Over at the Discovery Institute's Media Complaints Division, Casey Luskin makes much of a piece by Peter Williams decrying the use by paleontologist Richard Fortey of the phrase "IDiots". Williams exclaims:
"While Darwinists provided their own name, this childishly rude title does not allow the proponents of the ID theory to choose their own name for their theory. Descending to name-calling is not going to help the Darwinist cause shift the appearance of 'a threatened Establishment'! Rather, it confirms it."
Well, first of all, I'm not a Darwinist, so don't call me one*. Secondly, I don't think labeling ID supporters "IDiots" really helps anyone and is in fact inaccurate. The ease at which many ID supporters tell lies and rewrite both science and history (case in point) requires much more intelligence that the term "idiot" implies. Lastly, and more importantly, the ID side
are not exactly pure when it comes to "name-calling". In the past, we have witnessed Denyse O'Leary referring to "Darwinbots", Dembski to "Darwhiners", and John Davison to "Darwimpian" (and that is only three examples). Williams and Luskin need to either lose the holier-than-thou
attitude or chastise their own bed-fellows.
--
* True to form, Luskin bends the truth lies in claiming that "the term 'Darwinists' is not uncommonly used by 'Darwinists' when they are describing themselves." The DI's own search in 2005 [pdf] for the term in Nature (back to 1980), Science (back to 1995) and Pubmed (back to the 1950's) only turned up 39, 12 & 14 hits respectively. That's a total of
65 uses of the term (many perhaps by journalists in Nature or Science) across approximately 85 journal-years. Interesting definition of "not uncommon."
- Log in to post comments
I come across "Darwinism" as a term used by evolution scientists so infrequently that I do a double-take to make sure I'm not reading IDio--er--Creationist literature.
Not only do Creationists (of all sorts, from ID proponents to "Creation Scientists") seem to use "Darwinist" as a disparaging term or a term evoking religious awe for a person, but many go on to attribute all the ills of society to those who study evolution--they're Nazis, eugenicists, abortionists, terrorists, &c.
But their biggest problem is that Casey Luskin and the other bozos, er, truth-challenged people seeking to replace scientific teaching with superstition, uh, alternative views, can only be concerned with the name by which their endeavors should be called because they have no substance, no science, no coherent theory to proffer.
Do people from the state of Maine resent being called "Mainiacs"? And if so, have they written any press releases about it?
I'm not a fan of the IDiot construction as a blanket term myself, although sometimes it's warranted.
I usually use IDist, although I'm warming to Paleyist. If they're going to try and label us with an "ism", it's only fair to reciprocate.
Being civil usually gets you places in academic debate. Calling someone an idiot, if the circumstances clearly merit it, may get you the support of supporters, but it's really only going to irk the opposition into a state of agitation instead of submission. The most successful debate results in your opponents scrambling for something to say, almost realizing their own incorrectness, as you calmly proceed onward.
I've argued against many creationists/IDers and realized maintaining civility throughout is the most effective strategy. Don't pretend that science is unfalliable or a religion- it's not, but it is capable of determining when it is wrong and fixing those mistakes. Present realistic examples that everyone can understand- "Where did AIDS come from if things don't evolve?" If you can make your opponents realize they're wrong, you've truly won.
Asking where new diseases come from should help convince the opposition, but I'm betting it won't. They'll just cook up some horseshit theory that cannot be proved or disproved, and then you're worse off than when you started.
These people are lying and they know they're lying.
Think of Ali G or Borat putting people on, but with a twist: this one wants to waste people's time yanking their chain and rattling their cage for no good reason except that it's fun to irritate people who have worked hard to learn real things, unlike himself.
I like that 'Paleyist' construct, PZ. It's accurate and descriptive, and helps to counter the DI attempt to obfuscate that their 'fresh, new' theory is actually 18th century science warmed over & with the serial numbers and 'sell by' date filed off.
I'm a fan of IDolator. It simultaneously emphasizes their religious motives and chastises the bad theology.