Fear is in the Air
by MikeGeneOver on the ARN forum, Jack shares an e-mail he received from Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of American Civil Liberties Union. It contains the following claim:
Powerful political forces are not just tinkering around the edges of our religious freedom. They have set their sights on transforming our country from a constitutional democracy to a thinly veiled theocracy. They want to turn America into a country governed by their interpretation of the Bible, serviced by faith-based, taxpayer-funded institutions and guided by religious doctrine against which neither citizens nor judges should dare to speak up.
You and I can't let them get away with it.
The "theocracy around the corner" bit it clearly an example of irrational hysteria mixed with paranoia. But I suppose we can excuse it, as this looks like a fund-raising letter. Y'know how it works: a) find a bogeyman; b) argue that bogeyman is about to get you and then c) ask for money to fight off the bogeyman. This is old school sales technique at work and the ACLU is clearly peddling the Fear to rake in the money.
But what if the hysteria is more than a way to con people out of their money? What if people are really True Believers in the coming apocalypse? And what if such people exist within the scientific community?
Pat Shipman is an adjunct professor of anthropology at the Pennsylvania State University. He wrote an essay for the American Scientist entitled, "Being Stalked by Intelligent Design." And as the title would have you expect, the smell of fear runs throughout the essay. The usual elements are present "“ the Wedge Conspiracy, the Intimidated Teachers, Science Education is already in trouble (and whose fault is that?), etc. But it's more than this. Throughout the essay, Shipman effectively admits he feels threatened by ID and is alarmed, terrified, and even horribly frightened. In fact, the title of his essay comes from this rather striking confession:
These events prompted me to take ID seriously, and this movement scares me. Now I feel like a jogger in the park at night who realizes that she is far too isolated and that the shadows are far too deep. At first I ignored that faint rustling behind me, convincing myself it was just wind in the leaves. Louder noises made me jump and turn around, but I saw nothing. Now I know that I and my colleagues in science are being stalked with careful and deadly deliberation. I fear my days are numbered unless I act soon and effectively. If you are reading this, the chances are that you are in the same position.
As we approach Halloween, perhaps scientists can turn out the lights and read each other Shipman's article around the soft glow of the Bunsen burner. In a low voice, simpy say, "Your days are numbered"¦.What's that?!…Did you hear that sound out in the hall?…A frightening predator roams the hall ways. The uneducated peasants call him Behecula. He has fangs 10 inches long, razor-sharp claws, and his mouth is drenched in clotting factors. He has supernatural strength and cunning, able to destroy the entire global scientific community by sucking blood from the soft underbelly exposed in a small community named Dover."
And it's from this position of Fear and Trembling that Shipman calls upon his fellow threatened colleagues to "expose Intelligent Design for what it really is?"
Look, I probably shouldn't make fun of someone else's fear, but I think this rhetoric is really losing its grasp on reality. If more and more scientists come to the public speaking like Shipman, more and more of the public is going to wonder about these scientists.
What's more, more of the public might figure out that you can't objectively pass judgment on something that scares the hell out of you.
October 7th, 2005 at 1:46 am
At first I thought those who promoted the conspiracy theory did so knowing full well the conspiracy theory was not true, but used it only as a means of smearing individuals they disapproved of and selling books and raising money.
I didn't think intelligent people like Barbara Forrest were capable of actually believing the things she wrote in her book. Given my background, I just presumed she was conducting the usual misrepresentations and spin I've come to expect from Darwinists. Now, I'm starting to worry these guys actually believe the nonsense they write and read.
Let me give an example of how stereo-typed perceptions can be reinforced and viewed through colored perceptions.
On September 21, IDEA GMU president Christine Chenette and I went to Discovery Day in Washington DC. We met the very people in Barbara Forrest's book which she mentions by name whom she considers part of the conspiracy: Senator Richard Santorum, Congressman Tom Petri, Billionaire Howard Ahmanson, assistant secretaries of the President's cabinet, congressional staffers, various former ambassadors including ambassador Bruce Chapman, Johnathan Wells, etc.
We came there because we were deeply concerned that people like John Patterson are advocating the stripping and denial of diplomas, that ID sympathetic professors at our universities like Gonzalez, Bryson, Kenyon, Dembski, Crocker, etc. are having their careers railroaded if they are discovered to have ID leanings.
Later on that night, Jonathan Wells speaks at our IDEA meeting at GMU. A professor at the meeting stands up and declares that he's studied ID, and that he read Creationism's Trojan Horse and that he knows what the movement is really all about, and recommends that everyone read Forrest's book. I was taken aback! Scientists are actually willing to read and believe the equivalent of the National Enquirer (Forrest's book) regarding ID.
Unfortunately, if people so choose to see us as conspirators, it would be easy to do so. They could believe that the IDEA meeting is part of Wedge recruitment operation to recruit followers to participate in the overthrow of government (exactly how Barb Forrest characterizes IDEA!, good grief). The fact that we met so many of the named individuals in Barbara Forrest's book on capitol hill earlier that day is proof positive we were part of a political conspiracy. Forrest mentions that the DI fellows try to run seminars on college campuses, and indeed Jonathan Wells is seen speaking to 80 people at IDEA meeting on the same day he and the IDEA leadership had lunch with Senator Santorum and Howard Ahmanson.
Look what Forrest and Gross have to say:
Paul Gross is co-author with Barbara Forrest. At Gross's school I'm going to recommend reading his book by the IDEA members just so they can understand what they're really a part of (lol!):
Now the funny thing in all this is that IDEA was a relatively unknown entity until recently. 60 college kids serving as IDEA officers throughout the country simply exchanging educational materials with one another and discussing origins. Would this fact be at all considered threatening to democracy and science? Yet this is viewed as a recruiting drive to get under cover operatives as part of a conspiracy to overthrow the government. Cut me a break!
Well, I have little doubt it was Barb's fear mongering that got the prestigious scientific journal to report on ID on the college campuses.
I ended up being in the cover story as a result, and the intent of the story I think actually backfired for Dr. Forrest. Since that time our IDEA chapters in Virginia have been getting a steady stream of reporter inquiries, and we're all to happy to tell the reporters the state of affairs. At Gross school, the tiny IDEA chapter that had 6 faithful members last Fall. 1 year later we had 100 in attendance on the first meeting including coverage by a local radio station.
Even at GMU, our club was almost virtually unknown until Barb got us on the cover of Nature. Our last meeting boasted 60 to 80 students. This time last year we had only 2 students. So I'd like to thank Barb for her promotional efforts and free advertising for our clubs.
Given these considerations, I must agree with Mike:
I shouldn't make fun of them either, but it's really hard not to get a chuckle of what they make us out to be. At first I poked fun at their fear mongering because I didn't really think they believed the conspiracy theory either, but put up this charade to smear IDists. Now, I'm worried they actually believe the conspiracy theory. I guess it makes great tabloid print. I must admit I was amused the Judge in the Dover case considered Barb's work the equivalent of a magazine article. It gives me hope someone in the judiciary can see her expert tabloid testimony for what it is.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — October 7, 2005 @ 1:46 am
October 7th, 2005 at 6:39 am
Hi Mike,
"Y'know how it works: a) find a bogeyman; b) argue that bogeyman is about to get you and then c) ask for money to fight off the bogeyman."
Your post reminded me of this Calvin and Hobbes cartoon.
Comment by Krauze — October 7, 2005 @ 6:39 am
October 7th, 2005 at 10:15 am
Recall Dr. Marshall Berman on ID
Until I began meeting professors and seeing the fear and distress in their eyes I thought it was just a deliberate smear campaign. But the article I linked to is distubing in that scientists like Berman apparently believe the conspiracy theory. I just didn't think intelligent people like Berman would be that gullible. I figured it was all a charade and privately they never believed what they said. But when you start seeing the fear and distress on the faces college professors, it's another story.
Yeah right, I suppose he could say several formerly clandestine supporters came out of the closet recently, that these clandestine supporters were at the highest places in government: President George Bush, Senate Majority leader Bill Frist, and Senator John McCain.
As I said, I figured this was just a smear campaign, I didn't think intelligent people actually believed in the boogey man!
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — October 7, 2005 @ 10:15 am
October 7th, 2005 at 12:20 pm
What if?
Today at Telic Thoughts, MikeGene showed how "Fear is in the Air" among evolutionary scientists . . . . But what if it was really shown that ID is not about religious prejudice but about observable reality?
I invite you to play this "what if" g…
Trackback by Thinking Christian — October 7, 2005 @ 12:20 pm
October 7th, 2005 at 4:56 pm
Better dead than …?
Now this is interesting, and a little frightening. In the 1950's, communists were the enemy of choice.
Trackback by Exile from GROGGS — October 7, 2005 @ 4:56 pm
October 7th, 2005 at 7:21 pm
Hi Salvador,
I do know from direct personal experience that Forrest's book is less than accurate. But there is no need to kick dead, still horses here.
The Fear is everywhere and it would seem to me that an excellent book by a social scientist is just waiting to be written. Take the 120 Strong. That whole petition was rooted in Fear. How do we know? It was all instigated by Hector Avalos. And Avalos thinks a monster is in the closet. Remember this:
Yes, he is afraid. Quick, someone find his blankie for him.
Comment by MikeGene — October 7, 2005 @ 7:21 pm
October 7th, 2005 at 9:19 pm
Hi Mike,
I wish to thank you for enlightening me on these issues. I did not realize how threatened these people really felt. You are for more perceptive than I.
The Avalos quote has echos Forrest and Gross.
Tragically! Forrest is informing her comrades that it is a tragedy that an IDist has a teaching positions at a university.
She goes on to give a witch hunt list of and non-tenured academics. Guess whose names have appeared: William Dembski, Guillermo Gonzalez, Francis Beckwith. Guess who has been publicly targeted and how this "tragedy" is trying to be remedied!
Forrest looks at the acquisition of an academic degree as a means of cover for their stealth agenda. Is there not any chance in her mind that they acquired those degrees because they wanted to learn?
That's how Forrest and Avalos view these professors, as under cover operatives participating in the overthrow of science and democracy.
Further, Forrest and friends think that "cells of followers" and "recruits" are being cultivated from the student populations by the Wedge to make more undercover academics that will be part of the conspiracy.
I mentioned Jonathan Wells leading a seminar at GMU through our IDEA chapter on September 21, 2005. This is how Forrest would interpret that event:
Quick, Barb has sounded the alarm. The boogey man is everywhere, and more are coming. Run Hector, run.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — October 7, 2005 @ 9:19 pm
October 7th, 2005 at 9:41 pm
I meant to say "tenured and non-tenured" academics. Guess who was also on the witch hunt list, Scott Minnich. Guess what was just realeased by the Associated Press: Scott Minnich's School Issues Edict
What is distressing is that this announcement comes as part of Eugenie's talk, "Why Scientists Reject Intelligent Design" on October 12 at University of Idaho. Guess which university is slated next to be recipient of that talk after the University of Idaho. You guessed it, George Mason University on December 1. Is another edict or witch hunt petition in the making?
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — October 7, 2005 @ 9:41 pm
October 7th, 2005 at 11:49 pm
If ID isn't a stealth attempt to slam science, why the "Wedge Strategy?" Do you know of any science theory that has ever needed to hire public relations firms before? Did Einstein make his case to school boards? I can find no record that he ever testified to the Texas State Board of Education asking that they legislate his ideas into the books.
Any time advocates of a belief system refuse to play by the rules of science, but instead ask legislative action either against their "opponent" or to favor their views, there is good reason for civil libertarians to be concerned.
If civil libertarians have no reason to be concerned, why the false claims about Kenyon in this thread? The guy was not fire, not demoted, and in fact is listed as emeritus by his institution. Where is there any repression of Kenyon's views? And yet, in classic propaganda style, he is listed here as having been somehow oppressed.
When somebody asks government intervention in the free market of ideas, free marketeers everywhere are threatened.
Ahmanson's funding for public relations at the Discovery Institute, by the way, is about four times the total amount available for all pro-evolution efforts in the U.S. There are at most a couple hundred scientists who put any stock in intelligent design, as opposed to about 80,000 advance-degreed, professional biologists who think it's bunk. And the tiny handful, with the aid of their big money p.r. firms, snooker people like Rick Santorum into legislating views that cannot win in the marketplace.
And you guys claim ID is repressed? Would it be possible to get a view of the world more upside down?
Call me when the first ID advocate gets arrested for teaching it. That'll indicate some parity in repression.
Comment by edarrell — October 7, 2005 @ 11:49 pm
October 8th, 2005 at 12:03 am
Sal, the University of Idaho merely requires that stuff taught as fact have research in back of it.
Why should intelligent design get a pass on doing hard research that no other part of science gets? Genetic drift has to produce real lab results to get into the classroom: What makes ID superior to genetic drift as an idea?
Comment by edarrell — October 8, 2005 @ 12:03 am
October 8th, 2005 at 12:15 am
By the way, Pat Shipman is female. And for years creationists have assailed her as a liar and charlatan in print and on the internet (her topics have included Neandertal and archeopteryx, among others).
When working for science in biology books here in Texas, I ran into several distinguished scientists who asked that their names be kept out of the fray because they feared for their research, in fossils, in crop protection against insects, in paleontology, in other places.
In point of fact, your guys convinced the Justice Department to go after a Catholic priest teaching evolution at Texas Tech. The university was threatened with a civil rights suit.
Get your facts straight, ID folk. Intelligent design advocates, unable to come up with science to back claims, are getting scared and nasty. You've got it bass ackwards. ID advocates enjoy expenses-paid trips to adulatory congregations around the country, and fat consulting contracts to edit books that can't be used in schools. TV preachers call scientists "evil" and "satanic," and the Discovery Institute pushes lists of silly questions to pester high school biology teachers with, to get parents to complain about the teachers just doing their jobs.
ID is repressed the way Sherrif O'Connor was repressed by the civil rights marchers in Selma.
Has anybody found an ID lab yet? We're still hoping for photos to prove there is science there.
Comment by edarrell — October 8, 2005 @ 12:15 am
October 8th, 2005 at 7:54 am
Ed: Isn't it the case that ID is not something you research - it is an understanding of the nature of the world, that shapes your conclusions about the research you have done?
Thus there would be an ID interpretation of "Junk DNA", and a darwinist interpretation. There would be an ID interpretation of gaps in the fossil record, and several darwinist ones. And so on.
So the question shouldn't be "where are the ID labs" but "where are the interpretations of data from an ID perspective".
Comment by Exile From Groggs — October 8, 2005 @ 7:54 am
October 8th, 2005 at 9:21 am
edarrell Says October 8th, 2005 at 11:49 pm :
Not sure what "rules of science" you speak of, nor what legislative action is directed "against" Darwinists. But it would seem civil libertarians would be suspicious of "rules" propagated by either side to serve their own interests.
But of course, they already have intervened in their role as operators of public schools. I don't think it is govt intervention that you are opposed to, but intervention that you don't support. That's not a civil libertarian issue, but a political one.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — October 8, 2005 @ 9:21 am
October 8th, 2005 at 9:27 am
edarrell Says: October 8th, 2005 at 12:15 am
If it is the case I am thinking of, it was because there was an allegation of a civil rights violation. Should scientists, or professors, or Darwinists be exempt from federal civil rights laws, or is it the laws themselves that you think should be eliminated? I think what civil libertarians might tell you is that if we are gonna have such laws, they should be enforced impartially. Equal protection.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — October 8, 2005 @ 9:27 am
October 8th, 2005 at 10:22 am
Using google
I typed in "Salvador Cordova" Charlatan and got 10 hits
I typed in "Pat Shipman" Charlatan and got 13 hits
I typed in "Ed Darrell" Charlatan and got 52 hits
I guess you have a point. If you and Pat Shipman are associated with the word Charlatan more than I am (a YEC) that's pretty sad
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — October 8, 2005 @ 10:22 am
October 8th, 2005 at 10:43 am
Ed:
Since you are the expert, you first need to define and describe this "Wedge Strategy." No links, no web pages "“ use your own words to describe it for us.
This "legislative action" would be more serious if it was aimed at the federal funding of scientific research. But the action is typically local and surrounds what kids get taught in the school rooms. You write that "When somebody asks government intervention in the free market of ideas, free marketeers everywhere are threatened." You don't seem to understand how the schools work. By definition, they exist as the government sanctioned ideas that are propagated to the next generation. And they are supported by extracting money from everyone that lives in the community and then giving that money to bureaucrats to spend on their curricula, programs, and more bureaucrats. Factor in a pluralistic society and the whole design is front-loaded to generate just this type of controversy.
We must remember that Ed also doesn't think Sternberg was treated wrongly in any fashion. As someone who feels threatened by ID and is thus politically obsessed and totally biased, his opinion is both predictable and meaningless.
Clearly, Ed's views are upside down. We can all see for ourselves by asking who is doing the witch-hunting. Richard Dawkins can write about religion being worse that sexual molestation and equivalent to mental child abuse. His Oxford colleagues either ignore it or smile. Gonzalez builds on the Anthropic Principle and his colleagues, led by an anti-religious zealot, issue a Decree and demand that he come before them. After all, they don't want to be "associated" with such a "zealot."
LOL Parity in repression??? Are you saying there are scientists sitting in jail for opposing ID?? Anyway, here's my take:
Here and here.
That might explain some things. As I noted back in 2002, "Why do some critics of ID insist on employing such rhetoric? Why would someone insist on viewing this debate through the filters of the "Intelligent Design Creationism" label? For one thing, it emerges from and taps in to their stereotypes. Many ID critics have much previous experience arguing with Creationists and thus their experience has shaped and conditioned their perceptions. This then leads to the psychological phenomena of transference, where anyone arguing for ID is perceived through the impressions acquired previously by arguing with Creationists."
What are you ranting about now?
Comment by MikeGene — October 8, 2005 @ 10:43 am
October 8th, 2005 at 11:19 am
I recommend teaching ID as a theory, as a hypothesis and leaving it up to the students to decide if it is a fact.
The "Fear in the Air" is being perceieved by the students. At our IDEA meeting with Johnathan Wells the students felt sorry for some of the anti-ID professors. They said, "he [the anti-ID professor] looked really threatened" or "he looked like his whole world was falling down around him."
What is comical is that ID is already being mentioned (if only in a negative light) in university textbooks (one student informed me their astrobiolgoy book mentions it). What will happen if a student asks, "professor can you elaborate on more on that section on ID, that sounds really interesting".
The professor will respond, "well, you're required to be taught it's false by University Edict."
But the student will say, "but I read Mike Gene's website, he had some really good points. He said…"
The professor responds, "Stop! Thus saith the University Edict, thou shalt learn only naturalistic evolution. Thou shalt not ask us question we cannot answer (even good questions). Thou shalt learn to avoid critical thinking and learn blind acceptance. Thou shalt help fearful professors sleep at night for fear of the boogey man."
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — October 8, 2005 @ 11:19 am
October 8th, 2005 at 12:23 pm
sal writes:
Reading through this, I think most of you are missing the key point. Sal's comment above is closest to the mark, I think. It's not so much that the Darwinists "choose" to see us as co-conspirators against "real" science. Rather, I have come to believe that their "wedge" strategy is to purposefully label the ID movement as conspiratorial in order to completely avoid having to deal with substantive scientific issues being raised from within ID. The mantra of this strategy on the part of the Darwinists is: why use a good argument, when a good ad hominem will do! By keeping the discussion focused on labels and "conspiracies", they ccan excuse themselves from ever having to address the scientific issues.
If you think me wrong here, consider: why is Panda's Thumb successful? Is it because they present strong, substantive scientific argument and rebuttal of ID challenges, or is it becuase they relentlessly squash any atttempt at substantive discussion through ad hom, misrepresentation, and straw man argumentation? From where I sit, it looks like the latter.
How many books, articles, or internet discussions are devoted to lively, but respectfusl exchange of substarntive scientific issues with respect to ID vs Evolution as compared to those that resort to ID and ID propoent bashing? I think the Darwinists strategy here is clear: avoid scientific discussion at all costs, and keep the focus on the ID/Creationist conspiracy.
Ed Darrel asks:
What is the NCSE if not PR for Darwinism? What is Panda's Thumb if not PR for Darwinism? What is Talk.Origins if not PR for Darwinism? What is DebunkCreation if not PR for Darwiniism? There's little real science to be found on any of them and they ALL exist to advance the "all IDers are engaged in a conspiracy to ovethrow science and create a theocracy" message. Open your eyes, Ed. If there is a conspiracy here, it is being led by the Darwinisits and NOT the IDPs.
Comment by DonaldM — October 8, 2005 @ 12:23 pm
October 9th, 2005 at 10:15 am
Where are you, Ed? I noted that since you are the expert, you first need to define and describe this "Wedge Strategy." No links, no web pages "“ use your own words to describe it for us.
Comment by MikeGene — October 9, 2005 @ 10:15 am
October 9th, 2005 at 12:40 pm
Hey, ed, I always enjoy watching you spout stories that you've either fabricated or "creatively edited" beyond recognition, and then watching you run away from the thread when asked for substantiation and details. So, please, show us the evidence that "our guys" went after some Catholic priest at Texas Tech because he was "teaching evolution". Note, we're looking for evidence that he was targetted for teaching evolution, not evidence that some guy who happened to be teaching evolution was targetted by someone for something else.
Comment by Deuce — October 9, 2005 @ 12:40 pm
October 9th, 2005 at 3:57 pm
I'd also like some evidence for the "you guys" part of Ed's pontification. I sure don't remember doing anything of the sort, but then again, I've had a really hectic week. Or perhaps Ed was just painting with his broad brush again.
Comment by Krauze — October 9, 2005 @ 3:57 pm
October 9th, 2005 at 4:06 pm
Stick the to the facts, and the truth can set you free. Of course, one has to be willing to be free. - Edarrel
LOL
Comment by MikeGene — October 9, 2005 @ 4:06 pm
October 10th, 2005 at 1:45 am
Even thogh the Shipman and Forrest writings seem more than a little absurd, and even though it is a stalling tactic to use the vilification strategy to avoid discussing the science, and even though their fear is at least partially a fear of loss of power and influence, still we must remember that at one time religion had the academic power and that fundamentalism is a powerful force in our world and in American society, and may be growing. There are quite a few fundamentalist Christians who fully expect and perhaps somewhat excitedly anticipate the destruction of this planet, and also some who advocate and expect (I forget the name of them but they are real) an overthrow of the current order and the establishment of a government using Biblical law. Some of them hoped y2K would provide the necessary destruction.
When I see the various ID proponents throwing up their hands at the conspiracy theory, I always wonder if they have forgottent that there is some real justification for those fears, even though I believe they are directed at the wrong target?
Comment by onething — October 10, 2005 @ 1:45 am