Barbara Forrest Speaks Out
by MikeGeneSome of you have yet to grasp just how dangerous ID is. Barbara Forrest will set you straight:
More is at stake in the ID issue than science education, though that's important enough by itself. ID creationists must not be viewed in a vacuum. The insidious feature of ID is not only its attack on public education, but the fact that ID creationism is another column in the Religious Right's decades-old attack on secular, constitutional democracy. And ID proponents are plugged into the conservative political and Religious Right power structure. As most people now know, their supporters include the president of the United States. They also include U.S. senators (Rick Santorum, Bill Frist, John McCain, Judd Gregg, and Sam Brownback) and congressmen (e.g., House Majority Leader John Boehner). Three state governors, Ernie Fletcher of Kentucky, Mark Sanford of South Carolina, and Rick Perry of Texas, have announced their support for teaching ID in public school science classes. The Discovery Institute creationists are the most politically well-connected creationists with whom we have had to deal. This is what makes ID a significant and dangerous phase in the history of American creationism. Their attack on evolution symbolizes their contempt for public education, modern science, and ultimately the Enlightenment ideals on which American constitutional democracy is based. The Wedge Document clearly shows that ID creationists want to overthrow secular culture and public policy, to which the only alternative is some type of theocracy.
According to Forrest, if you are a proponent of ID, that makes you a creationist, which makes you part of a column in the Religious Right, which makes you an enemy of public education, modern science, and ultimately the Enlightenment ideals, which means you are opposed to American constitutional democracy, which means you want to set up some type of theocracy.
Of course, only you, dear reader, really know whether it is true that you are part of a column in the Religious Right that opposes public education, modern science, and ultimately the Enlightenment ideals, because you want to replace our American constitutional democracy with some type of theocracy. If you do, then Forrest has your number.
If you don't, well, just think about the fact that Forrest is considered the premier expert on the ID crowd.
March 12th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I think our constitutional democracy is at least somewhat amenable to ideas like representative government and the free exchange of ideas. It was an elected representative governmental body against which she testified last fall. It is an idea being freely promoted that she finds so appallingly awful.
This scare statement is a step beyond her "Trojan Horse" book; she seems to be even more frightened now than she was then, or else she's addressing this to a more excitable audience. I suspect both are true.
I find it interesting to see this "philosopher" being unable to think of anything that could replace "secular culture and public policy" besides theocracy. Among other things (I'm trying to be gentle here) don't you think that shows a rather alarming lack of creativity–not to mention knowledge of political history?
Comment by TomG — March 12, 2006 @ 10:08 pm
March 13th, 2006 at 9:38 am
wow, being new at this, I didn't know I was joing in a great and grand conspiracy to overthrow our government and way of life, I thought I was joining a battle to preserve it…thats what I get for thinking I suppose…while I go sit over here in my corner and get caught up, I would like one question answered please, do these people ever look in the mirror when they make these sort of accusations? If they do, what kind of mirror is it? A funhouse mirror that shows you as tall and skinny? or a regular mirror that shows the truth? My apologies for an unwarranted rant, won't happen again
Comment by carbon14atom — March 13, 2006 @ 9:38 am
March 13th, 2006 at 10:25 am
Political Compass
… the rumours that I'd be involved in a conspiracy to install a right-wing theocracy seem to be largely unfounded!
Trackback by Exile from GROGGS — March 13, 2006 @ 10:25 am
March 13th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
She may be correct that it does symbolize all that, but the question is to whom does it symbolize that? Her or the people she is talking about? This seems more like a statement about her own fears and worries than anything having to do with reality.
Comment by macht — March 13, 2006 @ 1:25 pm
March 13th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
I found this comment from Forrest most interesting:
.
Apparently Forrest does not know that the U.S. is not a "secular, constitutional democracy." Where are a pluralistic society, governed by a consitution that provides a democratic form of government. No where in that constitution does it state that we are to be a "secular" nation. Forrest doesn't seem to understand the difference between pluralism and secularism.
Comment by DonaldM — March 13, 2006 @ 3:39 pm
March 13th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Oops…meant to say "We are a pluralistic society…"
Comment by DonaldM — March 13, 2006 @ 3:41 pm
March 13th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
So, it's not so much changes to education that are the real threat after all. It's the very existence of people who have opposing metaphysical beliefs to Barbara Forrest's that pose a threat, and the threat is to democracy itself, not just public education. This is because, of course, democracies can only function when a particular metaphysical belief system is strictly enforced. Honestly, she's an embarrasment to philosophy - a paranoid, partisan political shill with a philosophy degree.
Comment by Deuce — March 13, 2006 @ 4:00 pm
March 13th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Keep in mind she isn't a philospher, she works in the history and political science department, which of course makes it all the worse.
Comment by macht — March 13, 2006 @ 4:17 pm
March 13th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
If a religious person were to propose paranoid, extravagant, alarmist conspiracy theories analogous to those of Barbara Forrest, he would immediately be labeled a kook, and rightly so. How is it that she can propose such kooky theories with impunity, especially in academia where rational thought is supposed to prevail?
Comment by GilDodgen — March 13, 2006 @ 4:29 pm
March 13th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
She is scary clueless. Leaving aside the strong protestant reformation and specifically calvinist roots of much of the american experiment (The purely enlightenment experiment went on in France), I find it ironic that she says that ID proponents are "enemies of science" and "demoncracy" and everything else. Worse yet that she says folks on the right are enemies of all these things.
After all it is communists like the ACLU (check there history) who seek to have judicial fiat decide what is taught as science, and others in academia who seek to purge all those who dare to suggest that there might be something to ID. I must have missed the latest meeting of "The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" were they made note of wanting to use judical fiat to decide what is science.
Comment by thesciphishow — March 13, 2006 @ 4:41 pm
March 13th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
Thanks for the reminder. I had forgotten that. I keep thinking of her as a philosopher of science.
Comment by DonaldM — March 13, 2006 @ 9:09 pm
March 13th, 2006 at 9:15 pm
Is there any factual error in Dr. Forrest's statement?
Y'all would like to debate whether ID can be differentiated from creationism — but even if we leave that point as undecided (and it's not — you guys lost in a fair debate on that point), can you seriously rebut her observations?
Comment by edarrell — March 13, 2006 @ 9:15 pm
March 13th, 2006 at 9:36 pm
From the interview linked by Mike:
I wonder if Barbara would have some non-question begging examples of how evolutionary theory meets this rigorous standard for what constitutes a scientific theory. It also appears she mis-spoke. Given her critiques of ID and her obvious naturalistic worldview, I think she meant that "a scientific theory is a well-established naturalistic explanation of natural phenomena…" Whichever term she uses, though, it is obvious that she assumes that naturalism is true. What she doesn't tell us is how she knows scientifically that the properties of the cosmos are such that all natural phenomenon have a natural cause or that the cosmos is a closed system of natural cause and effect. By merely asserting naturalism without argument or evidence, she completely evicerates her own arguments against ID. When will the likes of Barbara F. learn that mere assertion that naturalism is true is not good enough to bolster their critiques of ID? She'll have to do better than that!
Further, I'd like to know what Barbara thinks the term 'explanation' means in scientific parlance. What, exactly, does it mean that some natural phenomenon is "explained" We see this term bandied about by the anti-ID crowd all the time. Dennett writes of "Relgion explained" or "Consciousness explained". But of course, what he means is "explained with reference to natural causes only. But if one has artificially restricted what constitutes an explanation to natural causes only, then how can we have any confidence that we've discovered the right explanation? Barbara just passes over these points as if they don't exist or perhaps don't matter, but they do. Her entire argument (or critque, depending on how you look at it) hinges on this: is naturalism true? If it isn't, then on what basis could she claim that there can be no actual design in a natural system? She's provided us no reasons to believe that naturalism is true and thus no reason to accept her critques of ID as valid.
Comment by DonaldM — March 13, 2006 @ 9:36 pm
March 13th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
edarrell writes:
Surely you jest. There are factual errors all over the place, not the least of which I addressed in my post above about her mere assertion of naturalism.
She also says, as discussed above in this thread
This is also factually incorrect. How is claiming that certain features in natural systems give evidence of actual (as opposed to only apparent) design of those systems an "attack on … democracy'? She's clearly run amok in her fear of IDPs. Further, she's factually incorrect as I've pointed out above in calling our democracy a "secular, constitutional democracy". Secular? According to whom? Our soceity is meant to be pluralistic not "secular".
Gil has it exact ly right when he says: f a religious person were to propose paranoid, extravagant, alarmist conspiracy theories analogous to those of Barbara Forrest, he would immediately be labeled a kook, and rightly so. How is it that she can propose such kooky theories with impunity, especially in academia where rational thought is supposed to prevail?
Then there's the many logical fallacies she commits. For example she writes: ID proponents are plugged into the conservative political and Religious Right power structure.
This is an example of the genetic fallacy…guilt by association. What about all the IDPs (some on this very blog no doubt) who aren't republicans, or conservatives or even Christians?
Shall I go on, or do you get the picture, edarrell? Barbara is factually incorrect on a great many things. If familiarity breeds comtempt, then comtempt breeds untruthfulness. She holds IDPs and thier ilk in such utter contempt that she doesn't even feel the need to present their positions or arguments fairly or accurately.
Comment by DonaldM — March 13, 2006 @ 9:49 pm
March 13th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
Discerning readers should join me and smile at such sloppy thinking
Comment by bipod — March 13, 2006 @ 10:57 pm
March 14th, 2006 at 1:50 am
Barbara Forrest wrote:
"The insidious feature of ID is not only its attack on public education, but the fact that ID creationism is another column in the Religious Right's decades-old attack on secular, constitutional democracy."
Edarrell, is this blog a "column in the Religious Right's decades-old attack on secular, constitutional democracy" In your reply, please include evidence to back up your answer.
Comment by Krauze — March 14, 2006 @ 1:50 am
March 14th, 2006 at 9:50 am
Krauze:
Beyond the screen on which these words are being read, is there any indication that this blog is relevant at all to reality? Any reason to think that the players (on either side) are anything more than irrelevant blips on some electronic device?
Out there in the real world, how many ID proponents have offered their criticisms of the Ohio lesson plan (which is badly flawed in specific ways, many of which have been pointe dout and duly ignored, even by members of this blog)? How many ID proponents joined the information sessions outside of the Kansas Kangaroo Kourts last year? How many ID proponents have spoken out against the ID movement's attempts to force the UC system to lower or abandon their laudable and rigorous admission standards? How many ID proponents have argued against the KY statutes that permit the teaching of creationism in schools? How many ID proponents offered their help and guidance to the winning side in Dover? How many ID proponents have spoken up against the recent attempts in SC to dilute or eviscerate their (up until now) laudable science standards? How many ID proponents stood with Weinberg and Ellington et al. in their support of good science education in TX?
Heck, how many ID proponents are on the "Steve" list?
Filled with hyperbole Forrest's piece may be. What Ed is noting is that there seem to be no real data points (as opposed to idle blog chatter) that contradict her seemingly wild claims and sweeping assertions.
Comment by Art — March 14, 2006 @ 9:50 am
March 14th, 2006 at 10:14 am
Hi Art,
"Beyond the screen on which these words are being read, is there any indication that this blog is relevant at all to reality? Any reason to think that the players (on either side) are anything more than irrelevant blips on some electronic device?"
Ironic questions, considering that both you and Ed are spending time posting on the blips' blog. And what's this supposed to mean? That this blog isn't part of ID?
As for the rest of your post, what's your point? That unless we join the activism of the ID critics, our goal is to destroy science, democracy, and Enlightenment ideals? You're either with us or against us?
"Heck, how many ID proponents are on the "Steve" list?"
As signatories of the statement that labels ID as "creationist pseudoscience" I'm guessing "not many".
Comment by Krauze — March 14, 2006 @ 10:14 am
March 14th, 2006 at 10:27 am
Krauze:
No. Just that it shouldn't be confused with the real world.
My point is that there are no real data points that might contradict Forrest's caricature.
Comment by Art — March 14, 2006 @ 10:27 am
March 14th, 2006 at 11:10 am
Hi Art,
"Just that it shouldn't be confused with the real world."
But the people behind this blog are part of the real world. Behind the blip sits real people having real opinions. The fact that they've chosen not to insert themselves into the political decision process over intelligent design doesn't make them go away.
"My point is that there are no real data points that might contradict Forrest's caricature."
That obviously depends on what you choose to consider as a "real data point". Besides, shouldn't it be up to the Academic with the Endowed Chair at the Department of History and Political Science to support her caricature, rather than for everyone else to find data points against it?
Comment by Krauze — March 14, 2006 @ 11:10 am
March 14th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
We also have no data points that contradict my assertion that there are ferocious invisible elves living under my bed that want to attack me at night. Of course, if I went out and made that claim publicly, I might rightly be called a little paranoid and perhaps a bit crazy.
Comment by macht — March 14, 2006 @ 12:01 pm
March 14th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
I aske if there were any factual errors in Dr. Forrest's interview. Donald said:
No. I don't think your missing the point is evidence of any error on her part. Name the factual errors. And no, not giving credit to God is not a factual error.
Your claim that not first giving credit to a supernatural cause is an error is untenable. As a method, it's better for detecting supernatural events than any other — and you have presented not a whit of evidence that any supernatural cause has been missed.
My question was serious. I hope for a serious answer.
Comment by edarrell — March 14, 2006 @ 12:02 pm
March 14th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
I'm smiling. Got any rebuttal?
If you can't rebut sloppy thinking, how do you expect to get a seat at the table of science? (Or, more apt, a place in the serious discussion at the cocktail party . . .)
Comment by edarrell — March 14, 2006 @ 12:05 pm
March 14th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
The challenge is this: Present a case that is more than 'I think I see design, therefore design.' Rule out other proximate causes.
Forrest's complaint is that there is no such rigorous science being conducted in ID (go on, I dare you: Show us the photos of the lab), nor has there been such rigor applied in the past. Consequently, ID is a collection of 'I choose not to put credence in that argument, in that evidence, in that conclusion, and I'll claim religious persecution if anyone else claims I have no evidence.'
Evolution stands now on a mountion of corroborating scientific data. Douglas' denial of the mountain doesn't make the mountain go away.
Comment by edarrell — March 14, 2006 @ 12:07 pm
March 14th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Maybe a well-conceived disclaimer needs to be recalled:
"Warning: Buyer beware. The internet is loaded with all kinds of kooky theories and arguments and who can say I am any different? My advice would be simply this: don't trust me as any type of authority and balance my views with those who don't agree with me. If you are interested in origins, learn as much biology as possible and then attempt to arrive at your own informed conclusions about the arguments presented on this site and elsewhere. And grains of salt come in handy."
Or maybe we can entertain the theory that the keepers of this blog are really ID critics, who work in this capacity to hone anti-ID arguments for use in the real world. They have made some progress in this regard, for example judging from the contributions that Nick Matzke (who several bloggers here helped in at least a small way to "train") made in the Dover case.
There are many, many reasons to consider internet discussions as separate from the real world.
LOL. Forrest has supported her case nicely, in print and in the courts. In the real world. Plenty of data there to support her case, and nary a single iota of data to argue otherwise.
Comment by Art — March 14, 2006 @ 12:13 pm
March 14th, 2006 at 12:46 pm
Forrest's assertion of opinion as if it were somehow 'scientific fact' is positively rife with bad "data points" and "factual errors."
First there is her assertion that ID is "another column in the Religious Right's decades-old attack on secular, constitutional democracy." DonaldM has already pointed out that our Constitutional Republic is pluralistic as opposed to secular. That means we have no state religion (by Constitutional decree), but also do not discourage citizens' free expression and practice of religion in the public sphere.
Moreover, a republic is not a democracy (she doesn't even know what form of government we have!), and the Constitutional aspects ensure that simple "majority rule" cannot be used to abridge reserved individual rights. We elect representatives, but we do not have equal representation or even representation based on statistical presence (which would ensure, as some other countries do, that minorities have representatives based on their percentage of the overall population). We don't elect presidents by counting the votes of the people either (even less lately, it appears) - we let appointed "electors" do that.
I don't belong to or even agree with most positions of the "Religious Right," and I know many others who strongly suspect design in biology who are like me. She says ID proponents have contempt for public education, modern science and "Enlightenment ideals." I think public education is in serious trouble, but that doesn't mean I have contempt for it. Modern science is okay in most applications, though oversight is sorely lacking in others. That doesn't mean I have contempt for it, I just think it needs to be better controlled against crooks and fools in lab coats. I've never been much impressed by "Enlightenment ideals" either, considering what all those 'enlightened' Frenchies did to each other.
Finally, Forrest claims the ONLY alternative to her erroneous conception of our governmental form is theocracy. A simple Google will turn up thousands of pages describing all sorts of different political forms and philosophies, so this is a flat-out lie. It's a truly stupid thing to say as well, but many fools are educated far beyond their intelligence.
Forrest's data is flawed enough to invalidate her entire rant. Of course, it's just basic troop-rallying rhetoric in the propagandist tradition and doesn't have to be valid. Thus it's not really a good idea to try and defend it as if it were anything else.
Comment by Joy — March 14, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
March 14th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Come think of it, didn't Forrest try to apply her thesis to that non-entity named Mike Gene? Oh yes, she did. Yup, that really illustrates how irrelevant internet discussions are.
Comment by Krauze — March 14, 2006 @ 12:57 pm
March 14th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
Ed: Forrest's complaint wasn't "there is no such rigorous science being conducted in ID (go on, I dare you: Show us the photos of the lab), nor has there been such rigor applied in the past. Consequently, ID is a collection of "˜I choose not to put credence in that argument, in that evidence, in that conclusion, and I'll claim religious persecution if anyone else claims I have no evidence.'"
It was "The insidious feature of ID is not only its attack on public education, but the fact that ID creationism is another column in the Religious Right's decades-old attack on secular, constitutional democracy."
So not only is she wrong, but now you're wrong as well in your understanding of what she was saying.
Comment by Exile From Groggs — March 14, 2006 @ 2:26 pm
March 14th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
edarrell:
I didn't claim that she had to first give credit to the supernatural. I said she offers no reason for us to accept naturalism as true, so we have no reason to accept her attacks on ID as scientifically grounded. If she wants to argue philosophy, than she needs to say so. After all, she is a philosopher by degree.
Apparently you have not read much of the ID literature. You could start with Darwin's Black Box or No Free Lunch, neither of which are 'I think I see design, therefore design'.
You also completely ignore how Barbara wants to tie all IDPs into right wing politics, which is demonstrably false. She misrepresents who the IDPs are, what they say, what they are actually doing, and, well, just about everything else. In other words, her entire diatribe is little more than a straw man argument. You're grasping (pardon the pun) at straws!
Comment by DonaldM — March 14, 2006 @ 4:03 pm
March 14th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
Joy writes:Forrest's data is flawed enough to invalidate her entire rant. Of course, it's just basic troop-rallying rhetoric in the propagandist tradition and doesn't have to be valid. Thus it's not really a good idea to try and defend it as if it were anything else.
Nicely put, Joy. This was my point as well. But then we have Art saying:
I think what Art really means that there isn't any data or argument that he accepts as contradicting the likes of Barbara and her ilk, which is a very different thing. Joy is right: this is little more than propoganda with little basis in fact, and full of misrepresentations. As I said before, if familiarity breeds contempt, then contempt breeds untruthfulness. Why be truthful abouth that which you hold in contempt seems to be her mantra.
Comment by DonaldM — March 14, 2006 @ 4:13 pm
March 14th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
Come on guys, knock it off! Responding to ed in a serious manner too often ruins the punchline!
Comment by Deuce — March 14, 2006 @ 4:15 pm
March 14th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Art obviously don't think that this blog is part of the "real world", so let's take another example:
"The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences."
Question: Do these sentences display a "contempt for … the Enlightenment ideals on which American constitutional democracy is based"
Follow-up question: Where does the quoted section come from?
Comment by Krauze — March 14, 2006 @ 5:09 pm
March 14th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
DonaldM -
Well, it's sort of like me saying:
"All evolutionary biologists are God-hating atheists who plan to force us all to get microchips planted in our brains so they can destroy democracy, institute a governmental scientocracy, and eradicate all forms of religion."
Then you come along and - because I'm your hero - claim these "facts" are empirical and well-documented in the legal sphere, and that nobody can ever hope to demonstrate them wrong because I'm such an important personage. So there, nyah nyah nyah, nanny-nanny boo-boo.
I'd expect anyone with half the brains of a hormone-crazed teenager to be able to shred that non-argument in two seconds flat without any trouble at all.
So yes, Deuce, there IS a punchline. I'm just not sure Art or ed are capable of anticipating it, or recognizing when it's been delivered… §;o)
Comment by Joy — March 14, 2006 @ 5:17 pm
March 14th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
edarrell,
"Evolution stands now on a mountion of corroborating scientific data. Douglas' denial of the mountain doesn't make the mountain go away."
I don't deny the mountain. I just claim it's actually a molehill. Really, there is absolutely no evidence for evolution (macroevolution, common descent) whatsoever. No amount of cheerleading on your part is going to change this fact.
Comment by Douglas — March 14, 2006 @ 5:26 pm
March 14th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
""The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences."
Krauze: "Question: Do these sentences display a 'contempt for "¦ the Enlightenment ideals on which American constitutional democracy is based'?"
Only if they were written by an IDist or Creationist.
Krauze: "Follow-up question: Where does the quoted section come from?"
Either the Bible, or "Darwin's Black Box". Two of the most corrosive elements affecting our beloved iron foundation of "Enlightenment ideals".
Comment by Douglas — March 14, 2006 @ 5:30 pm
March 14th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
1. Do these sentences display a "˜contempt for "¦ the Enlightenment ideals on which American constitutional democracy is based'?"
Obviously. The "image of God" thing is a dead giveaway. If you ignore some of the flowery wording of public proclamations in the early "founding" years, written by early "founding fathers."
2. Where does the quoted section come from?
Um… The Wedge?
Comment by Joy — March 14, 2006 @ 5:57 pm
March 14th, 2006 at 6:50 pm
Joy writes:
You mean this isn't their goal? What about all that "intellectually fulfilled atheist stuff or virus of the mind stuff. Do you doubt that if in power the anti-ID crowd would move to eradicate any and all opposition to their scientific worldview? Doesn't Dennett want to put Christians in "cultural zoos" There's a whole lot more 'evidence' to back up your satirical comment than there is to back up Bar's diatribe, don't you think?
Comment by DonaldM — March 14, 2006 @ 6:50 pm
March 14th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
DonaldM:
Nope, both suffer the fatal fallacy. I make it a rule to parse adjectives first. §;o)
Comment by Joy — March 14, 2006 @ 7:43 pm
March 14th, 2006 at 8:13 pm
Well ed, you obviously haven't taken the time to read telicthoughts much (though you sure do comment here a lot). Most of us aren't interested in a seat at the table of science. This is another failure on your part to avoid lumping everyone into a single pot of soup.
And, I suspect, that most of us at telicthoughts would only want a place in a serious discussion at the cocktail party if the people conversing didn't do their thinking by proxy of some judicial decision.
Comment by bipod — March 14, 2006 @ 8:13 pm
March 14th, 2006 at 9:46 pm
I've got to disagree. The UK is an example of a society that's merely "pluralistic". There's an official state religion, but other religions are tolerated, at least for now.
"Secularism" goes beyond that. It says that the government has to be scrupulously neutral on matters of religion. (There are historical reasons for believing that this is a good idea; let me know if you want details.)
Public sphere, yes. Political sphere, no. The government can't enshrine anyone's religious beliefs into law unless it can come up with a solid secular reason for doing so.
A "democracy" is just a form of government where political power rests in the hands of the people-as-a-whole. A "republic" is a particular form of democracy where laws are passed by elected representatives.
So the US is both a democracy and a republic. (Actually, I've always wondered why so many people want to say that we're not a democracy. I've noticed that people who make this argument tend to be conservative, so I'm wondering if they're trying to set up a simple-minded "Republicans=right, Democrats=wrong" thing. I dunno, though. Does anyone have any insights?)
No, you have to read the whole sentence. She's making the statement in reference to the Wedge Document. The authors of the Wedge Document are proposing to set up a theocracy. So in this context there are only two options in play: The status quo, or theocracy.
About the broader topic under discussion: I think people are taking Barbara Forrest's statements too personally. Just mentally scratch out all the references to Intelligent Design, and what you've got left is her justified anger at the authors of the Wedge Document.
And it's not her fault that those authors have worked so hard to hijack the good name of the Intelligent Design movement. If you need to get mad at someone, get mad at them. (Art made some good points up above. Why do we never see Intelligent Design advocates testifying against the misuse of Intelligent Design, like that stuff that was on display in Dover.)
Comment by chaosengineer — March 14, 2006 @ 9:46 pm
March 14th, 2006 at 11:19 pm
Ed asks for "factual errors." For starters, I can cite the fact that a) I am not a creationist; b) I am not part of a "column" of the Religious Right out to attack secular, constitutional democracy; c) I have no contempt for modern science; d) I am not out to overthrow secular culture and public policy; e) I am not trying to set up some type of theocracy.
The fact is that Forrest is peddling stereotypes.
Comment by MikeGene — March 14, 2006 @ 11:19 pm
March 14th, 2006 at 11:22 pm
Let's have Art answer his own questions.
Out there in the real world, did Art offer his criticisms of the Ohio lesson plan? Did Art join the information sessions outside of the Kansas Kangaroo Kourts last year? Did Art speak out against the ID movement's attempts to force the UC system to lower or abandon their laudable and rigorous admission standards? Did Art argue against the KY statutes that permit the teaching of creationism in schools? Did Art offer his help and guidance to the winning side in Dover? Did Art speak up against the recent attempts in SC to dilute or eviscerate their (up until now) laudable science standards? Did Art stand with Weinberg and Ellington et al. in their support of good science education in TX?
Art needs to answer his own questions, and since the internet is not part of reality, he'll also need to provide some real-world documentation if he answers any as "˜yes.'
Comment by MikeGene — March 14, 2006 @ 11:22 pm
March 14th, 2006 at 11:28 pm
Donald
Behe himself admits that he has no criteria to detect design. "I know it when I see it," he said — and no, he can't describe it so my graduate fellow, or his, can duplicate the observation. If you know more than Dr. Behe, by all means publish your criteria. But if you don't, don't pretend ID has something that isn't there.
And, so of course, Forrest is absolutely correct in her typifying ID as lacking substance. What she said, exactly, is not the point. The point she made is ID offers nothing. You claim otherwise, but you don't have a leg to stand on. When I challenge you to show a leg, you claim I have somehow misquoted Forrest? Bizarre.
You don't find ID tied to the right wing? Also odd. All one need do is pay attention. Which right-wing crazy political platform supports ID? Texas Republicans — which also contains Reconstructionist language on the judicial system, and which is so far to the right it scares Karl Rove. "Texas Citizens for Better Science Education?" Funding for the Discovery Institute?
Is there a lefty anywhere in ID? Is there even a centrist?
Claiming ID is not entangled in extreme right-wing politics is like claiming tornadoes have nothing to do with the wind. Also bizarre.
Comment by edarrell — March 14, 2006 @ 11:28 pm
March 14th, 2006 at 11:37 pm
Chaos:
That's because Forrest is peddling stereotypes and it's pretty clear that she truly believes in her own stereotypes. For example, do you think she is capable of distinguishing ID from creationism?
Actually, we can see that in response to the victories in Dover and Ohio, Forrest is expanding on her conspiracy theories and fear. Now, the "ID creationists" are merely a symptom of a deeper and more insidious Threat to The American Way of Life. Like I said, "According to Forrest, if you are a proponent of ID, that makes you a creationist, which makes you part of a column in the Religious Right, which makes you an enemy of public education, modern science, and ultimately the Enlightenment ideals, which means you are opposed to American constitutional democracy, which means you want to set up some type of theocracy."
You are projecting the anger that defines many in the ID Critic movement. I'm simply pointing out that Forrest is peddling stereotypes, which is basically a stupid thing to do. When Forrest portrays all ID proponents as Enemies of Democracy, the Dilbert Principle sets it. Like I said before, the post-Wedge world is going to be fun. What happens to a group of people when they begin to lose a rational basis for their fear?
I was not impressed at all by Art's points. Krauze nicely puts Art in his place:
Art never addresses the second and third question.
Are you seriously suggesting that we at TelicThoughts were supposed to testify in some court room????? There are lots of obvious answers to your "why?" question. Do I really need to explain it to you?
Let me remind the critics that I have already anticipated and addressed demands for activism as some litmus test back in July. Actually, I wrote that months prior to July and posted it on ARN. It generated a lot of anger and rhetoric among the critics, but in the end, they could not come up with a decent argument. Shall we try again?
Comment by MikeGene — March 14, 2006 @ 11:37 pm
March 14th, 2006 at 11:47 pm
Ed,
Can you show us where and how Forrest defined "creationist," "Religious Right," and "theocracy." I answered your question. And my question is also serious, Ed. I hope for your serious answer.
Comment by MikeGene — March 14, 2006 @ 11:47 pm
March 15th, 2006 at 12:07 am
Ed:
I'd be happy to discuss the evidence and ID with Ed if he first produces some evidence that he is capable of addressing this issue in a fair and open-minded manner. Go on Ed, I dare you: Show us evidence that you actually have this ability.
In the meantime, how about showing an ability to stick to the topic? I quoted an excerpt from Forrest and offered the following commentary:
Obviously, this brief, mild blog has caused Ed to become unhinged. The last time he became unhinged like this was here. And just like then, notice that Ed has not addressed what I have in the blog. So here are two questions for Ed to help him stick to the topic:
1. Do you agree with my assessment of Forrest's point?
2. If you do, do you agree with Forrest's assessment about our human reality?
Comment by MikeGene — March 15, 2006 @ 12:07 am
March 15th, 2006 at 1:21 am
Wow. Go to work for a few hours and one falls way far behind. This'll have to be a one post-disses all sort of message. One last stirring of the hornet's nest, then I'm afraid I'll have to watch the buzzing from afar. If I leave anyone out, it's not because I don't care :☺ .
Joy starts her screed with:
I don't see how Forrest was offering anything other than an opinion. Only a threatened and delusional sort would try and turn it into an attempt at "scientific fact". But that's what I would call someone who thinks the 35S promoter is a fully infectious virus that's going to cause rampant cancer in all who taste GMO crops. Joy, when you comment about "fools in lab coats", I recommend that you clean up your own rhetorical and intellectual house. "˜Cause yer quite the epitome (all right, maybe without the lab coat).
DonaldM says:
DonaldM, like MG and the other bloggers, takes on the chore of putting words in others' mouth nicely. But the ruse is transparent.
I meant what I said, and nothing else "“ in the real world, there is no ID-friendly counterweight to the far-right religious movement. No one. Nothing. Nil. Nada. Zip. Zero. Step off the computer screen and ID is entirely, completely, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the evolution NO, anti-science, anti-public education political extremists.
Krauze gave us:
LOL. Whoever wrote this is confused. The "bedrock" foundation of Western civilization was laid down centuries before Jesus' time, and not by tribes who fancied themselves as having been created in the image of a single God. The proposition alluded to in this misleading passage is better likened to shingles on a house, and is at best coincidentally related to the great achievements listed.
As for the source, let's try to think this thru. We have a misleading, erroneous, deceptive passage that makes claims that the authors cannot back up. It sounds a lot like the people who would teach Ohio students that biologists think mitochondria and chloroplasts diverged from a common proto-organellar ancestor. But surely there must be more to the far-right lunatic fringe than those who would promulgate lies in the science class, no? The authors couldn't possibly be the same. That would be just too much of a coincidence.
MikeGene states:
Um, methinks MG has completely missed the point.
A tiny hint "“ recall and reflect on the disagreement that was greeted with so much glee by the bloggers here. Who, in the real world, even comes close to being the ID-friendly equivalent of Mike Ruse? Or, for that matter, Ken Miller, who is quite at odds with people like Dawkins when it comes to religion. The answer is nobody. Nary a soul. ID is monolithic "“ evolution NO!, anti-science, anti-education.
In the real world, of course.
Finally, MikeGene asserted:
LOL. MikeGene shares with ID antievolutionists (like Douglas in this thread, who hides from the mountains of evidence for evolution that the bloggers here claim to be OK with, but never really discuss) the propensity to hide from reality. Examples of which in this case would be the teachers who met MG's challenge in some sessions at the recent AAAS meeting, or the threats made to the funding for the entire College of Charleston because a faculty member had the temerity to stand up for rigorous and honest science education in the state of South Carolina. Undoubtedly, the bloggers here would have no problems with such an eventuality, nor apparently do they have issues with the motivations for the threats.
But of course, this is the blogosphere. What is more revealing is that in the real world, there are also no ID-friendly voices defending science (and general) education in SC. None. Nobody. Nary a soul.
Which brings us back to my original point. Forrest's article is riddled with hyperbole, to be sure. But, while she documents the source of her concerns at length, ID proponents cannot provide a single, solitary reason, based on real-world events or actions, to suspect that the hyperbole isn't a gross, or even a slight, exaggeration.
Comment by Art — March 15, 2006 @ 1:21 am
March 15th, 2006 at 3:03 am
Art:
In other words, you can't answer any of your questions with a "˜yes.' So let's get this straight. You are the one who is afraid of a particular possible future. Yet even with all your anxiety, you can't be bothered to do the things you ask of us, even though many of us don't share in your fear. You want us to become political activists when you yourself don't have the time. That's called hypocrisy, Art. Either that or it's like you think your real-world time is more precious than our real-world time. What's up with that?
Well, it was humorous to see the philosophical demigod think so tribally. Forces of Darkness? Is that how you think, Art?
You are not thinking scientifically, Art. You forgot to factor in the numbers. Since there are many, many more academic critics of ID than there are academic proponents of ID, it's not all that surprising that you can finally stumble upon an unusual critic such as Ruse. As for Miller, he's taken a few mild jabs at Dawkins, yes, but perhaps you can estimate the percentage of articles he has written that show him at odds with people like Dawkins. Better yet, why not supply some links?
In other words, even though the academic critics of ID vastly outnumber academic proponents of ID (something the critics are gleeful about), Art can do no better than offer us the atypical Michael Ruse and the old standby, Ken Miller (who has offered very little in the form of criticism of Richard Dawkins when compared to his other complaints).
Here's a prediction. If the ID concept does spread among people in academia, and more and more people in academia begin to think about it seriously rather than view it as a Threat to The American Way, you will indeed see many ID-friendly equivalents of Michael Ruse. For example, if we conservatively estimate the members of academia as one million, then the frequency of Michael Ruses among the critics is roughly one in a million. I'd bet that's a frequency the ID-friendly crowd can beat - they just need to raw numbers. After all, we here at TelicThoughts have been quite critical of the ID movement and compared to the anti-ID blogs, the number of pro-ID blogs is fewer. And who in the cyberworld even comes close to being the ID-critic equivalent of TelicThoughts?
Comment by MikeGene — March 15, 2006 @ 3:03 am
March 15th, 2006 at 3:34 am
Whatever.
Has any teacher been forced to teach that evolution is false?
Has any teacher been forced to teach that ID is science?
Has any teacher lost his/her job for teaching evolution or not teaching ID?
Sorry, the last time I read anything about this type of thing, some teachers were complaining that they self-censored themselves because they didn't want to get some parents mad at them. Is there something more solid you have in mind?
Sorry Art, but I know nothing about this and it would be irresponsible for me to comment from a position of ignorance. If there is a credible threat against the funding for the entire College of Charleston because a faculty member had the temerity to stand up for rigorous and honest science education in the state of South Carolina, then that is clearly wrong (although small potatoes compared to what Oxford is going through). If the threat is actualized, then we can talk. In the meantime, most threats don't get carried out.
You can always count on Art to read our minds. And a history of missing the target has never discouraged him.
In other words, we are not political activists. Sorry Art, but the most political thing I do (and have ever done) is vote. As I have explained before, my whole interest in ID is a function of the internet. I'm far more interested in the ID concept and the implications of other people's thinking than politics and bureaucracies of the "real world." It's all part of the late-night hobby as the real-world time is devoted to family.
Since you are worried about the real world, are you finally going to do something in the real world about SC? Is this another example of "do as I say, and not as I do?"
You've changed your original point. Originally, you said, "Filled with hyperbole Forrest's piece may be." You've gone from "may be" to "to be sure" in less than 24 hours. Maybe the unreal world of the TelicThoughts is getting through to your real-world mind. Imagine how that works.
There are books out there that argue all kinds of conspiracy theories. For example, the authors who argue that the American government was behind 911 also "document the source" of their concerns. Tell us, did Forrest ever seek out any interviews with the people she writes about? Did she conduct any?
Yes, we know that you are very attached to your stereotypes. But it is really a stupid point. Let's see. 1) Unless we become very vocal real-world anti-ID political activists, then 2) we at TelicThoughts are part of a "column" in the Religious Right that is out to destroy democracy and science and institute a theocracy. How can any self-respecting, rational being believe that?
And all of this comes from a guy who can't be bothered to do anything in the real world to fight the Forces of Darkness.
Comment by MikeGene — March 15, 2006 @ 3:34 am
March 15th, 2006 at 5:11 am
Ed: "Is there a lefty anywhere in ID? Is there even a centrist?"
How do you measure it? I am certainly left of centre on Political Compass, as I pointed out before. Or is this the usual circular anti-ID position - "ID'ers are right wing. Therefore Exile has to be right wing and the Political Compass has to be wrong." Perhaps they are part of this right wing conspiracy too!
Comment by Exile From Groggs — March 15, 2006 @ 5:11 am
March 15th, 2006 at 5:27 am
Art,
"LOL. MikeGene shares with ID antievolutionists (like Douglas in this thread, who hides from the mountains of evidence for evolution that the bloggers here claim to be OK with, but never really discuss) the propensity to hide from reality."
First, edarrell claims I "ignore" the "mountains of evidence" for evolution. Now, Art says I "hide" from the "mountains of evidence" for evolution. Well, fie on the both of them. It just so happens that mountains scare me. And, I can one up them - they both tremble at the planetary mass of evidence for Creation.
Comment by Douglas — March 15, 2006 @ 5:27 am
March 15th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
No, I meant that the some of the top ID researchers should have testified, or at least filed an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs.
Let me start from the beginning.
1. There's a political movement that ultimately wants to destroy our pluralistic/secular form of government and replace it with a theocracy where non-Fundamentalist-Christians would be second class citizens. This movement is variously called "Christian Reconstructionism" or "Dominion Christianity". They don't have a huge amount of power, but they've got enough power to make a lot of people nervous.
2. Most of them reject Evolution for purely religious reasons; they believe in some version of Creationism, typically of the Young Earth variety. They support their views with an odd interpretation of the Bible, plus a bunch of silly and discredited arguments. ("If man evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?") One of their political goals is to get the government to endorse their beliefs.
3. In an effort to do an end-run around some court decisions, they've started saying that they believe in "Intelligent Design" instead of "Creationism". This has nothing to do with real Intelligent Design research; they're just using a different name for the same silly and discredited arguments.
4. Unfortunatley, the fake Intelligent Design advocates outnumber the real ones. To an outside observer, Intelligent Design has become a subsidiary of Christian Reconstructionism.
5. If real Intelligent Design advocates want to reclaim the name, they need to do a better job of defending it from the hijackers. Dover was a missed opportunity, but there will be other opportunities in the future.
Can we at least agree that Christian Reconstructionists are a threat? That'll give us some common ground with Dr. Forrest, and maybe we can build on that.
Comment by chaosengineer — March 15, 2006 @ 12:00 pm
March 15th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
chaosengineer said:
Hmmm… what does "scrupulously neutral" mean in terms of governmental form, chaos? Please parse that for me so I'll understand your meaning, and let me know how it relates specifically to the religious clauses in Amendment #1 - which is very specifically intended to protect individuals against tyranny by the majority - while you're at it.
Well, since I'm a Democrat by political choice and action, I'd have to say your impression is somewhat erroneous on this. Nor has anybody who wasn't joking called me "conservative" in recent memory, but since I married a poli-sci guy and have been arguing this stuff with him for nearly 40 years, I'm pretty sure the distinctions are clear enough.
A republic holds distinctions about which members of the public have the right to participate in governance, and may or may not embrace leadership forms such as monarchy or oligarchy. It may also sanction state religion, which ours originally did - in the states. It wasn't until the middle of the 20th century that enfranchisement was extended to women, and was originally offered only to white male landholders. Here in the 'enlightened' west, direct democracy is seen as dangerous, and in some respects it can be.
But it's a plain fact that republicanism was the founding ideology of the US. It has embraced certain extensions of democratism in fits and starts, but maintains its true nature as a republic. Here is a nifty speech about Republic versus Democracy given in the House in 2003 by Ron Paul. Here's another examination.
"The Wedge Document clearly shows that ID creationists want to overthrow secular culture and public policy, to which the only alternative is some type of theocracy."
Parsing: Forrest's OPINION is that the document "clearly shows" that her stereotype wants to "overthrow" secular culture and public policy. Which, in her OPINION, leaves only theocracy. She's wrong, because materialism isn't the same thing as secular culture or public policy, and theocracy isn't the only governmental form that rejects reductive materialism.
I am not a wedge supporter or a theocrat. But I do see problems with equating reductive materialism with governance, and that informs me that Forrest has a 'Wedge' strategy all her own (actually, she shares it with her constituents). Not being a wedge supporter, I'm agin' hers as well.
Comment by Joy — March 15, 2006 @ 12:55 pm
March 15th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Art:
Art you're delusional, not just with issues such as this but with the science as well. Try subscribing to our RSS feed and read our blogs rather than troll in the comment section.
Comment by Guts — March 15, 2006 @ 1:06 pm
March 15th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
Do you also walk in traffic fretting about the stone that might stub your toe? These bogeymen you perceive to wish to tear down our representative government are in no way, shape or form powerful enough to do so. In order for them have any power, they would need sympathetic press and a daily makeover of the order that apparently Ms. Forrest undergoes. She wakes up every morning channeling Pol Pot. One of the commenters here had the intemperance to label Joy's contribution a screed, and that after - I assume - reading the citation that is the basis of this blog entry, a textbook definitive screed if ever there was one. Just another reason to be able to remain agnostic on the supposed big-s Science and oppose the Forrests, et al, just because their's is a camp of nasty nihilists who offer nothing redeemable - yet blame their opponents for their own shortcomings.
Comment by rhodeymark — March 15, 2006 @ 2:46 pm
March 15th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
Art wrote:
"One last stirring of the hornet's nest, then I'm afraid I'll have to watch the buzzing from afar."
As I've said before, Art's discussion tactic reminds me of Saddam Husein's approach to warfare during the Gulf War: Declare victory, then get the hell out of there.
Krauze: "Question: Do these sentences display a "contempt for "¦ the Enlightenment ideals on which American constitutional democracy is based"?"
Art: "LOL. Whoever wrote this is confused. The "bedrock" foundation of Western civilization was laid down centuries before Jesus' time, and not by tribes who fancied themselves as having been created in the image of a single God. The proposition alluded to in this misleading passage is better likened to shingles on a house, and is at best coincidentally related to the great achievements listed."
Notice that Art never answers my question. As Joy has already guessed, the quoted sentence comes from the Wedge Document, the text Barbara Forrest believes "clearly shows that ID creationists want to overthrow secular culture and public policy, to which the only alternative is some type of theocracy." What part of the Wedge Document supports Forrest's characterisation? To quote Art: "Nothing. Nil. Nada. Zip. Zero."
Instead, the author of that document professes great respect for representative democracy and human rights, listing them among "the West's greatest achievements". Whether the author is correct in his or her characterization of their historical basis is irrelevant. All that matters is that the document that Forrest - the Expert with the thoroughly researched book - uses to prop up her polemics about a Coming Theocracy completely fails to support her case.
Comment by Krauze — March 15, 2006 @ 3:17 pm
March 15th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
Hi Chaosengineer,
"Unfortunatley, the fake Intelligent Design advocates outnumber the real ones. To an outside observer, Intelligent Design has become a subsidiary of Christian Reconstructionism."
Are the majority of intelligent design supporters Christian Reconstructionists?
Comment by Krauze — March 15, 2006 @ 3:21 pm
March 15th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
The Roman Empire was not exactly a model of representative democracy, human rights or free enterprise. Same for the ancient civilizations of Egypt. Their technology, architecture and art are certainly impressive and beautiful but were all superseded in Christian Europe, even during the "dark ages." Comparing 1800 years of progress in Christian Europe to the shingles on the Western house? Puh-leez! At the very least, Christian Europe built the house and significantly expanded the original foundation.
Comment by Foyle — March 15, 2006 @ 3:24 pm
March 15th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
edarrell writes:
If you've actually read Behe, then you'd know that what you claim here is simply not the case. Behe does have a criteria for design: irreducible complexity. It was the focus of his entire book for Pete's sake.
And, he described those IC systems in minute detail.
Comment by DonaldM — March 15, 2006 @ 4:05 pm
March 15th, 2006 at 4:18 pm
Art writes:
DonaldM, like MG and the other bloggers, takes on the chore of putting words in others' mouth nicely. But the ruse is transparent.
I meant what I said, and nothing else "“ in the real world, there is no ID-friendly counterweight to the far-right religious movement. No one. Nothing. Nil. Nada. Zip. Zero. Step off the computer screen and ID is entirely, completely, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the evolution NO, anti-science, anti-public education political extremists.
Au contraire, Art, I am not putting words in your mouth, I am pointing out the actual implication of what you said. It simply isn't the case that there isn't any counter-arguments to Forrest et.al. There are plenty, as has been discussed in this very thread. What is clear is that you simply do not accept any of those arguments as valid, which is a very different thing. ID is not anti-science or anti-public education or extremist in any way. IDPs do challenge the norm in the way science is taught, but that hardly equates to being anti-science or anti-education or even extreme.
That you think that challenging the way science is taught means one is anti-science is itself predicated on holding the pre-supposition that science must be defined a certain way and anything that falls outside that way of defining science is, by definition, anti-science and anti-education and extremist. I think it could be argued that claiming that the way science is defined is sacro-sant and above challenge or discussion is the anti-science, anti-education, extremist position.
Comment by DonaldM — March 15, 2006 @ 4:18 pm
March 15th, 2006 at 6:12 pm
chaosengineer Says:
But that isn't as simple as it might look. Since the USSC has ruled that secular humanism is a religion for the purposes of the Constitution, the tests become much more complicated. It can't be simply "religion vs secularism", because that would be disfavoring religion, and run afoul of the free exercise clause.
Methinks you are confusing the political sphere with the governmental sphere. The political sphere is yes also. Subject to check by the voters.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — March 15, 2006 @ 6:12 pm
March 15th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
chaosengineer Says:
Even if one grants for the sake of argument that is true, what does it gain them? They are free to be creationists. They aren't free to preach the Bible in public schools.
If they eschew the latter, could not their "end-run around" be be more appropriately described as "complying with"
On a practical level? No.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — March 15, 2006 @ 6:36 pm
March 15th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
Lots of stuff in the past few hours…I'll try to hit the major points.
Defining Freedom of Religion: Eh, I'm not a lawyer, but I know it when I see it. I think the Supreme Court's "Lemon Test" is a reasonable approximation.
Democracy vs. Republic: It sounds like you're defining "Democracy" as "Direct Democracy", and I'm using a broader definition. Maybe it's just a regional thing? I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
Stereotyping: If I say "The Republican Party supports the Patriot Act", then I'm not stereotyping; I'm making a simple statement of fact. It's not in the official party platform but it's still pretty obvious. But if I say "Joe Blow is a member of the Republican Party, therefore he supports the Patriot Act" then I'm stereotyping and jumping to conclusions.
When Dr. Forrest says, "The Intelligent Design movement wants to set up a theocracy", she's making a statement about the movement as a whole, not about you as an individual. Try not to take it too personally.
Christian Reconstructionism: I do think they have a dangerous amount of power. To cite a recent example, they took over the Dover School Board, and then only got ousted out by a very narrow margin. Anyway, the time to fight them is before they succeed in doing a lot of damage. I don't want to just sit around letting them break stuff and then try to fix if afterwards.
If we can't agree that they're a threat to democracy, can we at least agree that they'd be a threat if they had more power?
Comment by chaosengineer — March 15, 2006 @ 7:11 pm
March 15th, 2006 at 8:53 pm
chaosengineer:
Except Forrest is wrong on both counts. Where in any official ID documents does it state that the goal of the ID movement is to "set up a theocracy"
It may be the case that certain individuals within the movement would like to see a theocracy of some sort established, although I think even that would be difficult to establish as fact. Never-the-less, the motives and aims of individuals within the movement do not necessarily reflect the true aims and motives of the movement itself any more than a guest
Comment by DonaldM — March 15, 2006 @ 8:53 pm
March 15th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
[attempting to complete my truncated message]… any more than a guest editorial in a newspaper reflects the attitudes or beliefs of the paper's editors.
Comment by DonaldM — March 15, 2006 @ 8:54 pm
March 15th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
chaosengineer:
But the "movement as a whole" (whoever/whatever that is) doesn't want to set up a theocracy either, far as I can tell. I've been around long enough to notice such a thing if it were a considerable issue. It's not.
Forrest provided no evidence to back up her silly assertion. You've provided none. And of course it's about me (any ID supporter) personally, because I don't think ID's dangerous. Forrest made it personal by throwing blanket generalizations in her attempt to portray ID - and ID supporters - as dangerous threats to the republic.
Dover citizens elected Dover school board members. When the electees' agenda became an issue, Dover citizens sued (and won!). Meanwhile, Dover citizens kicked the bums out first chance they got. Everything worked out fine for the republic. Didn't even need a revolution this time. What's so frightening about that?
Who knows? It's a moot question so long as they have no real power. There are more important issues related to government and culture at the present time, concerning people who do have real power. So on an scale of 1-10 I'd put the civilization-destroying threat of ID at about -2.
Comment by Joy — March 15, 2006 @ 9:04 pm
March 16th, 2006 at 9:24 am
chaos, i'd certainly agree that the Reconstructionists would be a threat if they had more power.
my wife and i want to send our kids to a private school, and one of the highest priorities is that it NOT be a place where they get taught Christian fundamentalism. We'd prefer a non-religious school. actually, we'd prefer a school where advocacy of any kind was non-existent.
Comment by bipod — March 16, 2006 @ 9:24 am
March 16th, 2006 at 11:45 am
Hi Chaosengineer,
"When Dr. Forrest says, "The Intelligent Design movement wants to set up a theocracy", she's making a statement about the movement as a whole, not about you as an individual."
But is "the movement as a whole" trying to set up a theocracy? So far, there's been no evidence presented that supports this.
"Christian Reconstructionism: I do think they have a dangerous amount of power. To cite a recent example, they took over the Dover School Board, and then only got ousted out by a very narrow margin."
Christian Reconstructionists took over the Dover School Board? I don't suppose you have some evidence for this?
"If we can't agree that they're a threat to democracy, can we at least agree that they'd be a threat if they had more power?"
Sure, but the same could be said for some group of militia stockpiling weapons and canned foods in some remote corner of the US. It should be kept in mind that just because something is a threat in a hypothetical scenario doesn't mean that it's a threat in the real world.
Now, I've answered your question. Are you going to return the favor and answer the questions I've aksed you above?
Comment by Krauze — March 16, 2006 @ 11:45 am
March 16th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
MG said:
I've never been able to address vacant thoughts, empty claims and dataless papers as if they were real thoughts, claims with substance, or papers with data. I regret I cannot suspend reality to meet your odd requirements — so, by your definition, I suppose you and I shall not have a serious discussion about ID.
I'd be pleased to have a real, serious discussion, were anyone to come up with something of more substance and potential use than "I know it when I see it." (And that's a direct quote from Behe.)
The substance I would prefer to see is solid observation or experiment that eliminates all natural and/or non-intelligent proximate causes, and which points to a cause outside the living thing or natural causes acting on the living thing.
That's roughly the same test Darwin posed about 150 years ago. Behe figured out what the test was, but he's been unable to find anything that meets the test.
So what's to discuss?
Comment by edarrell — March 16, 2006 @ 1:17 pm
March 16th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Donald M chastised me:
If you've followed the literature before and after, you'd know that my claim is absolutely the case. Behe's examples have each been found not to be irreducible, in several cases with papers that were published a decade or so prior to Behe's writing. In any case, irreducible complexity is not a criterion for design, but merely a pointer to it. On the more difficult issue of just what is design, Behe's answer has been consistently, "I can't tell you exactly, but I know it when I see it." Since the Texas hearings, he's taken to making wonderful references to Dembski's work, handwaving as if Dembski had a way to distinguish intelligent design from other design.
Behe talks about blood clotting, for example. He holds the human blood clotting system up as a model of irreducible complexity, names several key components including the Hagemann Factor, and says point blank that such complexity could not evolve. He then says there is, as a consequence, no possible means by which Darwinian evolution could evolve such a system.
Dolphins have blood that clots, however — but they lack the Hagemann Factor. Behe spends a dozen pages poking fun at Russell Doolittle for proposing that we would find animals with just part of the mammalian or human clotting system, solid evidence that evolutionary pathways exist; it turns out that Doolittle was right, however. Not only do dolphins get along very nicely without the "irreducibly complex necessity" of Hagamann Factor, but work on puffer fish and zebrafish has verified Doolittle's predictions. (References are available inexpensivelya nd easily at Talk Origins: http://www.talkorigins.org/ind...)
Meanwhile, Behe's failed to find any system which can stand up to scrutiny as irreducibly complex, and (in a funk? who knows?) appears to have stopped all laboratory work on the issue about a decade ago. No one else has picked it up as promising either (MG? You have keys to a lab, yes?).
I have read Behe. I've listened to him lecture. I've interviewed him. I've watched him take questions from church groups, and from biology students, from biochemistry students, from religiously-promoting faculty, and from science faculty.
If ID had a science leg to stand on, it would be in the high school textbooks already.
Now, Donald, have you any serious data to suggest we should change our views?
Comment by edarrell — March 16, 2006 @ 1:43 pm
March 16th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
Eddarrell:
Actually, when defining the clotting system as irreducibly