Paul Nelson's Sleight of Hand

It seems that Paul Nelson has managed to distract at least one person's attention away with his frantic handwaving. Andrew Rowell, a British ID supporter, seems to have fallen for the shell game hook, line and sinker. First, Rowell falsely thinks that Nelson admitted to deliberately distorting MIller's position:

Paul seems to me to have been clear that in the heat of a public event he deliberately tried to make Keith Miller look silly by over simplifying his arguments. He seems to have been full in his apologies for this and for making public what was thought to be a more private email interchange.

But this is simply nonsense. At no time did Paul admit to deliberately trying to make Keith look silly. In fact, the very fact that he mentioned that his statement was "in the heat" of a public event shows that he is attempting to claim that the distortion was not deliberate. If it was deliberate, then it makes no difference at all whether it was on the "spur of the moment" or was made with malice aforethought. The only possible reason to mention that the statement was made, to use Pau's choice of words, "hurriedly", is to attempt to claim that it was a mere mistake, not a deliberate misrespresentation.

And in point of fact, the only thing Paul has admitted to at this point is that he "compress[ed) his position". And even then, his apology did not recognize that he had deliberately done something wrong, but only that he had done something "in a fashion that Keith saw as wrong." He didn't do it, you see, but since Keith thinks he did, he'll apologize. This is every bit as sincere as the typical politician's apology - "I apologize to anyone I might have offended".

But more than that, Mr. Rowell goes to Nelson's attempted distraction like a moth to light:

The argument seems to me to hinge on:

1. What Keith Miller means by "natural regularity." Does Keith Miller really believe that human beings can be reduced to molecular interaction alone? Is intelligent causation a radically different class from natural regularity? Keith Miller cannot be a Christian if he believes that a human being is only matter plus energy.

2. Whether we believe that intelligent causation is necessarily part of "natural regularity" or not. Especially do we regard responsible intelligent causation as something distinct from "natural regularity"? Can you have a guilty and reprensible natural regularity? Is it right to punish a natural regularity?

If we reduce human intelligent causation to natural regularities does this have consequences for our view of human action? If all we are is molecules interacting where do we get moral responsibility and culpability from?

No, Mr. Rowell, the argument does not hinge on that at all. In fact, every single word of it is completely and utterly irrelevant to the undeniable fact that Nelson distorted Miller's position on whether a human thief was responsible for the missing items in the car. Go back and read the statement that Nelson made to the audience in California. There is not one word in that statement about any disagreement between he and Miller about moral responsibility or culpability, or about the issue of biological determinism or material reductionism. Nelson has tried to raise all of those issues in his various attempts to distract attention from the actual issue, but not one of those issues was even mentioned in what he told that audience about Miller's position. The only disagreement he talked about with Miller was the absolutely false claim that Miller had refused to accept that a human thief had stolen the items from his car. My contention is that Nelson lied when he said that because Miller had in fact said the exact opposite of what he said. Why on earth would that argument over whether the thief stole the items "hinge on" the completely irrelevant question of whether he was morally culpable for doing so?

Magicians work through misdirection. They wave their hands around a lot because your eyes will naturally follow the more grandiose movement. You'll follow their left hand flamboyantly waving the handkerchief and won't notice their right hand casually taking something out of their pocket or off the table. That is what Paul Nelson has attempted to do with his various rationalizations over the last few days. He's waved his hands all around to get us to focus our attention not on the easily demonstrated distortion of Miller's position, but on extraneous issues like intelligence as a "causal primitive", the effect of biological determinism on moral culpability, and so forth.

But none of those issues do anything whatsoever to rescue him from the plain and simple fact that Keith Miller said one thing and Paul Nelson told an audience that he had said the exact opposite. And in doing so, he made Miller look like a complete fool in front of that audience, and even while his audience and his colleague on the stage laughed at Miller for allegedly saying something so stupid, it never occured to him that he had dishonestly smeared a good and decent man. He attempted to destroy Miller's credibility and his reputation by attributing to him an idiotic opinion that no one in their right mind would take. What he did wasn't just dishonest, it was also vicious and cruel, and toward someone he claims to respect. He got the derisive laughter he sought, of course; I wonder now if it was worth it to him.