Okay, so it's really only one DaveScot speaking out of both sides of his mouth, but I thought it would be fun to compare a couple of his comments, one from before the Dover ruling and one after. Comment #1, from September 31st:
Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E, an Assistant Scout Master with extensively involved with local and national Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. Bush's circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. Senator Rick Santorum is a Pennsylvanian in the same circles (author of the "Santorum Language" that encourages schools to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn't going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won't be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too.
Comment #2, from today:
What's standing in the way of ID is the judicial system and most of that is prejudicial i.e. the judge sits on the bench with a preconceived notion that ID is not science and the Darwinian fairy tale is as strong as the theory of gravity. He rules accordingly. Nothing will change his preconceived notion. By exposing NDE in deep time as a just-so story while people are still young enough to have an open mind about it the political underpinnings keeping NDE viable will eventually collapse. We may be one SCOTUS justice away from tipping the balance as we speak. SCOTUS won't rule that ID will be taught, they'll rule that ID can be taught. That will be the death knell of NDE in deep time as without the protection of being taught in a vacuum absent criticism or contrary ideas NDE just doesn't hold up.
What a difference a devestating loss makes, eh? Before the ruling, he's rooting for the judge to forget about the actual facts and legal questions and prejudge the case based solely on what his benefactors want him to do, and he's sure that's what Jones will do. After the ruling, well, it's obvious that Jones prejudged the case despite the fact that this would, by his own admission, be totally contrary to his own career interests to do. I'll take ad hoc (and post hoc) rationalizations for $1000, Alex.
- Log in to post comments
ha, that was beautiful. Almost like a commentary on the daily show.
By exposing NDE in deep time as a just-so story while people are still young enough to have an open mind about it the political underpinnings keeping NDE viable will eventually collapse.
A sure sign of a manipulative con-man: he can't argue with adults, as an adult, so he tries to work on kids instead.
Was anyone else floored by DaveScot's confession that he's actually a deist who does not believe in revelation and a supports panspermia?
If that is true, what could possibly compel him to write so adamantly (with so little logic) in favor of intelligent design??
Interesting emphasis on deep time in that comment. Sounds like YECism is creeping back into ID. How long ago did DaveScot say common descent was incontrovertible? Few people try to reconcile YECism with common descent, and I'd love to see DaveScot explain how it works.
DaveScot is increasingly becoming my favorite IDer. Every time he decides to open his mouth and spout off about some new "revelation" related to ID, he gets his foot desperately entangled in his throat, it's pure comedy. Even with the veiled and usually not-so-veiled threats he loves to spew, he comes off like a 14 year old kid arguing on some MySpace chat room. I mean look how far he dug himself in creating an issue with the Dover School Board.
And don't miss the real reason that ID research is not going on: no ID'er can get public funding because ID is "legally considered a religion". (Is Judge Jones now involved in NSF funding decisions?)
Yet on the next comment, DaveScot claims that "[a]ll biology, paleontology, genetic, biochemical, and related reasearch is thus ID research because ID relies on evidence without regard to who found the evidence or what they were looking for when they discovered it."
So it looks like ID is being funded after all.
Are you sure that second comment was from today? I thought maybe it was from February 30th ...
And don't miss the real reason that ID research is not going on: no ID'er can get public funding because ID is "legally considered a religion".
They're terrible fundraisiers, then...Most professional fundraisers know that the place to go for funds is with private individuals.
Hm. What they're really saying is that they don't want PRIVATE funding and want to suck at the public teat?
Am I the only one who thinks that DaveScot's first comment reflects a smug, creepy, zero-sum, Mafia approach to politics? It's surreal how modern Republicans have appropriated the tactics and language of the old-school urban Democratic Machine--tactics that many decry to this day as emblematic of the Democratic Party's bottomless corruption.
"he's actually a deist who does not believe in revelation and a supports panspermia?
If that is true, what could possibly compel him to write so adamantly (with so little logic) in favor of intelligent design?? "
These views actually go together very well.
We Christians are often naive enough to imagine that any reference to a supernatural designer leads to the concept of the Christian God of love and forgiveness. ID, though, identifies the designer as an intelligence only. That identification leads far more naturally to space aliens than the Christian God. The view of a creator as a mere intelligence whose greatest feats are those of machine engineering, feats that can now be equaled or excelled by people, also ties in beautifully with the teachings of Rev. Sun Moon, the self-proclaimed messiah, patron of Jonathan Wells.
From time to time, I read discussions on ways scientists can better reach the general public on issues like the teaching of ID in public schools. If that's really set as a goal, I think the most efficient way of reaching it is to make clear to the average Christian that opening the door to ID in science classes is opening the door to the Raelians "Intelligent Design: Message from the Designers" (a the-space-aliens-did-it claim), mental preparation for messiah cults, astrology, and witchcraft.
Yes, it's important to improve the level of science education/knowledge, but the direct path to interrupting the growing influence of ID may be publicizing how strongly connected it is to anti-Christian creation theories.
Pointing out that DaveScot is a two-faced moron is a little like pointing out that Paris Hilton is a tad dim.
*Nitpick alert*....September only has 30 days, a point alluded to by Scott above.
Julia wrote:
Absolutely false. The DI's definition of ID includes the nature of the universe itself as evidence for intelligent design, meaning the "designer" designed the universe itself, not just life on earth. That leaves out aliens, which would be a product of the universe and therefore could not be its creator. The designer in ID must be supernatural, by definition. To quote Dembski:
Ed writes:
Not only this, but the constant attacks on the materialistic methodology (not to mention overt references to a "theistic" science) used by scientists clearly indicates they are talking about a designer acting outside the observable universe. The DI version of ID is inherently religious, regardless of how loudly and how often they scream to the contrary.
Plus, I can't think of a single major ID proponant who seriously thinks that aliens have anything to do with it, nor can I think of an instance where any of them have given the ideas of the Raelians even semi-serious consideration. And as you point out, aliens would still be natural causation, so why would they consider them?
In my earlier post, I was responding to a comment about DaveScot's posting in which DaveScot says, "I think if the creator reveals himself to us the revelation is found through science, logic, and reason not through holy scriptures. Color me a deist with some doubts about the deity. . . . ID is a big tent. The only people that don't fall in it are those who categorically deny that intelligent design is detectable in anything not of human origin."
"The DI's definition of ID includes the nature of the universe itself as evidence for intelligent design, meaning the "designer" designed the universe itself, not just life on earth."
Actually it doesn't at all preclude the notion that the designer designed an intelligence that then designed the earth, that second designer being the one whose work is discernable in complex structures. But the important issue, I think, is that "DI's definition of ID" appears to give the DI people too much credit for a unified standpoint and too much credit for basic logic in their thinking. It's Dembski's own website where DaveScot made the post I was responding to. Also, I wonder if your comment may imply too much credit to the big names at the DI as the ones who are actually getting ID into the classrooms. Most of the people who are willing to let ID into classrooms probably don't know any of those names and may not have even heard of the DI. Those are the people who need to be reached. Many of them are Christians who have only a vague idea that "science" has established that an "intelligence" is involved in making nature the way it is.
Yes, the argument that ID is largely religion in disguise is both accurate and important in courtrooms. But in various places around the country, ID is being slipped into science instruction regardless of the big courtroom decisions. My opinion is that relying on the legal clout of the ID is religion theme isn't, in the end, going to solve the problem. The very identification of ID with religion, especially with Christianity, gives motivation to those who slip it into classrooms without regard for its legality. If we really want to keep ID out of the public schools, we're going to have to find a way to make a case to the average person.
In the paragraph you quote from my earlier post, you seem to respond as though as I'm talking about the DI people, giving a quote from Dembski to prove my comment false. I wasn't, and I'm sorry for not making that clearer. I did not say that the big names in DI are claiming that ID leads more naturally to aliens than to the Christian God. I wasn't talking about the DI at all. I was giving my own perspective, not summing up DI arguments. A great many other Christians are also declaring that the view of a nature designer as an intelligence whose actions can be discerned by observation and logic is not in line with the core of Christian belief.
I think that the constant focus on ID as hidden religion, while largely true and highly effective in the courts, is in the end going to prove inadequate. The most important point for me isn't how many or which or whether any DI big names seriously consider the Raelian notion as a source of life on earth, or whether that is logically consistent with some of their other statements. The point for me is that the "big tent" includes them, and that many people who now say "Sure, include ID in schools, why not" would change their minds if they knew that. Or if they knew that altering the definition of science to permit ID in science classrooms would also allow astrology as well.
Julia wrote:
I think this is far from true. The sole and only reason why ID is an issue in science classes at all is the activism of the DI and their allies. Without them, there simply is no discussion of ID. They are the ones who lobbied to get the Santorum amendment passed, they are the ones who brought the issue to the forefront in the media, and they are the ones who advise politicians all around the nation, from local school boards to state legislators to national legislators, on the issue. Yes, there are a few people around who advocate cosmological ID but not biological ID, or vice versa, but they are pretty much irrelevant to the debate. And those school boards and legislators who have pushed the issue inevitably combine the two in their minds. I could show you quotes from dozens and dozens of politicians who back ID who think that evolution means the universe was not created by God (when evolution says nothing whatsoever about the origin of the universe or the existence of God). In the mind of the politicians who push for ID, there is no distinction between them whatsoever. Also bear in mind that virtually every advocate of ID, whether the DI crowd or the politicians who listen to them and submit legislation on the matter, rant and rave about "naturalism". It simply cannot be the case that they think ID opposes "naturalism" and then posit a natural, alien designer. If evolution is naturalistic and ID is not, then the designer can only be supernatural, by definition. The existence of a few DaveScots that they let into the tent does not change the reality that their arguments cannot support anything but a supernatural designer.
Then your position requires that we talk out of both sides or out mouths, saying in court that ID is religious and then telling religious people that ID is not necessarily religious. Sorry, I'm not willing to do that - that's precisely what the ID advocates do constantly, tell the courts and the intelligentsia one thing and their followers another. I'm not going to stoop to that level. The fact is that ID, as advocated by those trying to get into public schools any way they can, requires a supernatural designer. The fact that a few other people, who aren't involved in the issue and have no role in pushing the curriculum changes, have a different idea of what ID is just isn't relevant to the debate over school curricula.
"Then your position requires that we talk out of both sides or out mouths, saying in court that ID is religious and then telling religious people that ID is not necessarily religious."
I hadn't planned to make any further comment on this subject, but your statement is so far from my position that I can't let it go by.
My position is that the "critically analyze" language now under consideration in my state has the possibility of letting in ID and anti-science views in a now unknown number of permutations, including Christianity both mainstream and fundamental, Raelians, astrology, and a huge variety of other supernatural notions, including various New-Age-type movements such as evolution of consciousness and creation by human consciousness. And that many Christians will continue to support that language until they realize that their particular notion of God is not guaranteed to be the only version of the designer that can come up in the classroom.
Certainly the recent political push for allowing anti-science into the science classroom came from ID. But in my state a huge percentage of people have always believed that "evolution means the the universe was not created by God"; they didn't wait for or need ID people to to convince them of that. They've long been willing to back almost any kind of movement that would undermine the teaching of evolution. The ID people have made a contribution to that, and now in my state the political movement has a life of its own. If every ID person in the world died tomorrow in a single plane crash, very few people in my state would bat an eyelash; the notion that science itself has proved the existence of a designer is firmly ingrained in the public mind. I know a number of people with almost zero accurate knowledge of DI or ID who have encouraged their representatives to support the "critically analyze" language. And the politicians listen.
I never suggested or thought of telling Christians that the ID notion of the designer doesn't logically lead to some form of religion. But so far in my state I've seen little indication that logic has anything to do with the political events occurring. My point is nothing more nor less than that, with or without big court wins, religion is already sneaking its way into our local science classrooms, and that sneaking isn't going to stop until the Christians doing it suddenly see some disadvantage to their religious beliefs. Maybe in some other states, the opinions of the general public have little effect in issues like this, but in my state they do.
We'll see. Perhaps you will turn out to be right. If the courts in my state do let in the "critically analyze" language, and a year goes by without any intrusion into our classrooms of astrology, aliens, witchcraft, new age type notions, etc. I'll write you a public apology for ever mentioning the subject at your blog. In the meantime, I will continue to point out to the Christians I know that wrangling to get their own beliefs into the science classrooms will let in a great many other beliefs that they really, really don't want to have there. I've already seen that argument make a difference.
Julia: first, don't confuse Witchcraft with messiah cults and astrology -- they're not similar enough by a long shot. And second, Witchcraft is not "anti-Christian;" plenty of witches accept the divinity of Jesus, and the wisdom of his teachings; and many Wiccan teachings are merely those of Christ reworded.
Julia wrote:
Ah, now this I agree with. In fact, the Raelians put out a press release a couple years ago rooting on the ID folks in their efforts. But I don't think we should use the same term to refer to those other alternatives to evolution, just to avoid confusion. But as my friend Rob Pennock likes to point out, if you're going to make the argument that it's "only fair" to teach ID, the predominately Christian alternative to evolution, then it's also "only fair" to teach Raelianism or the Vedic creationism or a hundred other religious mythologies.