Karen Armstrong and the fabricated quote
by KrauzeCheck out this quote, from a Guardian editorial opinion piece by Karen Armstrong:
The fundamentalists' rejection of science is deeply linked to their apocalyptic vision. Even the relatively sober ID theorists segue easily into Rapture-speak. "Great shakings and darkness are descending on Planet Earth," says the ID philosopher Paul Nelson, "but they will be overshadowed by even more amazing displays of God's power and light. Ever the long-term strategist, YHVH is raising up a mighty army of cutting-edge Jewish End-time warriors."
As a service to those of you who know Paul Nelson, I'll wait until you've picked up your jaws from the floor. ID critic Nick Matzke had a hard time believing it as well, and to his credit, he checked out the quote and posted his findings at the anti-ID blog The Panda's Thumb.
Since spurious quotations are bad in general, and not just when the creationists use them, I figured I should check this one. Googling the quote reveals exactly one hit, to a website named "David's Tent". This is apparently the website of Final Frontier Ministries, which is headquartered in Nashville. … [T]here is no evidence whatsoever of any connection between Paul Nelson and the quotes from the David's Tent webpage. For that matter, the word "Nelson" does not appear anywhere on the entire David's Tent website, according to google. The only mention of "Paul" on the page with the quotes is the Apostle Paul … Unless Karen Armstrong has some really amazing evidence that none of us have ever heard of before, She Goofed Big Time.
I would say that attributing a quote to Paul Nelson from a page that doesn't even mention him calls for language stronger than "goofing up", but I won't let that come between Matzke and myself. This statement, from his post, does puzzle me, however:
And it's quite a shame, really, because this will undoubtedly give the ID advocates something indignant to blog about all week, and will give them a talking point to raise every time Armstrong decides to talk about fundamentalism/creationism/ID.
While I don't intend to blog about this "all week", I do think people should be made aware of it. Presumable, Matzke agrees, or he wouldn't have blogged about it. And since I think that we have a lot of readers that don't check The Panda's Thumb on a regular basis, of course I'll mention it here.
As for ID supporters using this "a talking point to raise", why does Matzke think they shouldn't? It certainly isn't because ID critics shy away from things like that - when was the last time you read a critique of Jonathan Wells that didn't start out with the quote about Wells devoting his life to destroying Darwinism? And since Karen Armstrong appears to be capable of some enourmous bloopers when it comes to fundamentalism, why shouldn't her audience be aware of that when hearing her talk about that topic?
A commenter at The Panda's Thumb linked to an article showing that Karen Armstrong is no stranger when it comes to misleading the readers of The Guardian:
"Karen Armstrong: Islam's Hagiographer"
Update: Matzke has updated his post, noting that Armstrong's piece wasn't an editorial but an opinion piece. So far, The Guardian has given no sign of issuing a correction to the error in their newspaper.
July 31st, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Huh. Sure seems like Armstrong had to go far afield to find such an obscure statement to erroneously attribute to Nelson. Doesn't she know that this sort of garbage is too easily found out to be safe?
Though I must agree with one of the PT commenters - "Cutting-Edge Jewish End-Time Warriors" is a great name for a band…
Comment by Joy — July 31, 2006 @ 12:13 pm
July 31st, 2006 at 2:58 pm
Raise the credibility of Nick Matzke a notch or two. He clearly has some bias in favor of truth over what sounds good.
Comment by bFast — July 31, 2006 @ 2:58 pm
July 31st, 2006 at 6:39 pm
Wait just a minute here. We all know Paul's propensity to down a few brewskis with the enemy. Perhaps he and Karen shared a few pitchers and …well, we all know what happened the last time Paul tried to drink the opposition under the table.
Comment by Bilbo — July 31, 2006 @ 6:39 pm
July 31st, 2006 at 11:22 pm
Like bFast, I applaud Nick's efforts.
Yet one thing stands out since I read about this this morning (I've been busy all day). After searching the internet, I could not find one ID critic who has accused Armstrong of telling a lie. Not one.
Comment by MikeGene — July 31, 2006 @ 11:22 pm
August 1st, 2006 at 12:16 am
Yet, it must be remembered that: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
Comment by Ilion — August 1, 2006 @ 12:16 am
August 1st, 2006 at 6:07 pm
I looked up David's Tent. So how did Armstrong find this website, and then associate it with Paul Nelson? Did she do this on purpose, which would make it a lie? Or is there some other connection, that we don't know about? Did somebody else apply it to Nelson, and she took it as "gospel" It doesn't seem to add up.
Comment by Bilbo — August 1, 2006 @ 6:07 pm
August 1st, 2006 at 6:25 pm
Paul did write a paper, entitled "Life in the Big Tent."
http://www.equip.org/free/DL30...
Maybe she mistook Big Tent for David's Tent?
Comment by Bilbo — August 1, 2006 @ 6:25 pm
August 1st, 2006 at 6:30 pm
Bilbo:
Exactly. Armstrong not only owes a retraction and an apology, but she owes an explanation. How does one "goof" like this?
Comment by MikeGene — August 1, 2006 @ 6:30 pm
August 1st, 2006 at 7:15 pm
Hi everyone,
I have a novel hypothesis for how Karen Armstrong made the connection between Paul Nelson and the quote from "David's Tent". Stay with me here…
Paul Nelson got his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago.
Chicago is known for its gangsters.
Gangstaz wear ice.
Ice is made out of water.
David Attenborough made a documentary about life in the water.
David has a tent - David's Tent!
And that is how Karen Armstrong followed the cleverly disguised trail, leading from Paul Nelson back to the quote the vast ID conspiracy was trying to hide.
Comment by Krauze — August 1, 2006 @ 7:15 pm
August 1st, 2006 at 7:27 pm
Six degrees of David?
Comment by Ilion — August 1, 2006 @ 7:27 pm
August 1st, 2006 at 10:32 pm
Well, Krauze's hypothesis is the only one of the table. And it does have something going for it "“ it nicely captures the way conspiracy theorists think. According to Armstrong, the Bush administration won't sign off on the Kyoto treaty because they want to hasten the end. It reminds me of the nuts who used to think Reagan was trying to start a war with the Soviet Union because Reagan wanted to hasten Armageddon.
What's funny is that Armstrong is fairly darn clueless about the anti-ID rhetoric. Remember folks, ID is supposed to be a keystone in implementing the Theocracy. For example, conspiracy theorist Barbara Forrest links ID to RJ Rushdoony and his disciples. So? Well, the whole Rushdoony/Theocracy thing is one version of post-millenialism. The Rapture thing is pre-millenialism. Thus, not only does Armstrong falsely attribute a quote to Nelson, according to ID critic scholarship, she has him in the wrong school of religious thought!
Comment by MikeGene — August 1, 2006 @ 10:32 pm
August 1st, 2006 at 10:58 pm
Goodness! Even I didn't know that, and I'm about as well connected to the circles Rushdoony supposedly courted as anyone posting here. Goes to show, how obscure Rushdoony was even in Evangelical circles, much less the rest of the USA!
Barb Forrest had to dig pretty deep to fabricate her conspiracy theories.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 1, 2006 @ 10:58 pm
August 1st, 2006 at 11:06 pm
I like Krauze's hypothesis, but I've got a different one. Armstrong couldn't remember the title of Nelson's book and couldn't bother to find out, but she did remember something about a tent. So instead of googling Nelson, she googled "tent" and clicked on the first link that looked to be religiously wack. Then all she had to do was copy-paste the material and attribute it to Nelson, since he just MUST have written it because Paul Nelson writes all the religiously wack stuff, doesn't he?
Comment by Joy — August 1, 2006 @ 11:06 pm
August 1st, 2006 at 11:24 pm
Now that's a good hypothesis too, Joy. It is supported by the fact that most critics of ID rely on their stereotypes to do most of the heavy lifting. For example, a mind that hears "God" when "ID" is spoken is likely to become a mind that hears "David's Tent" when "Big Tent" is writen.
Comment by MikeGene — August 1, 2006 @ 11:24 pm
August 2nd, 2006 at 9:22 am
Goodness! Even I didn't know that, and I'm about as well connected to the circles Rushdoony supposedly courted as anyone posting here.
The reconstructionists' post-Mil view is laid out in Gary North's book on Revelation, The Days of Vengeance
Goes to show, how obscure Rushdoony was even in Evangelical circles, much less the rest of the USA!
In my experience, Rushdoony/Reconstructionism seem to be more popular in Reformed circles. Most evangelicals seem to be pre-mil, but there is some overlap; when I was in college, the leaders of the local Intervarsity chapters were Presbyterians who were sympathetic to Reconstructionism. That's where I first encountered the above book.
Comment by Nick — August 2, 2006 @ 9:22 am
August 2nd, 2006 at 8:11 pm
Maybe she was thinking of this Paul Nelson:
http://www.nonprofitpanel.org/...
Now let's see if there's a way to link him to David's Tent.
Comment by Bilbo — August 2, 2006 @ 8:11 pm
August 2nd, 2006 at 8:17 pm
The closest connection I can think of is that Paul contributed to one of those "Three Views On" books, one book in this series is on end-times views, but the one in which Paul Nelson actually contributed was about evolution and creation.
Comment by Guts — August 2, 2006 @ 8:17 pm
August 2nd, 2006 at 8:21 pm
I'm not finding anything, and I'm losing interest. It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that Armstrong purposely tried to deceive people on this one. But I'll maintain an open mind.
Comment by Bilbo — August 2, 2006 @ 8:21 pm
August 2nd, 2006 at 8:38 pm
Or how about:
Stephen Meyer being misquoted:
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 2, 2006 @ 8:38 pm
August 3rd, 2006 at 5:41 am
Hi Salvador,
My favorite was when Michael Behe was quoted so badly out of context that a point about bad design got turned into a claim that dinosaur fossils are fake.
Comment by Krauze — August 3, 2006 @ 5:41 am