-rendered. At least that's how it looks to my inbred, feeble-minded eyes. ;)

For example, not even his most bitter ideological foe would deny that William Dembski is a brilliant mathematician.

Oh man. That was funny. Bill Dembski hopped around from post-doc to post-doc after graduating, and has published one paper, one on mathematics. Don't believe me? Dig through his pathetic excuse for a CV (if you can read it), and show me where all of his brilliant mathematics are hiding.

Bill Dembski isn't even competent. There are undergraduates in mathematics with better publication records and better original research than he has.

In fact, there are mathematicians that calls his later efforts "pseudo-mathematics".

In the Dover trial, Dembski was going to testify, so the lawyers went looking for some mathematicians to cross-examine him. That's when Sir Dembski bravely ran away.

Thanks for the link!

I find it amazing that these people, whose goals are so well-known and overtly anti-science and anti-democratic, continue to attempt to pin on others that which their own are guilty of.

But I shouldn't be too surprised, I guess: it's a long-known wingnut strategy: attempt to condemn others for what you are guilty of.

Oh come on, who's really surprised by this? After all, "If Jesus had been among us, he would have been president of the first Eugenics Congress."

I'm disappointed to see that PZ has joined hands with creationists and jumped on the whack eugenics bandwagon. For once, the Discovery Institute has a point. The most prominent American eugenicists of the early twentieth century (Charles Davenport, Harry Laughlin, Frederick Osborn, etc.) were supporters of evolutionary theory. The most implacable opponents of eugenics were theists. The Catholic Church denounced eugenics and successfully fought to repeal and/or oppose sterilization legislation in several American states; Colorado, in particular. G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis wrote several early polemics against eugenics.

The most sensible response to creationists would be to expose their shoddy guilt by association reasoning instead of responding to them with equally fallacious "you too" arguments. Hitler supported rocket science and cancer research. So what? That's not a valid argument against either of these things.

The most sensible response to creationists would be to expose their shoddy guilt by association reasoning instead of responding to them with equally fallacious "you too" arguments.

Uh....where have you been for the last 150 years? People have been trying and failing to reason with creationists for over a century. If the "fallacious" arguments dont work either, we might have to try hitting them with a whip and yelling.

In my experience, creationists are impervious to rational argument. I'm not advocating reasoning with them. I simply hold atheists to a higher standard.

Just because they were supporters of evolution doesn't mean they understood it or their support even mattered.

Evolution doesn't support the theories of Eugenics...

Eugenicists are wrong. Is wrong.

What's the real rate of turnover for differential birth rates?

Just curious.

For example, not even his most bitter ideological foe would deny that William Dembski is a brilliant mathematician.

Dembski is to mathematicians as Barney Fife was to sheriff's deputies, except that Barney had a bullet.

This gives him the scientific-sounding language he can use to defend his creationist/ID views. But those views arose because of his religious faith, not because of his scientific research.

What scientific research?

The most implacable opponents of eugenics were theists.

Yeah, like Gene Roddenberry. Bigtime theist.

The most prominent American eugenicists of the early twentieth century (Charles Davenport, Harry Laughlin, Frederick Osborn, etc.) were supporters of evolutionary theory.

Let me fix that. Some of the most prominent American eugenecists were supporters of evolutionary theory. As for the rest, well...

Hitler supported rocket science and cancer research. So what? That's not a valid argument against either of these things.

I'm sure that was supposed to be an analogy to the current discussion. I'm afraid it isn't. PZ isn't arguing that eugenics was bad because a creationist supported it. PZ was pointing out that the creationist riff that "Darwinists were the cause of eugenics" and, more specifically, its implied (and sometimes even explicit) interpretation that "Darwinists and eugenics supporters are the same people" is wrong by way of a counterexample.

"Some of the most prominent American eugenecists were supporters of evolutionary theory. As for the rest, well..."

It appears the focus of the book cited is liberal preachers who supported evolution backing eugenics. Not a surprise, given its author is, along with Rick Santorum, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

[quote]Evolution doesn't support the theories of Eugenics...[/quote]

PC's hero Richard Dawkins seems to disagree:

http://www.sundayherald.com/life/people/display.var.1031440.0.eugenics_…

"Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular. The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as "these are not one-dimensional abilities" apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice."

[quote]Eugenicists are wrong. Is wrong.[/quote]

I'm not following your reasoning. How is eugenics by definition immoral? Sterilization is no more essential to eugenics than trepanning or bloodletting is to medicine. Do you oppose genetic counseling or pre-implantation genetic diagnosis? Why not demonize physics for giving us Hiroshima and Chernobyl or chemistry for giving us firearms.

1.) Gene Roddenberry was a teenager when the American eugenics movement collapsed in the late 1930s/early 1940s. In contrast, the Catholic Church and theists like G.K. Chesterton were amongst the most implacable opponents of eugenics in its heyday and actively fought against sterilization legislation. Eugenics was predominantly a movement of the progressive left during the early twentieth century. Eugenicists were deeply involved in the birth control and population control movements as well.

2.) No, virtually all of the most important early twentieth century American eugenicists were also strong supporters of evolution. Charles Davenport was a leading American biologist in this time. He was James Watson's predecessor at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. This is not to say that there were no Christian supporters of eugenics, but the Discovery Institute is right that support for eugenics and evolution tended to go hand in hand. I have read most of the recent histories of the American eugenic movement and I have never heard of "William Tinkle" before. He must have been an insignificant figure.

3.) PC is making an ad hominem argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P.
Therefore, P is dismissed.

Note: For the record, Darwin himself praised Galton in The Descent of Man. Darwin's son was also the president of the Eugenics Society in the U.K. for years.

1. Who is PC?

2. "virtually all of the most important early twentieth century American eugenicists were also strong supporters of evolution" is not equivalent to saying all strong supporters of evolution were eugenicists. Evolution does not support eugenics at all well.

3. The only ad hominem in this argument is coming from the creationists and you. They are the ones who have persistently argued that evolution is tainted by the eugenics movement, which is a) not true, and b) wouldn't affect the validity of evolution if it were.

4. This article is not saying creationism is wrong because one of its proponents was a fan of eugenics. It is demonstrating that eugenics was an error in social activism that was not dependent on evolutionary thought, therefore it is rather silly to blame evolution for eugenics.

@Librarian, point #3

Tu Quoque is a logical fallacy of its own, and is not an Ad Hominem attack, which is another, completely different logical fallacy.

Also, PZ is not making a Tu Quoque fallacy as his argument is along the lines of:

A accuses B (exclusively and entirely) of P
A also participated in P
Therefore A's accusations of B are misguided ad hominem attacks.

Or, to put it more simply, this is a case of "The pot calling the kettle black".

For the record, none of the following arguments is made in my original piece, which should be pretty obvious if you actually read it:
- eugenics is wrong because Tinkle, a Creationist, supported it;
- it is false that eugenics was supported by evolutionary biologists, because creationist Tinkle supported it;
- evolutionary biologists may have been wrong in supporting eugenics, but so was creationist Tinkle, so nyahnyahnyah.

The point of the article is that the DI stooges' claim that eugenics was the special, direct, and possibly necessary result of Darwin's theories and materialist philosophy is false, because eugenics a) existed before Darwin, b) it drew philosophical inspiration and scientific justification from far more than just evolutionary theory, and c) did not necessarily require either "Darwinism" or "materialism", as Tinkle's case unequivocally demonstrates.

It also points out that the use of the term "eugenics" as a scare tactic is dishonest. To some extent, we are all eugenicists, and we are all very comfortable with certain eugenic practices and regulations (and with "we" I also mean the DI stooges). The proper way to evaluate eugenics and its applications is not by depicting it as an absolute moral evil linked to this or that abhorrent philosophy, but to analyze which of its applications we are ethically and politically willing to accept as a net positive for our society, and which should be rejected as useless and/or ethically unacceptable. Very much a shades-of-gray issue.

Note: For the record, Darwin himself praised Galton in The Descent of Man. Darwin's son was also the president of the Eugenics Society in the U.K. for years

Oh, but the insidious link between materialistic darwinistic atheism and eugenics doesn't end there! Charles Galton Darwin, grandson of Charles Darwin and originator of the Darwin Term of the Zitterbewegung in relativistic quantum mechanics was also president of the Eugenics Society!

Crap! The mathematicians are in on this eugenics stuff too! Clearly there is a link between mathematics and eugenics! Whatever shall we do?

Some more information about Darwin's letters. They should be really interesting, but MartinC is right, the fundies are going to be quote-mining them for all they're worth.

I think the best theory I've heard is this:

The Discovery Institute was very good at making its case and pushing its point when they were able and willing to spend a considerable sum on public relations experts to help them, dare I say it, "frame" their case. However, a kind of tipping point happened about one to two years ago, when several major foundations and other donors who had been tricked into supporting the DI realized what was going on and pulled out.

Now, the DI is unable to fund expensive and relatively effective campaigns, so this is left up to the Dodos who work there to think up strategy, effective slogans, etc. And they are just not all that good at it.

As a result, we now see this rather limp attack on Darwinism that PZ outlines here and that is covered so nicely in the Panda's Thumb post; we see their best effort at attacking Randy Olson's film to call it "Hoax of Dodos" ... what the heck does that mean? And so on.

If I were to argue that Catholics are intrinsically evil because the Catholic church was intimately and causally connected to the Spanish inquisition, or because Al Capone, Lucretia Borgia, and Adolph Hitler were Catholics, most Americans-- even atheists-- would be horrified by my bigotry. Yet the IDers use a precisely analogous argument to slander evolutionary biologists, and expect a respectful audience. No wonder they can barely pay the electric bill at the Disco Institute. All those blazing crosses must eat up the kilowatt hours like crazy (not to mention the tailoring bills for the white hoods.)

C'mon! The man's name is TINKLE!!!

I'm not an IDer, but how can we be animals? Animals only have instinct. We can talk, are intelligent and can learn things not even chimps can do. :D

I'm not an IDer, but how can we be animals? Animals only have instinct.

Then pigeons, dolphins, dogs, cats, chimps, gorillas, and mice aren't animals either.

Sweet!

I guess this is what happens when you accept that damnable doctrine of... MICROEVOLUTION!!

I guess it finally explains... how it is there are PYGMIES + DWARFS!

'Competent' would be better.

Even that is too nice IMHO.

'Formal competence' would perhaps be better, seeing that he in fact succeeded in publishing a math paper before he tried and failed in applications of math.

Mostly because he deals in lost causes. But also because he can't choose a good definition and stick with it. Whether that is because he is incompetent or because it would reveal his shell games doesn't matter. He hasn't yet shown ability in this area of math. In fact, there are mathematicians that calls his later efforts "pseudo-mathematics".