A New Weapon Against Freedom and ID: Volksverhetzung
by BradfordPaul Belien authored an article that should be alarming to those of us on both sides of the Atlantic who treasure freedom, particularly freedom of speech. It is noted that holocaust denial (a hideous lie) is the actual reason for the imprisonment of the individual referenced in the captioned quote. The article however, raises a broader issue namely, inhibition of free expression through legal sanctions aimed at particular groups. From the article:
Last week, a German court sentenced a 55-year old Lutheran pastor to one year in jail for "Volksverhetzung" (incitement of the people) because he compared the killing of the unborn in contemporary Germany to the holocaust. Next week, the Council of Europe is going to vote on a resolution imposing Darwinism as Europe's official ideology. The European governments are asked to fight the expression of creationist opinions, such as young earth and intelligent design theories. According to the Council of Europe these theories are "undemocratic" and "a threat to human rights."
Now there's a case study in projection. Take action to curtail the rights of specific groups of people based on the assertion that they threaten democracy. Before Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, Communists and German opponents of Hitler were sent to concentration camps by the millions, a clever propagandist named Josef Goebbels neutered sympathy for them by linking them to threats to the Reich. How did Germany lose WWI? It was stabbed in the back and Juden Angst was on its way. More:
Volksverhetzung is a crime which the Nazis often invoked against their enemies and which contemporary Germany also uses to intimidate homeschoolers. Soon, the German authorities will be able to use the same charge against people who question Darwin's evolution theory.
But of course. Put the weapon to use and merely expand the targets. This is not new to history either.
According to a report of the CoE's Parliamentary Assembly, creationists are dangerous "religious fundamentalists" who propagate "forms of religious extremism" and "could become a threat to human rights." The report adds that the acceptance of the science of evolutionism "is crucial to the future of our societies and our democracies."
Note the demonization. Goebels would be proud. The defense of science mantra is a canard intended to cloak baser instincts.
The article quotes a passage from an official report. Here is a part:
"Today creationist theories are tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting quite a few Council of Europe member states. ["¦] [T]his is liable to encourage the development of all manner of fundamentalism and extremism, synonymous with attacks of utmost virulence on human rights. The total rejection of science is definitely one of the most serious threats to human rights and civic rights. ["¦] The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism which are closely allied to extreme right-wing political movements.
Let's note yet another propaganda ploy. Critics of Darwinism are equated with opposition to evolution and more generally with opposition to science. Sure, the author used the word creationist. Good propagandists do this while fashioning laws that would encompass those who argue for teleology within an evolutionary paradigm. But let me not leave the impression that creationists should be equated with criminals. That should be the lot of authoritarians. More from the article:
In the voting booth people are free to do what they like, whilst in contemporary Europe people are no longer free to publicly voice their own, deeply felt opinions in public.
In Germany, believing abortion to be as murderous as the holocaust is a crime, and educating your own children is a crime too. In France, saying that "homosexual behaviour endangers the survival of humanity" is a crime, and so is the distribution of pork soup to the poor. In Belgium, speaking out against immigration is a crime.
And as viewpoints become increasingly criminalized European democracies will become increasingly marginalized.
June 24th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Hi Bradford,
I have this weakness. I tend to put too much stock in what people actually say. For example, here is what the Europeans actually proposed…
Now you may not like the idea that the EU is equating Intelligent Design with Creationism. There is a simple solution. Disassociate yourself from a movement that is clearly creationism by another name (Do I need to quote from Of Pandas and People again?)
ID Science isn't the ID Movement, but it's probably too late to explain that distinction to Americans much less Europeans.
P.S. From Of Pandas and People, page 99…
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera."
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 24, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
What would satisfactorily constitute "disassociation" from creationism beyond what has already been done (again and again)?
I seem to recall that some posts (don't recall for sure who it was) argued repeatedly that it was necessary not merely to stick to inferring intelligent agency based on evidence, but to also explicitly disavow that the intelligence could be God — as if scientific ID could properly make such a determination.
If that is what "disassociate" means, it becomes quite clear that the real issue is not about whether science can ever legitimately infer intelligent agency. It is about keeping the Divine Foot out of the door.
Comment by eric — June 24, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
It's not simply a matter of equating creation with ID, as inaccurate as that is, and as insidious the motives of those who repeat the meme despite knowing better. First, there should be no need for IDers to take such steps in the first place. Do I ask you to dissasociate your views from materialism or atheism? If I did would you object? Raising the issue of dissasociation itself is an attempt by some to make a statement through the back door.
Your quote does not address a disturbing tendency, in Germany and elsewhere in Europe, to tack statutes intended to intimidate free expression, onto what amount to legal creeds or expressions of policy. Who gets to determine what constitutes strengthening the teaching of the foundations of science, its history, its epistemology and its methods alongside the teaching of objective scientific knowledge? If it has not already occurred to you some of these matters are not at all self-evident. In addition I have little faith in the attachment of continental Europeans to the idea that freedom of expression is a paramount value; not to be trifled with because you do not like another's point of view.
Comment by Bradford — June 24, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
What I really wonder is whether Darwinists realize how damaging this is to the cause of Darwinism. The NeoDarwinist position is becoming characterized by strong arm tactics aimed at silencing dissent.
Looking through the list of proposed points, how many believe the implementation of this proposal would allow for serious examination of scientific weaknesses or problems with NeoDarwinism within a science classroom?
When a view can only "win" by excluding every difficult question from consideration, that is not the scientific method.
Nor will it succeed in its objective. It is self-defeating to pursue
in a context that forbids questioning the dogma.
Cannot evolutionists realize that this only serves to fuel the impression that the grand scheme of Darwinism is a dogma propped up by the authority of the majority position that is in charge? Even if you have no doubts that the grand scheme is wholly true on its own merits, strong arm tactics will fuel suspicion rather than persuasion. Is this the outcome that you really want?
I obviously didn't know about this thread yesterday, but it speaks directly to my dismay that more evolutionists do not seem to recognize the value of the kind of productive communication that has far more potential to be truly persuasive.
Post here
Comment by eric — June 24, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
To be precise we should note that cosmologists and physicists are not demanding that courts and legislative bodies enact policy proclamations and legal edicts to protect the concept of long ages from YECs. They have enough confidence not to have to go there. The push for governmental involvement and penal actions comes primariliy from the biological realm and a highly motivated ideological fringe within it.
Comment by Bradford — June 24, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Hi Eric and Bradford,
As I suspect you are aware, I am talking about disassociating yourselves from the MOVEMENT, not the science. The movement that claims "…Of Pandas and People is an excellent educational resource covering a topic appropriate for inquiry and discussion."link
The movement that explained in its Wedge document that…
link
…and…
And even though it advised Dover against it, the movement had five objectives that included….
Like I said. I have a weakness that I give too much importance to what is said, especially in position papers. In case you might suggest this is old news, Salvador Cordova has recently and often indicated that he sees nothing wrong with assuming the Wedge Document describes ID Movement's goals and objectives.
But that is politics, not science. And while I would rather focus on the science, political labels are important. So we let's change them, Ok?
Eric, why do you call your model Intelligent Design? It is obvious that you are not using the standard "ability to learn" definition. Wouldn't something like…
"A hypothesis for information origin and propagation" be more appropriate and more scientific sounding?
And Bradford, how does "A study of the difficulties for origins of life" sound?
I would have suggested "A hypothesis for the holistic view of life on earth" if you had such a hypothesis.
BTW, Eric might have missed my "Hypothesis of retrocausality through quantum effects". It neither supports nor rejects the possibility of a personal God running things.
I would have no problem disassociating my hypothesis from both materialism and atheism. Even though I am a self-described atheist.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 24, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Bradford wrote….
While you will undoubtedly disagree, Evolutionary Biologists are in a much stronger position than the Cosmologists and Physicists.
Penrose Orch OR is the best model they have and there isn't a scientific consensus. What should the cosmologists and physicists insist upon? I am not even sure they are positive on the age of the universe yet. New data keeps coming in.
Of course if our fundamental understanding of quantum mechanics changes, EVERYBODY will have to deal with a paradigm shift. Including Evolutionary Biologists.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 24, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
eric:
What you call strong arm tactics are in fact necessary defensive measures. For instance, in EU-member Poland members of the government have called for abolishing the teaching of evolution from science classes. Because they think they know the Truth as revealed in the Bible. And it's not just in Poland. Even in the Netherlands members of government (currently a coalition of Christian Democrats, Social Democrats and a literally theocratic party of YEC's) there have been demands to teach ID in science classes. That's why EU-wide regulations are necessary. We can't allow creationists to remove biology's unifying theory (according to the vast majority of scientists) from the curriculum. Perhaps I don't agree with the specific manner in which the EU has formulated their new regulations (for example, maybe too much emphasis on natural selection), but it is certainly justified in my opinion. You seem to see it as an offensive act, but it really is a defensive measure.
Comment by Raevmo — June 24, 2007 @ 6:25 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
You obviously know nothing about how that went here in Holland. *One* member of the Christian Democrats suggested in 2005 that perhaps ID should be a topic of debate. There was never any mention of intent of teaching "ID in science classes", as the intent to even debate the topic was quickly shot down.
But based on a mere suggestion by a single person Raevmo concludes that "EU-wide regulations are necessary"! Are you being silly or just plain stupid?
Comment by Jean — June 24, 2007 @ 7:35 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Jean:
I mentioned not just the "mere suggestion" by that one person (the minister of education by the way), but also members of the Polish government. Are you blind or do you always quote-mine like that? Are you denying that some powerful European politicians are trying to discourage the teaching of evolution and to encourage the teaching of creationism?
Comment by Raevmo — June 24, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Raevmo:
Last time I checked "Europe' consisted of a lot more than just Poland.
Your misrepresentation of the Dutch 'incident' is either wreckless, or deliberate. Perhaps you're just plain paranoid. Would you mind posting an objective source for your Polish story so we can all check the facts? Even so, the conclusion you draw from single incidents borders on paranoia.
There seems to be very little evidence that "powerful European politicians" are "trying to discourage the teaching of evolution and to encourage the teaching of creationism" by any fair standards.
Apparently Raevmo truly believes Europe is on the brink of turning into a theocracy, given the measures he thinks are justified. How deluded!
Comment by Jean — June 24, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
"Too much importance to what is said" Except that, taking for example your quotation regarding Of Pandas and People, it includes a period where none exists in the original. The actual "what is said" didn't stop there. You also conveniently left off a key word in your leading "…". Full version of what was said:
Now if an ID advocate had intentionally snipped out just part of a qualifying phrase of an evolutionary quote, adding a closing period and omitting the main part of the sentence, thereby changing it, what would evolutionists call that?
Tell me, why didn't it serve your purpose for full disclosure of "what is said" to include the full quote and to accurately represent their position?
Regarding my question about what you consider to be sufficient to "dissociate", your answer appears to be to change some labels. And yet to what effect?
Yes, I do mean intelligent designer. Yes, that is using "intelligent" correctly and appropriately. No, proper use of dictionaries does not mean attaching every possible meaning of a word to every use of the word. That is why they have multiple definitions, not just the one you prefer to be preoccupied with. Give it up. That is abuse of a dictionary.
Comment by eric — June 24, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
I hope you don't mean that evidence for the evolution of life is stronger than that for the speed of light and distances of the universe.
Comment by Bradford — June 24, 2007 @ 8:54 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Contrary to impressions given in some portrayals, the Discovery Institute would agree with that same statement. In fact, their position is for greater coverage of Darwinism, including both strengths and scientifically based weaknesses.
I believe that a very wide consensus could be established that it should be included and taught fully, with appropriate scrutiny and objectivity. Why do Darwinists oppose that?
Even supposing policies to forbid teaching creationism in science classes, that does not logically entail excluding critical examination of the strengths and weaknesses of the grand scheme of NeoDarwinism, i.e. teaching it as a scientific position rather than as a dogma that may not be questioned in science class.
Consider this thought experiment. Suppose that the Wizard of Oz is real and genuinely so. Suppose that during a visit someone notices a man behind a curtain busily working controls. Which of the following would most fuel doubt about the reality of the Wizard of Oz? Which would dispel doubt?
A. The Wizard booms "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. Questions are forbidden."
B. Wizard responds, "Oh, so you are wondering about this man behind the curtain. Let's take a look. I'd like you to meet the janitor. These are his controls for the air conditioning (or it would be beastly hot in here)." Etc.
The science classroom is exactly the place where doubts about the Grand Scheme of Darwinism need to be aired and examined, giving full opportunity for the real questions to be raised, not merely straw man caricatures. They are scientific questions that need to be examined scientifically.
This means (as is true for all legitimate science) that the Grand Scheme of Darwinism needs to be allowed to be vulnerable. Sheltering it from publicly accessible inquiry only heightens the sense that it has problems that would not stand up to scrutiny.
Comment by eric — June 24, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Hi Eric,
Yes, I made a mistake. If should have read "…Of Pandas and People is an excellent educational resource covering a topic appropriate for inquiry and discussion…"
It was unintentional, I had to rush out with the family for dinner and didn't recheck it well enough.
I had included the phrase "And even though it advised Dover against it…" later.
My intent was to show the Discovery Institute considered Of Pandas and People "…an excellent educational resource…".
I brought in the part where they advised Dover against it later. I didn't hide the knowledge. In fact, I took the time to include the link that enabled you to make this Red Herring point.
The point would be for you to dissociate your rational science from a sham of a political movement.
Then people will make the reasonable presumption that you are talking about the primary definition, where intelligence means the human-like ability to learn. Those people will also logically conclude you are talking about the supernatural being who made us in his likeness and image.
Take your own advice and "Give it up."
If you use the label "Intelligent Design" then…
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera."
Of Pandas and People, Page 99.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 24, 2007 @ 9:02 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Hi TP. If a movement characterizes ID than a much stronger movement is descriptive of Darwinism. The Wedge Document parallels are not things like natural selection and mutations but rather the associated social goals that accompany Darwinism and are best represented by the EA spokespersons like PZ and Dawkins and their child abuse memes as well as by the European bureaucrats who fashion laws and regulations aimed at stifling opposition. The Darwinian counterpart of the Wedge is stronger politically and more institutionalized.
Besides what is wrong with this goal?
* To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
An opponent of ID would not push for it but the goal is consistent with promoting ID as opposed to a social agenda sideshow.
Comment by Bradford — June 24, 2007 @ 9:06 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
TP, that is a much too restrictive definition of intelligence. Most dictionaries go beyond the ability to learn idea and do not restrict intelligence to humans. Saying that chimps have a level of intelligence is accurate.
Comment by Bradford — June 24, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
You're right Jean. When people take issues out of perspective there is likely to be a political agenda behind it. The EU does not need to take measures to safeguard either evolution or science and we certainly do not need to send people to jail for the statements they make.
Comment by Bradford — June 24, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
You do know about the argument that the speed of light is changing, right?
And distances in the universe whose shape we don't know is very much in question.
Nice cherry pick. But what is the "design theory" Let's check the definitions in the Wedge Document again…"We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
A "design theory" only needs to be an alternative to materialistic scientific theories and consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. Anything that matches these requirements will do.
Therefore, YEC is a "design theory".
In fact, it is practically the only design theory I know of that even attempts to provide a model. I suggest that is why the engineer, Salvador Cordova is a young earth creationist. At least he is honest about it. he fully embraces the Wedge Document and provides a model.
So to paraphrase your question…
What's wrong with a presumption that ID's goals are the same as creationism's goals?
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 24, 2007 @ 9:36 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
Chimps have a level of human intelligence because they can show that they learn.
Look, this isn't that hard.
If you mean consciousness then say "consciousness".
If you mean purposeful then say "purposeful". (or teleological).
If you mean information processing then say "processor". (or computer).
If you mean God then say "Intelligent Designer"
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 24, 2007 @ 9:42 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
"I suggest that is why the engineer, Salvador Cordova is a young earth creationist"
I'm pretty sure he's on the fence about it and is only an YEC because of Walter Brown.
Comment by Ben Z — June 24, 2007 @ 9:45 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Further, William Dembski says one who brings up the Wedge Document is "out of touch and behind the times" -http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/jason-miller-discovers-the-w edge-document-can-you-say-out-of-touch-and-behind-the-times/
Comment by Ben Z — June 24, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Hi Ben Z,
You wrote…
lol
Your fence sitter has a new blog called Young Cosmos here are the catagories…
Dating Techniques (2)
Theology (1)
Big Bang (5)
Speed of Light (7)
News (5)
Introductory Creation Science (4)
Advanced Creation Science (8)
Commentary (2)
Intelligent Design (2)
The Great Flood (2)
I applaud Salvador's honesty and ethics (when he is not quote-mining horribly)
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 24, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Yeah…I um, already knew about the blog, and he made a comment about being on the fence far after the blog was created (which he created after that British physicist who is a Christian and comes here sometimes challenged some of Brown's ideas).
Comment by Ben Z — June 24, 2007 @ 9:53 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
I hope you don't mean that evidence for the evolution of life is stronger than that for the speed of light and distances of the universe.
Seriously TP, a physicist has a much easier time documenting evidence for both lightspeed and its constancy within a small range than does a biologist who must defend OOL and account for the evolution of systems like the pentose phosphate pathway or mismatch and base excision repair pathways or the genetic code or the evolution of mechanisms designed to react to positive supercoils that result from the separation of the DNA double helix. I sometimes read statements like the evidence for evolution is as strong as the evidence for natural laws of physics but when is the last time you read of a physicist claiming that laws of physics were as strong as evolutionary theory?
Uncertain yes, but to a degree that is consistent with a YEC model?
It is wrong for starts. The Wedge document does not represent ID goals. As a matter of fact you would be hard pressed to define them objectively. What are Mike Gene's societal goals? Can you define them? How about Krauze or macht? Joy and Bilbo's views are more publicized but are they consistent with many of the commenters on this blog who have ID sympathies. Yes and no. There is a divergence of views at TT and beyond. The same holds true at UD. Some prominent IDists are not even theists. The idea that there is such a thing as ID goals is a misconception.
Comment by Bradford — June 24, 2007 @ 9:58 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
TP, you and others really need to understand this and it is not hard. If a position is empirically based then what you mean must be consistent with empirical results. ID critics dumb themselves down whenever they get to this fork in the road.
Comment by Bradford — June 24, 2007 @ 10:03 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Perhaps a good way to see what Bradford is saying is to take a look at the fellows of the DI (it seems Philip Johnson is a "Program Advisor").
There's Paul Nelson on there, who I hear is a YEC. Then there's Henry Schaefer, who's an OEC who presents a totally different model than most OEC in his book Science and Christianity:Conflict or Coherence?. Then there's Berlinski who's an agonostic.
Comment by Ben Z — June 24, 2007 @ 10:04 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Yes! Rebel. All you have to lose is your chains.
"Intelligent Design" is a pure marketing label. It doesn't define you. You are not constrained by it. You don't need to defend it.
Think for yourself. Let's do SCIENCE!
Like me?
(Ok, I'm not "prominent", yet)
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 24, 2007 @ 10:04 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Exactly Ben and you have not even touched on their (which includes IDists outside thhe DI) differing social views which is the purported objection to the Wedge Document. There is simply no such thing as an ID movement.
Comment by Bradford — June 24, 2007 @ 10:09 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
TP:
Um… while I'd be among the first to admit physics is in full-fledged Unitary Crisis right now, I wouldn't count on this one if I were you. What shows some evidence (debatable) of having changed since ~13 billion years ago is the alpha constant. c is just one of the three components of alpha. Some astrophysicists have jumped on c as the culprit because the implications of the other constants [e and h] changing are too dire to contemplate.
But that doesn't mean it's c that's changed. And there's NO evidence it's "changing" now.
Comment by Joy — June 24, 2007 @ 10:20 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote
Then there is nothing to explain or defend, other than our own scientific hypotheses.
I have explained quite a bit of mine (I am still working on it) Did you have some questions on it or did you have something you would like to propose?
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 24, 2007 @ 10:21 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Hi Ben Z,
You wrote…
A lot of responses went through my head on this one. The polite one was…
Of course he does.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 24, 2007 @ 10:26 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Hi Joy,
You wrote…
Yea, you caught me. I don't really buy the changing speed of light thing, but Dr. Jellison and Setterfield sound so sincere on the Young Cosmos blog.
But who am I to summarily dismiss an argument I think is religious based?
P.S. Salvador should be paying me for this advertising I am doing for his blog.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 24, 2007 @ 10:31 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
I followed the thread with interest. Some of the criticism directed at your idea came from sources that generally disagree with me. Have you attempted to e-mail those involved in formulating the theories on which you base your views? I have found that researchers are generally more than eager to discuss their work with others- even relatively anonymous readers. How good would it be if we could get some original researchers to publish a blog entry at TT once in a while?
Comment by Bradford — June 24, 2007 @ 10:31 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Hi Bradford,
I keep telling you to look at coy quiet Joy over there.
I am just an arrogant loud mouth. She actually understands this stuff.
Do you think she was just kidding when she said she took a class taught by Penrose?
That "Professional Fool" has a clearance she can't talk about (or at least had one). I suspect this because I may or may not have had a clearance I can't talk about and possibility know how the military treats people with her kind of knowledge.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 24, 2007 @ 10:40 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Hi Jean,
Raevmo may have the theocracy part correct, but may be all wrong about whose theocracy it will be.
Moral equivalence should be his next scripted response.
Comment by angryoldfatman — June 24, 2007 @ 11:32 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 5:58 am
TP wrote:
Knowing Salvador, he will probably quote-mine that, leaving off the parenthetical phrase and claiming that his honesty is respected by those on "the other side."
Comment by keiths — June 25, 2007 @ 5:58 am
June 25th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Perhaps those commenting on this post - from both side - should take the trouble to educate themselves as to what the Council of Europe actually is. It is not an organ of the EU:
It cannot "tack statutes intended to intimidate free expression, onto what amount to legal creeds or expressions of policy."
Its aims are:
As for eric's scientific weaknesses or problems with NeoDarwinism; so far as I am aware there is nothing in the CoE proposed resolution that would interfere with their examination in the science classroom, to the extent appropriate for the treatment of science being taught to school-age children. I am assuming that he is not referring to the rap (with a capital c) peddled by the cdesign proponentsists in books like Of Pandas and People.
Personally, FWIW, the report contained rather too much overblown rhetoric for my taste, and too little citation of supporting evidence otuside of a very narrow selection of French authors with whom the rapporteur was apparently friendly. On the other hand, (i) the attempt to dumb down education represented by calls for creationism in whatever guise to be taught in science classrooms as valid explanations of biological diversity is a threat to the child's human right to education - guaranteed within the Council's member states by Article 2 of the Protocol to the ECHR - and the primacy given by such pressure to the dictates of sectarian religious conviction is dangerous; and (ii) it is clear that creationist advocates do have links with theocratic movements. Ahmanson's links with the DI are not the only example. It is however a pity that the rapporteur didn't do a proper job of setting out those links.
Comment by Robin Levett — June 25, 2007 @ 10:07 am
June 25th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Robin Levett:
The complete sentence from which you derived that quote was:
The tack on statutes are the ones already in existence in countries like Germany. They are vague and can be misued to stifle dissenting viewpoints.
Comment by Bradford — June 25, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Hi, Thought Provoker,
Do you have a link or a source for this? I have some skepticism about the speed of light myself. Namely the assumption that it is constant everywhere in the universe. It makes no sense to me that stars of radically different masses and ages all radiate their energy at the same speed. Perhaps your source for the specific argument you are referring to can act as a springboard to my question about the universal constancy of the speed of light.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — June 25, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
I have to say this is a very threaty article. Comparing abortion to the holocaust has lead directly to the murder of abortion doctors whose murderers some celebrate as heroes. I would guess the coming atheocracy is about as likely in Europe as the coming theocracy is in the U.S.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 25, 2007 @ 4:15 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Bradford
You didn't quote the sentence following your quote above which showed that your words were apparently intended to address the CoE's involvement. The complete relevant quote was:
the emboldened words being drawn from paragraph 18.2 from the CoE report.
Perhaps you could produce some support for the notion that there is a tendency in Europe "to tack statutes intended to intimidate free expression, onto what amount to legal creeds or expressions of policy", outside the specific areas of holocaust denial and hate-speech. Even on the holocaust issue, by the way, I am uneasy about the restriction on free speech - but I haven't lived in a country that within living memory has voted in a government that subsequently slaughtered many millions of its citizens and those of other countries. I am less uneasy about prohibitions of hate-speech, but feel that generally they are justified insofar as they are directed ultimately at preventing inter-racial violence.
Then perhaps you could address the rest of my post?
Comment by Robin Levett — June 25, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Hi AnaxagorasRules,
You wrote…
I was going to politely ignore this, but I felt ethically bound to correct a possible misconception I might have contributed to.
There is no question that the speed of light is constant at a given point in time. This constant is fundamental to the nature of things. E = MC^2 is reality. Allowing the possibility that the constant "C" isn't universal would mean all bets are off.
It would be like trying to do math with an assumption that 1 + 1 = 3 in France but in America 1 + 1 = 4.
Questioning whether or not the speed of light changes over time is something that serious Young Earth Creationists must do in order to explain known science. Ergo, Young Earth Creationists argue the universal speed of light has changed over time.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 25, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
This is the tack-on part.
And this is another sentence bringing up another issue namely, the fact that the following are far from self-evident and would need to be determined by a group of bureaucrats, judges etc.; something not to my liking given my leanings toward freedom of expression, investigation and more.
There were examples in the linked article and if all fall within the two categories mentioned that is enough for me to go on. I abhor the arrogance implicit in those who appoint themselves as arbiters as to what others should be allowed to say.
Germany comes very close to this. The weaknesses of the democratic Weimar government allowed Hitler access to power. While it is true he did not get a majority of the vote he had a signficant minority; enough to grab the reins of power with the help of an aging Hindenburg and some unsavory methods. I do not wish to encourage those with authoritarian streaks in their make-up. I believe it just emboldens them.
I disagree. The best way to prevent violence is through establishing a just system of government coupled with effective but fair law enforcement. When I see others willing to compromise freedom I tend to think they believe they will not be victimized by future freedom usurpers. If so their confidence is misplaced. Ideologies come and go with the ebb and tide of history and banking on your boys to stay in control is bad judgement.
Comment by Bradford — June 25, 2007 @ 6:33 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
So your point is we should trample on the Bill of Rights because of some nuts?
Comment by Bradford — June 25, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Aagcobb:
The home page of your link did not mention anything about the holocaust. Where is the evidence supporting your assertion?
Comment by Bradford — June 25, 2007 @ 7:03 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Hi Bradford,
You asked…
Did you notice the Supreme Court did a little trampling of its own on the Bill of Rights today?
They made is more difficult for citizens to hold the executive branch accountable for violations.
It seems the president can blantantly discriminate against a minority group by executive order and get away with it.
So why isn't there a TT post on that today?
Could it have something to do with the fact that the minority group whose rights were violated happened to be atheists?
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 25, 2007 @ 8:30 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
No. Honestly, I'm not familiar with what you are referring to. Why don't you link to a story in your next comment?
Comment by Bradford — June 25, 2007 @ 9:02 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
TP - do you have a link? I hadn't heard of this.
Comment by Joy — June 25, 2007 @ 9:06 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Hi, Thought Provoker,
About a year ago, I posed the question of the universal constancy of the speed of light at a math site that I hang out at, which also has a strong contigent of physicists, and the answers I got were generally of the nature that the universality of the constant must be assumed or cosmology could not be pursued. In order to test the assumption, we would have to travel to another solar system and measure that system's speed of light, which at this time is not possible. As far as I'm concerned, this assumption is as shaky as Euclid's fifth postulate, though it might be another milenium before we can know one way or another, through testing. My skepticism is wholly based on F = MA and my belief that light is really not massless.
I was just wondering what link or source you had for that statement about the argument of the speed of light changing. THAT, specifically, I have no problem with. A few years ago, I read about various constants gradually changing over time, and that makes sense to me. What I'm interested in is springboarding to the universal constancy of the speed of light, and I thought you might have been referring to a specific website or a book that would have allowed me to do that.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — June 25, 2007 @ 10:22 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Hi all,
link
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 25, 2007 @ 10:24 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
That is good, so far as it goes, but I didn't necessarily expect the exclusion to be explicit. It does not need to be.
If the U.S. is any indication, Darwinisits have routinely portrayed attempts to critique NeoDarwinism in the classroom as being the presentation of creationism and/or ID. It does not even matter if the actual proposed policy explicitly states that it is not proposing the teaching of ID or creationism. Facts don't matter. The propaganda mill still repeats endlessly the fiction that the proposal was to teach ID or to teach creationism. There have been posts on this very blog in the not distant past that still rehearse that fiction.
True blue Darwinists fret over the fact that the vast majority of the population in America (80-90%) doesn't agree to drink their kool aid and accept the unadulterated story. There is a credibility problem. A similar desire to woo and educate the backward masses is expressed in the policy discussed here.
Yet mistrust has no chance of ever being dispelled if Darwinists fight against public scrutiny of their doctrines at every turn. That only fuels the fire they wish to extinguish. However, the only possibly effective remedy requires having sufficient courage of one's convictions to allow Darwinism to be vulnerable, as any legitimate science needs to be to remain healthy.
Regarding your question on whether I was referring to material such as "Of Pandas and People", it is too bad that it did not fit with Thought Provoker's agenda to make the actual position of the DI fully clear. Nevertheless, though they do endorse a full treatment of Darwinism, examining strengths and weaknesses, they do not endorse inclusion of OPaP in the public school science curriculum. The article was quite clear about that point.
Comment by eric — June 25, 2007 @ 10:28 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
TP:
Huh. Thanks for that link. My question: Since the Vice President claimed this week that he's not part of the executive branch because he's part of the legislative branch, couldn't the taxpayers sue HIM?
Comment by Joy — June 25, 2007 @ 11:52 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Hi Bradford,
No, my point is that it is threaty to assume that creationism will be illegalized in the EU because a German court convicted a man for comparing abortion to the holocaust. We have much more stringent protection of free speech here in the U.S.; you would have to actually tell someone to go kill an abortion doctor to commit a crime here.
I placed the link to show that some people celebrate murderers as heroes for murdering abortion doctors. I have no evidence that comparing abortion to the holocaust led to any of the abortion doctor murders; but I have no doubt that the murderers were inspired by that kind of extreme rhetoric to believe that murdering abortion doctors is ok.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 26, 2007 @ 9:28 am
June 26th, 2007 at 9:47 am
Hi Eric,
Facts do matter. Such as the fact that the ID promoted by the DI is nothing but recycled creationist arguments against evolution, so when you teach these criticisms, you are teaching everything that ID has to offer. The fact that all of these recycled creationist critiques have been debunked for decades also matters. Evolutionary theory is heavily scrutinized by scientists, who will savagely attack any real weakness in a particular evolutionary hypothesis. What you want is creationist propoganda taught to children as valid criticisms, since they don't have the knowledge base to recognize snake oil when they see it. If the IDists and creationists were right that evolutionary theory is just an atheistic plot, all they would have to do is get Ahmanson to fund research instead of propoganda, and an ID based biotech company would blow research based on evolutionary theory out of the water and make billions of dollars for its investors. What we see in reality is thousands of published articles in science journals every year based on and supporting evolutionary theory, while all the DI produces is press releases, and IDists crank out hack books like The Edge of Evolution. In passing, exactly what does it tell us about the ID that he carefully crafted the malaria parasite to kill millions of little children?
Comment by Aagcobb — June 26, 2007 @ 9:47 am
June 26th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Bradford
You rely for your examples of creeping restrictions upon free speech upon the accuracy of the linked article by Paul Belien. He said, for example:
I don't read German without liberal use of a dictionary; but Gerard Harbison has translated the Lutheran pastor's web pages, which show that he is indeed in straight Holocaust denial. Belien's links are to German articles which don't support the claim he makes above.
Belien also attacks what he describes as use of a Nazi law to outlaw home-schooling:
He links to an article also on the Brussels Journal site which explicitly claims that:
Now the relevant law referred to in the judgment linked to by the latter argument, dates from 1964. It is true that Nazi Germany also had compulsory attendance at primary schools; it also had laws against murder, but I don't see anyone complaining that murderers are convicted "under Nazi laws".
Again, the conviction was not for homeschooling; it was for refusal to send the child to a (not necessarily state) school. The convention on human rights, with which the relevant law was held compatible, preserves the parent's right to educate the child, but the State's constitutional obligation to provide an education, implementing the child's right to an education, was on an equal footing.
Given the distortions of Belien's articles on those points, I am far from prepared to accept his accuracy and objectivity on the other examples raised.
Comment by Robin Levett — June 26, 2007 @ 9:51 am
June 26th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Aagcobb:
Perhaps our protections are better but they are under attack by activists who wish to outlaw speech that threatens their social agenda.
Comment by Bradford — June 26, 2007 @ 11:23 am
June 26th, 2007 at 11:33 am
AnaxagorasRules wrote:
Hi AnaxagorasRules. I found this:
Comment by stunney — June 26, 2007 @ 11:33 am
June 26th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Hi Bradford,
The Bill of Rights is always under attack (remember the Aliens and Sedition Act?); thats why we need the ACLU. It is, however, very threaty to suggest that expressing support for creationism is in danger of being criminalized in the U.S.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 26, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Hi, stunney,
Thanks for that link. There are quite a few references listed, so the page is worth a bookmark.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — June 26, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
eric
So which "scientific weaknesses or problems with NeoDarwinism" have been excluded from the classroom?
Comment by Robin Levett — June 26, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Yes they do, and vivid examples serve well for illustrating a point. Thanks for coming to my aid and providing the example of your post.
Would I be correct in inferring that you would be against measures such as those that have been put forward in Ohio, Kansas, and elsewhere to include critical examination of the weaknesses as well as the strengths of Darwinism in public science education?
Either way, from what you say I'm wondering, in your opinion would you consider it justified or not justified to publicly portray the presentation of criticisms and weaknesses of Darwinism as the teaching of creationism or the teaching of intelligent design?
Yes, this is true, but it hurts your point rather than helps it. What Darwinists usually try to say is "Controversy?! There are no controversies! Weaknesses?! There are no weaknesses!"
Please tell us, are you willing to let some of this scrutiny of scientific positions by scientists become visible in the context of public school students learning about real science and the true strengths and weaknesses of Darwinism?
Do you have a legitimate objection to allowing students to see and understand why some scientists argue that such-and-such is a weak point, while placing this alongside what other scientists will argue to defend the same point?
Finally, I wonder if you have thought through your obvious concern about letting those old, debunked ideas and questions into the science classroom. Please consider again what I said earlier.
So, which option do you consider wisest, if you really want to dispel the idea that Darwinists are protecting an atheist dogma against real scrutiny? Do you want the questions brought in to be examined, or left outside the science classroom to find answers from other sources (e.g. maybe from reading The Edge of Evolution)?
Unless and until Darwinists have the courage to let questions be dealt with in a sincere manner, the most publicly visible evidence against Darwinism is the behavior of the Darwinists who act as though they don't seem to believe Darwinism would really hold up.
Comment by eric — June 26, 2007 @ 10:53 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
There is a noticeable difference in degree of focus between the two camps. At one end, the Bible is held up as authorotative and thus immune from any possible falsification. Doctrine, doctrine, doctrine is a major focus. Though I do uphold and sympathize with the aims of my brothers and sisters, I don't think arguments for special creation are really made more believeable by repeated appeals to "Thus saith the Lord', but that is part and parcel to a lot of YECism.
The ID community, and even the quasi-YECs like me in the movement, have a different manner of operation, and we are somewhat given the cold shoulder. Many YECs refused to visit a rather huge Christian Apologetics conference in McLean Virginia in 2006 because of the presence of Old-Earth ID proponents like Michael Behe. You may not notice the difference between the two camps, but I certainly do.
In the YEC community, even expressing reservation or thinking Old Earth may have good arguments can get you labeled as someone in league with Lucifer. Look at how Ken Ham argues his case for creationism: Creation: "where's the proof". Contrast with what goes on at TT and UD and Discovery Institute, versus Ken Ham and Dr. Dino, and I hope you'll see a difference.
The conclusions may be similar, but I think the ID proponents have much more logical and circumpect approach to reality. Frankly, I think we're much nicer and pleasant people to be around.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 26, 2007 @ 11:13 pm
June 27th, 2007 at 12:12 am
Hi Salvador,
Do you know why I like Jehovah's Witnesses?
They at least try to be true to their own convictions, even the extreme ones. But, then again, I grew up as a Christian Scientist.
I hope this explains why the differences I see between Ken Ham and William Dembski aren't what you might have expected.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 27, 2007 @ 12:12 am
June 28th, 2007 at 5:23 am
TP
Frankly, I don't belirve you. No one could miss the full context in the manner which you did unless they did not have access to the full content. I suspect you relied upon a quote-mined source and got caught in the act amd rather than admit that fact and reveal the true source of your quote you've decided it's better that you "take the fall" yourself as a failure to read the full sentence due to a pressing family engagement. Laughable. Shameful. That's two strikes against you TP, and yes, three strikes and you're out. Them's the rules of the game.
1st strike: TP claims to want to "do science" when what TP really means is "we can do philosophy as long as it's your philosophy that I (TP) get to criticise while my own philosophy is protected from scrutiny."
False: You have to defend your philosophy, even if we narrowly define that as your philosophy of "doing science."
You see TP, you just can't escape from philosophy, even in the name of "doing science." What is the point of doing science, lacking any philosophy?
Answer that, and we can start over.
Like you dissociate your "rational" science from your philosophy TP?
Frankly, at this point, you disgust me. In what sense, in your twisted "let's do science" world (which you seem to have conveniently abandoned here) is Intelligent Design "a political movement"
And here I thought it was a political movement seeking to establish a world-wide theocracy =P. Silly me.
Yeah, let's.
Let's do LOGIC 101.
Comment by Mung — June 28, 2007 @ 5:23 am
June 28th, 2007 at 5:43 am
TP:
Sigh. So what?
Here is how you reason:
Sal has a blog which discusses topics relevant to a theory of a young earth.
Therefore, Sal is a died in the wool young earth creationist.
Let's do LOGIC 101!
Comment by Mung — June 28, 2007 @ 5:43 am
June 28th, 2007 at 6:14 am
Robin Levett
Deciphering this:
The Lutheran pastor's web pages have been translated from German into English by Gerard Harbison.
These translated pages show that he [the Lutheran pastor] is in straight Holocaust denial.
Really? That's not what I have gathered.
How do you, Robin Levett, determine whether a person is in "straight Holocaust denial?"
Do you, Robin Levett, believe that "Holocaust denial" (however you define it) should be legislated into a crime?
Do you, Robin Levett, believe that "Holocaust denial" (however the German legislature has defined it) should have been legislated into a crime?
Do you, Robin Levett, believe that this Lutheran pastor SHOULD HAVE BEEN (and thus was rightly) convicted of "Holocaust denial" under German law?
Comment by Mung — June 28, 2007 @ 6:14 am
June 28th, 2007 at 8:09 am
Raevmo, I moved your comment to the hole because of the gratuitous personal insult in it. You are free to repost the information but leave the other stuff out.
Comment by Bradford — June 28, 2007 @ 8:09 am
June 28th, 2007 at 8:40 am
Mung
Belien's article claimed that:
The whole point of Belien's article was that European governments and other agencies were, as well as creating new laws, twisting existing laws to punish unwelcome speech. The Lutheran pastor, on this theory, was not actually a holocaust denier, but his attacks on abortion were twisted to fit the template of holocaust denial.
Unfortuntaely for Belien, that just wasn't true, and at least one wesbite that had run with the claim, Lifesite, has now retracted its article:
As to what I consider to be holocaust denial - perhaps the following quotes (translated by Harbison) from the website for which he was in fact convicted will give you an idea:
…and…
…and…
I have already stated my attitude towards the legislation making holocaust denial a crime - I am uneasy about it but I don't live in the country; but, given that it is a crime, his conviction is unexceptionable.
I notice that Bradford has shifted Raevmo's post with similar information to the above into the Memory Hole. Even though he obviously read that post, I don't notice Bradford retracting, or even amending the post above. Why not, Bradford?
Comment by Robin Levett — June 28, 2007 @ 8:40 am
June 28th, 2007 at 9:27 am
The theme of the post stands apart from the accuracy of the report related to one holocaust denier. Holocaust denial is a hideous lie. Tolerating hideous and hateful speech is the price of freedom. The best way to counter a lie is with the truth. You have stated your unease with the holocaust law. Why are you not equally uneasy with laws intended to inhibit speech for other reasons? How is intentional murder not inherently hateful (regardless of the identity of the victim)? How are insults not inherently hurtful. Why are extra-legal sanctions added only when the victims are of different races or homosexuals? I know the excuses but where is the evidence that such measures are necessary to preserve freedom?
Comment by Bradford — June 28, 2007 @ 9:27 am
June 28th, 2007 at 9:50 am
What democracies? Is the Council of Europe a democratic body? Does it answer to the will of the people? Which people? Europeans? What's that?
So what????????????????????????