Misled by Stereotypes
by MikeGeneI've been busy as usual, but I wanted to comment on some comments generated a few weeks back. In my post, New Atheists: A Reaction to 911, a new critic, FutureQ, showed up while waving his Sword of Stereotype. I had to correct FutureQ by pointing out that several of his stereotypes did not apply to me. FutureQ apologized with snark and then went away.
Then in my Invidious Comparisons thread, another critic (and scientist), AdamIerymenko, showed up to inform us of the validity of comparing us to Holocaust deniers. To make his case, Adam engaged in some chest-thumping, daring us to find just one ID proponent who was not an authoritarian right-winger. Well, as someone who has been around other cyber-IDers for years, I know of plenty who are not authoritarian right-wingers. So it is no surprise that within hours, a few people showed up to correct Adam. To his credit, Adam acknowledged his error:
All right. I'll withdraw that there are no serious IDists that are not authoritarian-rightists. But I will say that I'm puzzled. I am also surprised.
Adam is puzzled and surprised because he deeply incorporated the anti-ID memes and stereotypes that saturate the anti-ID literature. In other words, he was misled by these memes and stereotypes.
And therein lies the eventual collapse of the critic's propagandistic attempt to paint with a broad brush. Yes, given their position of power and influence, the critics will gain significant short-term mileage out of equating ID with right-wing religious fundamentalism. But we here at TT know this is a stereotype. We thus know that in the long-term, the stereotypes and memes will be recognized as misleading. There will be plenty more FutureQ's and Adams to come.
Which brings me to the final point. Many critics continually complain that we should abandon "intelligent design" and replace it with something else. Now, I have already explained my reasons for not doing this and no one has shown those reasons to be unreasonable. But now we get to add something else to the mix. As the critics continue to succeed in spreading their misleading memes, they are creating a population of people who arrogantly lead with their chin. 
April 15th, 2007 at 5:26 am
Mike,
That is one of the few rethorics ID opponents have left. Anything to distract from evaluating scientific data. It only shows how flat their arguments are and if they don't come up with something more substantial these anti-ID Commisars will lose all credibility within scientific comunity, which I can see, is slowly happening.
Comment by inunison — April 15, 2007 @ 5:26 am
April 15th, 2007 at 9:00 am
Hi inunison,
What scientific data are they distracting people from analyzing? On March 24, 2007 MikeGene wrote, "In fact, what I can say is that I don't know of any true demonstration of design." So it would seem the scientific data supporting ID is pretty thin.
Can you give us some actual examples of them losing credibility within the scientific community? If they need something more substantial, wouldn't MikeGene's admission that IDists still can't detect design suffice?
Comment by Aagcobb — April 15, 2007 @ 9:00 am
April 15th, 2007 at 9:40 am
The IDM is nothing without "right-wing religious fundamentalism". RWRF is the core of the IDM. Remove it, and the 'debate' will dissolve instantaneously.
Comment by BoZ3MaN — April 15, 2007 @ 9:40 am
April 15th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Hi Aagcobb,
You write:
It's "pretty thin" if your goal is to come up with a "true demonstration." But from the perspective of an investigation trying to get off the ground, I'd say its pretty substantial.
It depends what you mean by "detect." If one is to detect design such that someone like Richard Dawkins would be forced to agree, of course no detection has occurred. If one is to detect design as part of an open-ended, open-minded investigation, that ground has yet to be explored.
Comment by MikeGene — April 15, 2007 @ 10:15 am
April 15th, 2007 at 10:21 am
BoZ:
Keep tellin' yerself this.
Comment by MikeGene — April 15, 2007 @ 10:21 am
April 15th, 2007 at 11:30 am
This is worse than stereotyping. It is based on ignorance. As anyone with a passing familiarity with TT would know the views of most TTers themselves could be categorized as moderate or even left of moderate. So too could the commenters IMO. As for conservatives, a distinction needs to be made between conservatives and those conservatives whose conservatism is linked to their "Fundamentalists" religious views. Can you even define the term with any precision that reasonably accords with standard dictionary entries? When I see the repetitous assertions about fundamentalism I am reminded of Josef Goebbel's assertion that if you repeat a lie enough people will believe it.
Comment by Bradford — April 15, 2007 @ 11:30 am
April 15th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Aagcobb, I would claim with equal confidence that non-ID explanations for life's origins are associated with scientific data whose supporting nature is, in your words, "pretty thin."
Comment by Bradford — April 15, 2007 @ 11:33 am
April 15th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Yes, it's called the 'Big Tent'. The pole in the middle is RWRF. The TT moderates are but a small peg on the skirting.
No, I can't (don't care actually).
Josef Goebbel is a known fibber, so there.
Comment by BoZ3MaN — April 15, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
April 15th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
The point of my comment was to give you an opportunity to back up your assertions with something other than that's how it is "so there."
As for conservatives, a distinction needs to be made between conservatives and those conservatives whose conservatism is linked to their "Fundamentalists" religious views. Can you even define the term with any precision that reasonably accords with standard dictionary entries?
Then this comes down to your views, the intellectual integrity of which you care so little about, that meanings of words become whatever you wish them to mean?
Comment by Bradford — April 15, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
April 15th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Hi Bradford,
We are probably wandering OT, but abiogenesis researchers, unlike IDists, actually have some ideas and are doing research on OOL issues.
Comment by Aagcobb — April 15, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
April 15th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Hi MikeGene,
As Simon Cowell might say, I'm not being rude, but the say-so of an anonymous blogger about his hobby isn't very substantial.
Comment by Aagcobb — April 15, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
April 15th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
We have more than a few related ideas. I believe there is at least one research project currently underway with an origins issue. There is need for more- granted. I would hasten to point out though that some existing research results lend support to those related ideas to which I referred. Supporting evidence does not depend on the views of the researchers involved in producing the evidence.
Comment by Bradford — April 15, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
April 15th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
But my say-so is irrelevant. Are you telling me that the logic of my argument is beyond your reach? Do you understand the difference between a true demonstration and an investigation?
Comment by MikeGene — April 15, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
April 15th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
Then draw from all these ideas and research and provide the evidence that the Earth did indeed spawn life.
Comment by MikeGene — April 15, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
April 15th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
What does the identity of an advocate have to do with the plausibility of what he advocates? Are you unable to distinguish between the advocate and the strength of his argument? I would hope that when you go to court judges and juries are able to make a distinction between Aagcobb the person and the arguments you present.
Comment by Bradford — April 15, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
April 15th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
MikeGene and Bradford,
I understand the logic of your argument, Mike, and I can distinguish between the advocate and the strength of his argument, Bradford. But Mike didn't offer any evidence that the data supporting an initial investigation is substantial except his say-so. Since the scientific consensus is that its not substantial, the say-so of an anonymous internet blogger that it does simply doesn't carry much weight.
Comment by Aagcobb — April 15, 2007 @ 9:13 pm
April 15th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Aagcobb, Mike stated:
Aagcobb, that which is needed to initiate an investigation is substantially less than what is required to substantiate a hypothesis or a theory. Even some ID critics have implicitly inferred the plausibility of Mike's claim by their insistence that investigations proceed if ID is to be considered scientific. I believe the same logic would apply to your own field. Detectives need little to initiate an investigation but substantial evidence to make a case for a prosecutor.
Comment by Bradford — April 15, 2007 @ 10:53 pm
April 15th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
BoZ3MaN wrote that:
"The IDM is nothing without "right-wing religious fundamentalism". RWRF is the core of the IDM. Remove it, and the 'debate' will dissolve instantaneously."
This is one of those claims that cuts both ways. It could as easily be said of Darwinism that it is nothing without "left-wing materialistic atheism or deism." Remove it and the debate dissolves.
Comment by Dick — April 15, 2007 @ 11:06 pm
April 16th, 2007 at 6:35 am
Hi Dick,
The difference being, of course, that such a claim about evolutionary science is false, as amply demonstrated by the research of thousands of scientists annually, which has been going on for decades, something which simply doesn't exist on the ID side.
Comment by Aagcobb — April 16, 2007 @ 6:35 am
April 16th, 2007 at 6:49 am
Hi Aagcobb,
That's fine. You simply quoted me and I provided the context. As for "scientific consensus," I have not seen the issue addressed from an open-ended, open-minded investigative perspective. I have seen that many "hear God/religion" when "ID" is spoken or written. I have seen attempts to disprove evolution turned back. I have seen the overwhelming commonality of the "ID = creationism" meme in action. I have seen the fear of ID. I have seen the hostility. I have seen the misrepresentation. I have asked many people what type of data would count as evidence for ID and considered the responses. But none of this is addressing the issue from an investigative perspective (except for the last one and then, I'm doing it).
Comment by MikeGene — April 16, 2007 @ 6:49 am
April 16th, 2007 at 6:57 am
Aagcobb is right. Let's not ignore the scientific consensus on intelligent design, based as it is on thorough analyses like this.
Comment by Krauze — April 16, 2007 @ 6:57 am