Forrest's New Groove: Same as the Old Groove
by JoyThe comments section of Mike's blog post Barbara Forrest Speaks Out has become a bit overloaded with defenses of Forrest's hyperbolic fear-mongering and reasonable responses pointing out the blatant propaganda she's become so expert at dishing out to her fan club since deciding to tie her career and legacy to defeating ID.
So I thought I'd add another blog about Forrest's particular rhetorical style and ridiculous assertions, which have been honed over a number of years since embracing her secularism defense "calling" sometime in the 1990s. For this we need only to take the specific assertions of her latest diatribe, which appeared as an interview with an anti-ID blogger ['Darksyde'] at the leftist political site "Daily Kos."
The pertinent quotation in Mike's blog almost seems to have been crafted for the particular audience of left-wing secular activists Kos is noted for. The passage was highlighted in bold by Mike in his blog, and I reproduce it here for reference:
"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."
Ah, but Forrest is a smart lady who knows which side her bread is buttered on - she's been saying these same things for years. If we didn't know that we're now in the "Post-Wedge World," we just might be fooled into taking her propaganda seriously and forgetting that she's mouthing platitudes from a dog-eared playbook that hasn't been edited yet to reflect current reality.
Which is a strong indicator of what, exactly, the radical polemics employed in anti-ID propaganda is all about. It's perfectly reasonable to analyze the polemics themselves to get a sense of the agenda behind the public face. And to recognize - because it's so obvious - that the agenda is entirely sociopolitical; i.e., has nothing much to do with science or the scientific validity of neodarwinism.
Question: Can we start with an agreement between both ID supporters and ID critics that the primary issues at this juncture are in fact sociopolitical rather than scientific?
It seems to me that if we could at least agree on that much (and we could, because it's entirely evident), we might begin to approach dialogue in this new "Post-Wedge" climate with a bit more honesty than has thus far been employed by professional polemicists. Motivations are pertinent to issues on which there is strong disagreement in the sociopolitical world of partisan politics and culturally-based metaphysical absolutisms.
If we could examine those issues as if 'reason' were truly an effective and desirable approach, we might find we've nothing to fear.
March 16th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
How can we be in a "Post-Wedge World" when there are ongoing attempts to insert ID into high-school curricula? It seems to me that these rumours of the death of the Wedge have been greatly exaggerated.
Comment by Mesk — March 16, 2006 @ 8:28 pm
March 16th, 2006 at 9:19 pm
Hi Mesk,
I think it fair to say that we are on the front-edge of the post-Wedge world. Of course, there will still be some inertia from the Wedge World for some time, but certainly you can appreciate the significance of the Dover decision when it comes to any hopes for the Wedge enthusiasts.
Just follow the trends. Since Dover, the Ohio Board of Education removed its "Critical Analysis of Evolution" model lesson plan (as I expected) and the South Carolina Board of Education rejected its "critical analysis" proposal (as I expected). Or just follow the NCSE's web page and keep track of the defeat after defeat experienced by the Wedge proponents.
Look, we live in a pluralistic society where a majority of people want to see "equal time." Some of them then participate in the democratic process and get elected to local school boards. That's how the system works. The same majority is also taxed heavily to support school systems, but are often told to "butt out" when it comes to seeing how their money is spent. The system is thus front-loaded to spawn these nuisances. What matters is whether any of it really will seriously damage science or establish a theocracy. It won't.
Imagine this was a sporting event. Would anyone really bet on the Wedge Team? Maybe we should set up a real-world betting pool. Anytime someone does something that makes it look like ID is going to be taught in some school, we could all wager our real-world money on the outcome. I've been betting on the anti-Wedge forces and it would be nice to have raked in a few hundred bucks.
Comment by MikeGene — March 16, 2006 @ 9:19 pm
March 16th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
Interesting, Mike. Your criterion isn't real, useful experimental or observation results that favor ID — your test is a much lower bar of looking to see if somebody will teach it in a public school.
As Robert Bork complains, one can get anything taught in a public school. The test for ID should be higher, if it were science.
You might want to take in the new movie, "Thanks for Smoking." It's a tale about people who work for the tobacco companies, back in the day before the suits starting falling against them. There's no good science in the movie, but they nail the concept of creating fog and fuzzing the results to make it sound like it's only fair to let the poor, picked-on tobacco magnates market poison to children, or somesuch. Doesn't a tobacco company have a right to make a profit like everyone else?
I would hesitate to mention it, but I think ID isn't nearly as addictive as tobacco.
By the way, rereading Dr. Forrest's comments, I note that she doesn't say ID advocates are all reconstructionists, or anything like it. What she says is that ID is another column in the right-wing war on reason, government, education, and freedom.
She's not saying that you're evil, necessarily. She's saying ID is being used for bad purposes. She's saying that ID is a convenient tool for the right wing to use. It's a different argument than the one most of y'all are trying to rebut. It has nothing to do with your intentions, or your goals. It has to do with whether you fit the agenda of the real power guys.
Think Jack Abramson. Do you really think he was an advocate for Native Americans?
Comment by edarrell — March 16, 2006 @ 10:32 pm
March 16th, 2006 at 11:02 pm
Ed:
You are confused. I am simply addressing the notion that the Wedge is alive and well. Look at it this way. Do we all agree that there is little-to-no chance that ID will be taught in the schools? If the answer is yes, it's an important component of the post-Wedge world. If the answer is no, then a betting pool would be an interesting idea.
Anyway, you overlooked a question from the last thread - Can you show us where and how Forrest defined "creationist," "Religious Right," and "theocracy." I answered your question in that thread. And my question is also serious, Ed. I hope for your serious answer.
Comment by MikeGene — March 16, 2006 @ 11:02 pm
March 17th, 2006 at 10:28 am
Hi, Edarrell. You wrote:
So then why doesn't Forrest go after Abramson and leave the Native Americans alone?
Comment by Lutepisc — March 17, 2006 @ 10:28 am
March 17th, 2006 at 10:35 am
(Oops…Abramoff…)
Comment by Lutepisc — March 17, 2006 @ 10:35 am
March 17th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Hi, Mesk. It probably won't surprise you that I see the situation differently. To me, stubbornly clinging to Wedge-centricity is a sign of ideological desperation. For all the reasons listed by Mike (in several blogs, not just this one) - the federal precedent has been set, school boards everywhere are backing down.
The point of my question is quite specific to the hyperbolic fear-mongering Forrest just can't seem to let go of. ID has been ruled NOT science, and will remain not-science until science accepts the existence of teleology in life/evolution. So the science fight is over as far as it extended to the sociopolitical sphere. What's left to be afraid of?
Comment by Joy — March 17, 2006 @ 12:10 pm
March 17th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
I think it was a blog or paper by Mike Gene I read some time ago which notes that ID is less a competing theory and more a modifying theory to the ToE.
I've asked Darwinist defenders in other forums to explain how truly random mutations could observed in any given population - given a finite number of scientists and equipment to observe and quantify the population.
The age of the cosmos/earth and life on earth seems undisputed by ID types and Darwinists alike and the crux is whether random mutation can account for the complex information in the simplest and most complex life forms.
I've met very few darwinists who will admit that the RM aspect of the ToE is based wholly on inference. How does one scientifically observe random mutations? How does one discount the designs of investigators when crafting mutation experiements? Can they be said to be truly random in a controlled experiment?
So it seems to me that RM is an inference shaped by philosophy and an honest inquiry would at least acknowledge the philosophical. Forrest's claims and positions are laden with philosophy and a clear political axe to grind. It would be nice if some of the luminaries who criticize ID would be honest enough to acknowledge the effects of their own philosophies on their conclusions of observations.
Comment by todd — March 17, 2006 @ 12:40 pm
March 17th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
And yet Ed, the only ones who have actually openly toyed with the thought of incarcerating, confining, expelling or disappearing their opponents is the paranoid materialist crowd. Oh I realize they're not really serious. Such a whimsical bunch. By the way - you said
the only remotely accurate part of that is the government, education but w/o the comma. They rightly see the insipid pictures of lightning striking primordial ooze in the textbooks as proof that your side is delusional wishful thinkers.
Comment by rhodeymark — March 17, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
March 17th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
Please pardon my adjectives - I've been up since 4a. Why no edit function?
Comment by rhodeymark — March 17, 2006 @ 1:39 pm
March 18th, 2006 at 5:30 am
Joy Says:
Here I must disagree. There has been no federal precedent set. The Dover decision can be cited by those who agree with it, and ignored or refuted by those who don't. The prospect of a million dollar legal fee judgment, and the intense media scrutiny, can be daunting to a small local school district, but is less so to a state BoE. Despite the dancing at the funeral of ID, it really isn't dead yet.
Either as a scientific or education issue.
The Madison Cup Debate
http://media.jmu.edu/special/2...
Comment by RogerRabbitt — March 18, 2006 @ 5:30 am
March 18th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
RogerRabbit:
Then let it be heard, wherever there is cause to challenge. What's wrong with that? Sure, the metaphysical /philosophical motivations of DarwinDefenders may at some point become as much an issue as motivation was in the Dover ruling, but fair is fair. I'm not worried about the outcome either way, actually. The kids will survive. You couldn't discourage the ~.5% of students who desire a biological career no matter how hard you tried. They will get the knowledge they need.
If your concerns haven't been allayed, stay in for the duration by all means. Just know that your means (particularly if they're dishonest, as Forrest's consistently are) may turn on you at some point. And be prepared for that eventuality with something more realistic than a grand campaign against freedom.
Comment by Joy — March 18, 2006 @ 8:12 pm
March 19th, 2006 at 11:22 pm
I'd be disappointed if you didn't disagree, joy.
As you might have expected, my position is somewhere in the middle between your view and, say, PZ Myers'. I think the Dover decision was a mighty blow against attempts to get ID inserted into schools; but I also believe that this will only force mainstream ID organisations to pursue different strategies to reach the same end. I certainly don't think that this decision has caused the Discovery Institute to throw its collective hands up in the air and cease all attempts to get the fallacious notion that ID, as it currently stands, is a valid scientific theory inserted into the public consciousness.
The rhetoric coming from the Discovery Institute hasn't included any such concessions (not that I've heard, anyway), and there are still regular pronouncements to the effect that ID is perfectly valid science. For many ID critics, this is a red rag to a bull, and understandably so: ID, as it currently stands, simply has no solid scientific foundation, yet we have constant misinformation from the DI and other pro-ID groups pronouncing the death of evolutionary theory and its replacement with the "science" of ID. This is premature, to put it mildly.
I agree that much of Forrest's shrill rhetoric is simply overblown fear-mongering, but I can also see where it comes from. We can all agree that Mike Gene is unlikely to be driven by a desire to establish a theocracy, but there are fairly mainstream pro-ID groups out there with an agenda that is total anathema to liberal, secular pro-science folks like Forrest (and myself, for that matter). Regardless of the bloody nose they received in Dover, they're still fighting to be heard, making the same false claims that they were six months ago; they still want ID taught in schools, and they will continue to try to find ways to do this.
Comment by Mesk — March 19, 2006 @ 11:22 pm
March 20th, 2006 at 11:42 am
Thanks for the reply, Mesk. I've been sitting here (admittedly, it's just my first cup of coffee, so I could still be asleep) trying to imagine what a view halfway between me and PZ might look like, and it keeps eluding me. Sure there are partisans, and on this particular issue their fervor seems positively dishonest from either direction. But on closer examination it's also fairly clear that the main problem is "blinded by the light" of ideology - the polemicists may not recognize their own dishonesty because they truly believe in the apocalypse they decry so loudly.
Meanwhile, out in the real world, things are settling out rather well. My grandson's HS biology textbook is brand new and comes with an entire website for students to go exploring details - we didn't even have TV when I went to high school, much less computer banks lined up on both sides of the lab where blackboards used to be! I of course went straight to the presentation of evolution to see if it was as objectionably anti-theistic as my kids' textbooks were, and was delighted to find a scrupulously fair overview and history and not a single absolute assertion, anti-theological argument, or outright lie. This is big progress!
I'm not the Discovery Institute, and I don't have a problem with issue-advocacy groups in general whether I agree with their issues or not. Toleration dues for living in a pluralistic society. My issues have always been the dueling metaphysics and absolutist assertions being engaged by scientists with swollen heads and a lust for control over other people's minds. An ideological corruption of science serious enough to do far more damage in the long run than simply backing off the bullsh*t in a constitutionally mediated arena (public education).
People have rights to believe as they choose, and origins is a metaphysically "important" subject of belief. It's not science's job to dictate such things under force of law, or try to 'eradicate' beliefs some of its prideful practitioners disapprove of. This makes the reactionary noise generated by DI something that has had positive influence on the way evolution is now taught in public schools. That there are wannabe mind-tyrants on both sides of the coin is just politics-in-action. Comes with the territory.
It looks to me like religious reaction to unwarranted, metaphysically-biased absolute assertions has helped to expose the corruption. Science should thank the opposition - the public that has always paid its bills and salaries - for that. Remember who it serves.
Comment by Joy — March 20, 2006 @ 11:42 am
March 21st, 2006 at 6:48 pm
joy,
For the record, although I'm somewhere between you and PZ Myers, I'm not equideistant.
I certainly agree with you that polemics are a far-too-common feature of anti-ID arguments. Unfortunately, extremism is a natural human response to debate: on both sides of this argument, it's between Us and Them, and when They try to foist their wrong-headed ideas on my children, I'll fight them all the way. As I've said before on the ARN board, the only way to get anything constructive out of this debate is to ignore the noise coming from the extremists (be they PZ Myers, mturner or Ilion) and listen instead to the people sitting closer to the middle ground. It's a shame there's not more of us, but at least there's a few.
Comment by Mesk — March 21, 2006 @ 6:48 pm
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:41 pm
Mesk:
I am of the opinion that people become extremists in direct proportion to the threat they perceive to personal metaphysical beliefs. The religious/spiritual end of the spectrum isn't doing anything outrageous or unpredictable when they stand to defend, so I've always wondered why they are so often portrayed as radical (as a whole, not just individuals making a lot of "look at me!" noise).
And they've always had a legitimate issue even if you think it's ridiculous. Every time Forrest or Dawkins or PZ (or someone who bloviates just like them) opens their big mouth to proclaim that evolutionary biology slays God/gods, more believers in the middle of the road come to realize clearly that it's not about science at all. In such a situation they are of course going to defend that which means way more to them than any provisional theoretic their kids are exposed to for a semester out of their lives. And believers outnumber evangelical atheists by a very high margin most everywhere in this country.
Extremists do serve to focus attention and force positional choices (who do you want to be lumped with?). That can be a good service in the sociopolitical realm too. In this vein, it's the religious 'side' of the debate that holds the citadel, not science. When science allows its extremists to frame their 'side' of the debate, it can only do harm. Because science isn't about metaphysical beliefs, and the people paying science's bills aren't likely to put up with such a thing for long.
And of course this debate isn't anywhere close to the top of the list of important sociopolitical subjects that need immediate addressing these days. We've plenty of much more critical agenda items to straighten out. Heck, this debate isn't even on the radar for much of the middle ground despite the shrillness of the extremists. I actually see that as a good thing too, in that it has made it far more likely that solutions will embrace the middle ground instead of going firmly toward one 'side' or the other.
As I said, what is being taught to my grandson this semester is good science without a hint of metaphysical posturing designed to confuse, belittle, or generate animosity. I hope that soon all school districts will embrace this approach. There will be some on both extremes who think it's not enough, but tough titty. Public schools must abide by constitutional constraints that science proper doesn't have to abide. So the wannabe mind-tyrants on either 'side' haven't a leg to stand on in that arena. Never did have a leg.
The new books and attendant programs (placing funded by Duke) were worked out by a consortium with special consideration given to the legitimate concerns of rural parents in my state/region who are overwhelmingly fundamentalists. Along with consideration of the presence of a significant population of Pagans/New Agers and atheists in the cities. Everybody who counts wins, only the banshees lose. And nobody I know is complaining one bit about that! §;o)
Comment by Joy — March 22, 2006 @ 12:41 pm