Over on Uncommon Descent, Sal Cordova quotes Lauren Sandler from her book Righteous, in a self-congratulatory attempt to claim the Dover decision as a victory for ID (oh, my, but aren't they desperate). However, if you look at Cordova's quote, there are…ellipses. Seeing an ellipsis in a creationist quote really ought to make you automatically wonder. Fortunately, Steve Story pulled out the actual, original quote over at Antievolution.org, so you too can see what was edited out.
|
Sal Cordova's version
intelligent design proponents keep quiet about the idea that [Judge] Jones’s decision opens new legal support to teach thier views in philosophy and religion classes. “We do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed….” Jones wrote, suggesting that intelligent design is a legitimate field of study outside biology class. This is a victory to an intellignt design movement…
no intelligent design group worth its salt supports Dover’s attention-geting bid for influence in the science classroom. Even the most brazen creationists groups, like Answers in Genesis–the name says it all–don’t approve of requiring teachers to deride evolution or direct students to Pandas [Of Pandas and People by Kenyon and Davis], since that’s just courting a lawsuit, and likely an unwinnable one….
Most [id-friendly] groups agree that the best way to convert a generation to the concept of intelligent design is to use stealth
|
The actual text:
Moreover, intelligent design proponents keep quiet about the idea that [Judge] Jones's decision opens new legal support to teach their views in philosophy and religion classes. "We do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom" Jones wrote, suggesting that intelligent design is a legitimate field of study outside biology class. This is a victory to an intelligent design movement that thinks in small steps, always taking the long view; any opportunity to introduce theism in the classroom is a push forward.
To be sure, a legal victory would have been a boon to the movement, but no intelligent design group worth its salt supports Dover's attention-geting bid for influence in the science classroom. Even the most brazen creationists groups, like Answers in Genesis-the name says it all-don't approve of requiring teachers to deride evolution or direct students to Pandas [Of Pandas and People by Kenyon and Davis], since that's just courting a lawsuit, and likely an unwinnable one. Lawsuits, even the Rock for Life kids would tell you, aren't the way to change hearts and minds.
Most [id-friendly] groups agree that the best way to convert a generation to the concept of intelligent design is to use stealth: hire Evangelical teachers in mainly Christian communities, and make sure the local church elders have a presence on the PTA. This is exactly what's happening all over the country, beyond the gaze of newspaper assignment editors and pro bono prosecutors, and it's working.
|
The message is simple: NEVER EVER TRUST A CREATIONIST.
And Sal is even less trustworthy than most Creationists.
If he could only learn how to cut and paste, and then delete the passages that he wants to ellipsize, then he wouldn't have so many mis-spellings.
Sal doesn't need to worry about being an amoral,conniving liar, because in the world of those who are saved, all is forgiven. Kind of like shooting a sinner and being absolved with a prayer. Jesus would be proud.
Jesus also said "go forth and sin no more." Unfortunately these dudes don't know when to stop lying. Wolves in sheep's clothing, indeed.
Are you allowed to ellipse secondary quotes without succumbing to complete fraud?
We have a word for that kind of behaviour (steath hiring of IDolators) in the UK: entryism. Communists were particularly fond of it, too.
In the second comment to his post Mr. Cordova adds "People may be alarmed that I want ID taught in philosophy or religion classes."
Is it my imagination or hasn't the possibility of intelligent design been considered, studied, debated & taught in the context of philosphy and religion, oh I don't know, maybe since the beginning of the last millenium? At least. I certainly got a heapin' helpin' in my phylosophy and religion classes. Of course the sticking point is that they taught about it and didn't advocate for it being the TRUTH.
I smell insincerity...ode de bull shit.
Jim, I think you mean eau de bull shit.
It's sad that these people keep doing this sort of nonsense. It's even sadder that they get away with it. They may get called on it in places like this, but rarely in more mainstream venues where Middle America is watching.
OTOH, I suppose we should be pleased that the IDists are so upset over the Dover decision, since it shows how much of a disaster they consider it for them and their Cause.
I don't know. "Ode to bullshit" is a little more apt than "odor of bullshit." It really speaks to the level to which the IDists are willing to go to promote their particular brand of the "truth."
PZ Myers wrote:
Holy smokes, PZ Myers promoting Intelligent Design! Who would have ever thought we'd see the day!
While I did repost and gawk at Sal's quote, original credit for finding it belongs to a group of people who go under the name "keiths". It's simply unbelievable.
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=1…
I smell insincerity...ode de bull shit.
Jim in STL
Technically, this is the Missouri pronunciation of and tribute to Eau de Phew (Pepé Le Pew) - maybe I should have tried O dee bull shit. Anyway, ode to Bullshit works for me too.
A constant subject of discussion is, 'which IDiots know they're wrong and are lying, and which are too dumb to know this?' I'm very reluctant to put people in the second category, having grown up knowing lots of people dumb enough to fall for ID. Typically, the only person I'm sure knows better, is Dembski. But after this little event of Salvador's, I'm going to have to put him in the dishonest category too.
Well, that didn't make any sense. Change that to 'I'm reluctant to put people in the first category...'
Leon sez:
That's why I found the recent editorials in the York newspapers' editorials about the DI rant against Judge Jones hopeful--they see through the bullshit.
Of course you shouldn't ever trust a creationist. As in courts using witness testimony, if the witness is completely wrong about one thing, how can you trust said witness about many other things that do or might intersect with the thing?
Creationists and Idiots are not the only ones with a propensity to lie. I volunteer as a patient escort at a Planned Parenthood clinic outside of Philadelphia which is regularly picketed by anti-abortion/anti-family planning zealots. Today a patient, a young Hispanic woman, walked in with her three young kids to pick up probably some birth control material. When she left, she was followed by one of the pickets, a "sweet looking" little old lady who tried to persuade the Hispanic lady to go to nearby Catholic church for counseling, all the while pulling at the young woman's sleeve. A fellow escort of mine, an older woman, chased after them. When she caught up with them, a borough patrolman happened to drive by, so the escort flagged down the officer. The protester immediately backed off and walked away. The officer, however, caught up with the young woman in the next block and spoke with her for about five minutes. He then returned to the anti-abortion protester and buttonholed her for more than ten minutes. After he drove to the clinic and brought us up to date. The patrolman spoke fluent Spanish so he interviewed the Hispanic lady in Spanish and then spoke with the protester, who speaks no Spanish. The patrolman said the two stories were completely different and that the protester was obviously lying. (If one doesn't know, following a person down the street and harassing them is a crime, and, if emphatic enough, becomes stalking, which can incur a prison sentence. And, of course, lying to the officer, in this context is also a crime, although neither we, the patient, nor the officer will press charges for this transgression--but maybe the next one.)
These protesters are as full of lies as creationists and see nothing wrong with lying so long as it's for Jesus. They also love to tell patients that abortion causes breast cancer, that birth control always fails, that birth control pills cause sterility, that Planned Parenthood spreads vile diseases and is unclean and on and on. They're beautiful people--not.
Unfortunately, John Q. Public is unlikely to understand why academics find severe truncation of a text via an ellipse so egregious. After all, many of them are of the mindset that they'll read a verse in Genesis, then read a verse in one of the Gospels as if it was all of one piece, and then call what results an argument.
Anyway, that kind of thing is obnoxious, but that's not the most sinister thing about this little jewel. What no one has mentioned yet, but which I find especially disturbing, is that the original author pretty much endorses 'stealth candidates' for intelligent design. If we are to believe Lauren Sandler, with or without ellipses, this is ongoing and it's growing.
Clearly, it's past time to hold anyone affiliated with a public school site accountable for where they publicly stand on science education....SH
Sadly, Scott, most American sheeple are pretty dumb. They don't know how to think, and they believe their Wholly Babble, even though the great majority of them have never read it.
I know, because I live in Texas, which is the buckle on the Babble Belt.
Keanus, thanks for sharing that story with us! I'm vaguely aware of the inanity/stupidity/singlemindedness/insert-word-for-goddamned-stupid-people-here -ness of Planned Parenthood protesters (and, for the record, if I understand right, abortion-related stuff is <10% of what PP does), but it's real-life stories like this, repeated periodically, that really bring it home to reasonable people.
Brian, where do you get "odor" from? eau is the French word for water. I think the reference comes from eau de toilette, not meaning water scooped from a toilet bowl, but the older sense. You probably have to be >30 to be familiar with the phrase "toiletries bag" as a thing that holds toothbrush, deodorant, etc. I was reading a Dumas novel (one of the sequels to The Three Musketeers) where it says a lady was doing her toilet. I almost snarfed my coffee, but I knew what they meant. Anyway, eau de toilette is a cologne or some other liquid applied before going to bed or after getting up. So eau de bullshit suggests that when you show up to do your thing in public, everyone can smell something's wrong...
...a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest, lie la lie, lie la lie lie lie lie lie, lie la lie, ...
Paul Simon
It concerns me whenever I edit a passage myself. But then, I'm a secure self righteous scientist. Evidence either supports what I believe, or I adjust my beliefs.
It just goes to prove what I have been saying for some time:
Cretionists and ID-iots fall into two non-mutually exclusive classes:
Liars
and
Fools
Oh, that's simple. I get "odor" from my complete inability to understand French.
And remember, when you quote anything, be sure to quote at least the entire chapter or paper.
I.E., if you reference Darwin, be sure to quote EVERYTHING he ever wrote.
>And remember, when you quote anything, be sure to quote at >least the entire chapter or paper.
>I.E., if you reference Darwin, be sure to quote EVERYTHING >he ever wrote.
There are many good reasons to excerpt parts of a work when referencing it. It's called editing. You have to do it in good faith and without intent to deceive, but I don't think these are onerous conditions.
Editing with intent to deceive is wrong. Deleting a sentence that directly contradicts how you wish to portray the meaning of the original piece is deceptive.
I'm sure I read something about 'not bearing false witness' somewhere...
R
Well, the Dover decision told us that too, since Jones rejected the finding of facts from the creationist movements best.
But smarmy Sal is a special example of Creo Impudens. If you are unlucky and meet him first time on a thread he may at first sound sincere.
His trashing and coopting of Harris' review of Sandlers' book is even worse:
Originally:
( http://appliedepistemology.com/shop.php?c=bks&n=12380&k=Lauren+Sandler&… )
It is lovely when the IDiot prove your point.
And it seems that Sal doesn't know how to cut and paste (at night/each night). No wonder this self-confessed 'computer expert' is complaining.
More than anything the same compulsion that drives them to believe in their faith, despite all evidence to the contrary, blinds them to the fact that they are carrying out acts that most would call unethical. But what is more unethical in their minds than serving their god? Clearly these sorts of people are completely incapable of reason and only the fear of losing keeps them from committing worse deeds. Doing something in the world of men's laws that could send them to prison kept them from lying on the bench in Dover. So they will try to change those laws of else stay in a position where they do not have to be forced to say what they know is true but cannot say for fear of offending god and damning their immortal souls.
Cause in the end it is still fear of death that drives them.
Lying is nothing.
Hellfire is everything.
Never seeing your loved ones again is everything.
MYOB'
.
Doing something in the world of men's laws that could send them to prison kept them from lying on the bench in Dover
beg pardon, but no it didn't. several of the defendants were caught by Jones himself in blatant lies. All you have to do is check the transcripts to see where Jones took over questioning in some cases, to see exactly where some of these folks blatantly lied about, for example, where the money came from to buy the copies of "Pandas".
one does wonder why the prosecutor's office never bothered to file additional charges, and Jones at least should have found them in contempt of court.
I guess he figured they were so pathetic, there was little point.
bottom line, fear causes them to lie in the same way it causes them to cleave to the false hope that all their sins will be forgiven "because they believe".
laws of men or "god" be damned.
The example I was taught is "Thou shalt [...] kill."
Hey, that's a great idea! We could rewrite the whole Ten Commandments:
1. "I...have brought thee out of the land of Egypt.... Thou shalt have...other gods before me."
2. "Thou shalt...make unto thee...graven image[s].... Thou shalt...bow down thyself to them...: for I...visit...iniquity...unto thousands of them that love me...." (Must be the justification for all those Ten Commandments monuments.)
3. "Thou shalt...take the name of...God in vain...for the LORD will...hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."
4. "...[T]he seventh day...thou shalt...do any work...."
5. "Honour thy father...that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee." (but not thy mother--presumably fathers are more likely to shorten your days if you disrespect them)
6. "Thou shalt...kill."
7. "Thou shalt...commit adultery." (aka "Love thy neighbor but don't get caught.")
8. "Thou shalt...steal." (and fleece the televangelist flock, presumably)
9. "Thou shalt...bear false witness against thy neighbour." (Aha! The justification for the DI's strategy is revealed!)
10. "Thou shalt...covet thy neighbour's house...thy neighbour's wife...his manservant...his maidservant...his ox...his ass...or any thing that is thy neighbour's." (That's a lot of coveting required of a Christian!)
Icthyic is right. Not only were some of the board members caught lying under oath, but if you read the transcripts and descriptions of the testimony Judge Jones made it very clear he was incensed with their obvious perjury. Probably the only reason two of them didn't get cited for contempt was the judge's desire to avoid doing anything that might have given the defense ammunition for an appeal.
Embarrasing anecdote: I attended a lecture by NCSE President Kevin Padian following the Dover decision to hear his account of the trial and in conversation bragged that I had devoured all the transcripts (which NCSE made available on the web). Without missing a beat, Dr. Padian suggested that I might want to consider the possibility I was a freak.
Which, of course, is true (sigh). You'd have to be a little freaky to want to know that much about the antics of the Dover board, but (believe it or not) I have on more than one occasion found it helpful.
All sorts of urban legends seem to have sprouted about how things went down in Dover, and I find it very effective to go to the Christians pushing this spin and asking them how, exactly, they can square their faithful dissemination of those stories with the obvious misconduct of the Dover board under oath?
Freakishly....SH
Probably the only reason two of them didn't get cited for contempt was the judge's desire to avoid doing anything that might have given the defense ammunition for an appeal.
yes, you are very likely correct; that makes perfect sense.
Without missing a beat, Dr. Padian suggested that I might want to consider the possibility I was a freak.
LOL, I'm sure he meant it in a positive fashion.
we're all freaks for spending so much time on this board, for example.
Freaks for haunting Pharyngula? Sure, that's true, especially when we contrast our interests with the general public. I'd rather be a freak, though, and hang out with people interested in ideas than with those who call themselves believers and never question what they believe, or why.
Good talking to you, and a Merry Christmas....SH
The odd thing about Dover is that some ID supporters are now complaining it was a "straw man" cariacature that was found wanting, when they themselves presented their best case.
'Thou shalt covet ... his ass'?
Explains Ted Haggard.
The odd thing about Dover is that some ID supporters are now complaining it was a "straw man" cariacature that was found wanting, when they themselves presented their best case.
what's so odd? that they would describe their "best case" correctly as a complete straw man caricature? Well, that's exactly what ID IS: a caricature of an apologetics argument.
they speak truth, but are simply too deaf to realize it as such.
the REALLY odd thing is that morons like the old Dover School Board fall for this caricature to begin with.
'Thou shalt covet ... his ass'?
Explains Ted Haggard.
LOL!
My wife keeps saying, and I'm sure she's right: the people who are the biggest gay-bashers are are closet gay themselves, and the most fervent about sexual perversion are the most perverted themselves. I imagine she's right. It's those who refuse to accept themselves for what they are that most refuse it in others.
Well, the Dover decision told us that too, since Jones rejected the finding of facts from the creationist movements best.
But smarmy Sal is a special example of Creo Impudens. If you are unlucky and meet him first time on a thread he may at first sound sincere.
His trashing and coopting of Harris' review of Sandlers' book is even worse:
Originally:
( http://appliedepistemology.com/shop.php?c=bks&n=12380&k=Lauren+Sandler&… )
It is lovely when the IDiot prove your point.
And it seems that Sal doesn't know how to cut and paste (at night/each night). No wonder this self-confessed 'computer expert' is complaining.
The example I was taught is "Thou shalt [...] kill."