Critics behaving badly
by KrauzeI know that ID critics like to claim that intelligent design is nothing but creationism, but they're usually smoother than this. A British newspaper article manages to quote ID supporter Michael Behe so badly out of context that a point about bad design gets turned into a claim that dinosaur fossils are fake! Check out Evolution News and View to see the chutzpah.
Apparently, there'll be a "Ask the ID people tough questions" event at Biola today (Friday). John Rennie, the editor of Scientific American, complains that the ID critics invited don't hold the "qualifications and readiness to participate in this event" (in case you're wondering about the "readiness" part, it seems to refer to the fact that one of the invitees, Bruce Weber, has been critical of neo-darwinism, suggesting that we need "a more solid framework for evolutionary biology"). But, as Paul Nelson points out, Biola invited far more menacing critics, who all declined. Turns out that critics were working behind the scenes, telling those "in the know" to stay away.
Now, I'm not real big on these kinds of debates in front of a crows as a means of settling the question of intelligent design - in fact, when I first heard of this, I sent Paul an e-mail, asking why he was wasting his time on it. But I do find it amusing that Rennie would complain that the "cool kids" haven't been invited to the party, when word went out to everyone but the un-cool kids to stay home.
Update: John from Verum Serum has a report from the event. He thinks the evening went well, but would have liked there to be some "more agressive questioners". Meanwhile, in the comments, Art is comparing the event to the "show-trials that were all the rage in the Stalin era of the Soviet Union", so the organizers should be ashamed of even asking Mark Perakh, who used to live in the Soviet Union, to attend. Yeah, I think I'll take hyperbole for 200.
May 12th, 2006 at 4:39 am
Ol' PZ is whining about this too.
I was going to comment on his post, but I decided it's a waste of time. That hate-filled man is beyond sensible discussion.
I was going to point out that he shouldn't call a creationist a clown and say he or she isn't a scientist. Of course, he's using the term incorrectly on purpose, when he knows that ID and creationism are 2 completely different things. Either way- I was going to point out the fact that the inventor of the MRI is a young earth creationist- so in PZ's twisted world, even the guy who invented the MRI isn't a scientist…even the inventor of this world changing piece of equipment is a "clown" to him.
I've always said this about this debate- one side of this whole issue seems to do nothing but call names and attack. The other side seems to want to have a sensible and calm debate without calling names and acting like a child.
Rennie and PZ both are great examples of the first category.
Comment by thebluesite — May 12, 2006 @ 4:39 am
May 12th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
Pffffttth. I resemble that remark. §;o)
Comment by Joy — May 12, 2006 @ 12:59 pm
May 12th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
The jokes never stop here"¦
Lessee, Biola organizes an event where selected "critics" get to ask one question and then listen while a distinguished panel of IDists takes 15 min to evade, obfuscate, and lie its way around the issues. Sort of like a presidential debate - stick to the script, don't say anything, bob and weave until the buzzer sounds. The panel is very, very unlikely to say anything of substance, and also unlikely to take the time to tailor their prepared soundbites to actually match the questions.
Whatever could be the purpose of such an event? Education? Hardly "“ a handful of questions and 15 minutes of evasion isn't going to teach anyone anything. PR? Most certainly. Heck, chances are the DI already has their summary of the event written, so that it can be released minutes (or maybe seconds) after the close of the process. (So what if the DI's account won't actually match what happened "“ remember, we're in the Post-Wedge World, where any utterance by an IDist is automatically a fact, and reality be darned.)
But wait, there's more. Why bother with the event if it's all about PR "“ the DI hasn't shown any inclination to accurately portray anything, Dembski et al. are making up all sorts of fictional persona to feed their delusional paranoia, so why do we really need a real-life event? Well, it's simple. Remember that Biola is charging a tidy sum for the privilege of witnessing the revival meeting. What is going to happen to the collection? I suspect that the ID panel, and perhaps some Biola higher-ups, will be laughing all the way to the bank. You can't accomplish this with a fictional event. You need real bank accounts to rob - Dembski's fictional "SNIPS" aren't going to be of help.
So who is behaving badly "“ the critics who declined to assist with this pocket-lining fleecing of attendees? Or the organizers who are charging people for something that has zero educational value and likely precious little social or entertainment value?
One more thing "“ the set-up is quite akin to show-trials that were all the rage in the Stalin era of the Soviet Union. It's quite an affront, I would suspect, to invite a veteran of the Great Patriotic War, someone who labored for decades under the very real threat of these show trials, to participate in such an obvious sham. Nice going, Biola. At least we know the sort of institution you really are.
Comment by Art — May 12, 2006 @ 4:28 pm
May 12th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
Art proves my point well. The event hasn't even taken place- yet to him, it's all a show, a PR event, they had "selected" guests (too bad it's more of an issue of the critics refusing to come), Dembski is making stuff up, others are liars as well, this is akin to Soviet show trials. ID is evil, Biola is evil, and on and on.
And how dare them charge for an event! Gasp!! Don't you know that Dawkins gives speeches for free…heck, he even 'sells' his books for free. Those evil, maniacal, dastardly ID folks!
Comment by thebluesite — May 12, 2006 @ 5:07 pm
May 12th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
What's funny is the way Rennie tries to SwiftBoat the critics before they even open their mouths.
Comment by MikeGene — May 12, 2006 @ 9:28 pm
May 15th, 2006 at 1:51 am
Let's look at what the folks at NCSE charge for a presentation:
Speaker: Wesley R. Elsberry, Ph.D.
Suggested Honorarium: $500
Speaker: Nicholas Matzke
Suggested Honorarium: $300
(Compared to Elsberry, Matzke is cheap. Plus, during the Q&A section, you can get him to play the "You give me a quote, I'll tell you from what YEC material it's from, without looking" game. IMO, Matzke gives you more bang for your buck.)
But they have nothing on this speaker:
Speaker: Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D.
Suggested Honorarium: $2500 (Whoa!)
Comment by Krauze — May 15, 2006 @ 1:51 am
May 15th, 2006 at 7:58 am
Who pays, Krauze, who pays? And what do they get for their money? A couple of hours of a sham "debate", set up under false pretenses?
The issue is not that the ID vanguard has found a way to make a buck, it's that the refusal of critics to help their selling of snake oil has been assailed as "behaving badly". There's nothing inappropriate about declining to participate in a rigged show trial whose only purpose is to generate PR to counterbalance the growing number of debacles that ID has suffered.
Comment by Art — May 15, 2006 @ 7:58 am
May 15th, 2006 at 8:04 am
LOL
Remember, Krauze, we're in the Post-Wedge World. It doesn't matter what Behe may actually claim to believe, or what he has written. If one can massage some of Behe's words to the effect that he thinks dinosaurs are fake, then that is as valid, moreso in fact, than the counterclaims of Behe and his supporters. That's how the Post-Wedge World works - if an author truly believes something, then the facts aren't really that important. Nor are any corrections and clarifications in cases like this.
Better get with the program.
Comment by Art — May 15, 2006 @ 8:04 am
May 15th, 2006 at 9:00 am
Hi Art,
"Who pays, Krauze, who pays? And what do they get for their money?"
I've never seen either Elsberry, Matzke, or Scott speak, so I can't answer the questions with regards to them. But I can guess what the answers would be for the Biola event:
Who pays? The people who see the event.
What do they get for their money? What they were promised: Seeing some critics criticize ID, and seeing some ID people reply to them.
In other words, a group of comsumers choose to buy and pay for a product, which they then receive. It's the free market at work.
"The issue is not that the ID vanguard has found a way to make a buck, it's that the refusal of critics to help their selling of snake oil has been assailed as "behaving badly"."
Oh, but I didn't criticize the "refusal of critics" to participate, did I now? Here's what I wrote:
"Now, I'm not real big on these kinds of debates in front of a crows as a means of settling the question of intelligent design - in fact, when I first heard of this, I sent Paul an e-mail, asking why he was wasting his time on it. But I do find it amusing that Rennie would complain that the "cool kids" haven't been invited to the party, when word went out to everyone but the un-cool kids to stay home."
As for your comments about the Post-Wedge World, I do not think it means what you think it means.
Comment by Krauze — May 15, 2006 @ 9:00 am
May 15th, 2006 at 9:19 am
But that's not Rennie said or implied. There's nothing about the Biola organizers avoiding particular critics. You, Krauze, OTOH, pretty clearly imply that the "cool kids" are behaving badly (that is, after all, in the title of the blog entry) by allegedly conspiring to "stay home". The accusation is a crock.
(slaps one's head) Oh yeah, Post-Wedge World. What Rennie really wrote isn't that important.
I'm trying, I really am. But it ain't easy.
Comment by Art — May 15, 2006 @ 9:19 am
May 15th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
NCSE doesn't charge admission, generally. Not only will the truth set you free, often it comes at no charge.
Which is not the same thing as saying there is a free lunch.
The $2 million a year that DI spends to promote ID is about 4 times the amount spent to promote evolution. Still, evolution papers in publication outnumber ID papers by about 10,000 to one, annually. Evolution is a real bargain, PR-wise.
Comment by edarrell — May 15, 2006 @ 10:12 pm
May 15th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
Um, is there a reason no one calls it by its formal name, the Bible Institute of Los Angeles?
Comment by edarrell — May 15, 2006 @ 10:13 pm
May 16th, 2006 at 6:43 am
Hi Art,
Before you read too much into the title of my post, you should know that's a pun on the British sit-com "Men Behaving Badly". I chose it with the first story (about the UK newspaper) in mind, not the Rennie-story. And no, there are no insinuations about the critics "behaving badly" by staying home. You're ignoring what I explicitly say my post to criticize something you think is implicitly there.
Oh yeah, what happened to your complaint about Biola charging entrance fees, letting consumers freely buy and pay for a product?
Comment by Krauze — May 16, 2006 @ 6:43 am
May 16th, 2006 at 8:05 am
I am curious, if ID is 'science', then why was this event organised by Biola University's Christian Apologetics Department?
15 minutes seems more than a little short for any serious questioning, and I suspect that, combined with the partisan venue, put off any big-name critics from attending.
Antony Flew appears to have inadvertently summed the whole thing up by falling asleep in the middle of it. It does seem to have been an irrelevant snooze of an event.
Comment by Hrafn — May 16, 2006 @ 8:05 am
May 16th, 2006 at 8:27 am
Krauze asked:
That wasn't my complaint. I dunno about your side of the pond, but over here we have a long tradition (well, at least a tradition) of snake oil salepersons, con artists, shysters, and the like. That's one of the great things about a free market - if you can convince the buying public to shell out some cash for something, no matter how worthless, then go for it.
My complaint is that aspersions are being cast towards "cool kids" who choose not to be parties to this fleecing. I don't understand why you, Krauze, or Nelson or anyone else seems to think that these critics are obliged to help the ID vanguard line their pockets by participating in such obvious shams.
One more thing - its hyperbole for $1000, thank you very kindly.
Comment by Art — May 16, 2006 @ 8:27 am
May 16th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
Hi Hrafn,
"I am curious, if ID is 'science', then why was this event organised by Biola University's Christian Apologetics Department?"
I've long been saying that ID isn't science, but I would suspect that Biola University's Christian Apologetics Department sponsored the even because they see ID as an apologetic tool. Sort of like when Barbara Forrest's group, the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association, arranged a Darwin Day to raise public awareness of secular humanism.
Comment by Krauze — May 16, 2006 @ 12:59 pm
May 16th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
Hi Art,
"I dunno about your side of the pond, but over here we have a long tradition (well, at least a tradition) of snake oil salepersons, con artists, shysters, and the like."
But there are laws that make it illegal to sell snake oil and perform con tricks. Should there likewise be laws against organizers charging admissions to events such as this?
"My complaint is that aspersions are being cast towards "cool kids" who choose not to be parties to this fleecing. I don't understand why you, Krauze, or Nelson or anyone else seems to think that these critics are obliged to help the ID vanguard line their pockets by participating in such obvious shams."
At this point, it's clear that you aren't interested in discussing my points, but rather in painting me with your misrepresentations. Readers are invited to read my posts and determine whether I think the "critics are obliged to help the ID vanguard line their pockets".
"One more thing - its hyperbole for $1000, thank you very kindly."
I take it you aren't interested in exploring the differences between this event and the "show-trials that were all the rage in the Stalin era of the Soviet Union"
Comment by Krauze — May 16, 2006 @ 1:22 pm
May 16th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
This whole "show trial" angle really bothers me. A couple points.
1. A "rigged show trial" is sort of like "wet water." One concept includes the other. You're hyperventilating, Art.
2. I was there in the 3rd row at the event. There was nothing rigged about it. The questioners came of their own free will and asked the questions they wanted to ask. The discussion lasted for 2 1/2 hours and covered the topic from a variety of angles: scientific, social, political, religious. It was heated at moments and yet civil throughout. The longest applause of the night was for the critics panel at the end of the debate.
As pointed out by the first commenter above, ID critics like Myers spend a great deal of time lashing out at both ID and religion with nothing even approaching civility on their own sites. Myers is obviously a very bright and capable scientist, and when he sticks to the science of biology I enjoy reading what he has to say. But every science post is followed by another in the daily stream of viscious attacks on the intelligence, motives and beliefs of his opponents. It seems to me that this vein-popping, eye-bulging intolerance of dissent coupled with a desire to publicly humiliate critics for their every fault real or imagined is precisely the psychological space where real show trials were born.
What Biola offered, by contrast, was civil, public debate with both sides given an opportunity to make their case. That's something that harms no one, at least that's how I see it.
Comment by John — May 16, 2006 @ 1:31 pm
May 16th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
About PZ: Just yesterday, I was amusing myself with the thought of making a card game about ID. The game should be called "IDiocy", and players would represent IDiots striving to establish a theocracy by rolling dice and moving ahead on the board (sort of like this game, Brandy Land). It immediately occured to me that one of the spaces should contain this instruction: "PZ Myers opens his mouth. All players go ahead three spaces."
Comment by Krauze — May 16, 2006 @ 1:42 pm
May 17th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
What I want to know is, who's paying Art. It looks suspiciously like the DI have hired someone to post as a faux Darwinist, a sort of 'live strawman'. Or is there a level of satire and subtlety here that my boorish antipodian brain can't appreciate?
Comment by BenK — May 17, 2006 @ 8:47 pm