Point Your Finger and Shout - "Creationist!"
by MikeGene
In this entry, I draw attention to Paul Root Wolpe's article entitled, "Reasons Scientists Avoid Thinking about Ethics." It was published in Cell, a very widely-read, prestigious scientific journal.
ID critic Edarrell responds in knee-jerk fashion:
Wolpe's premise is in gross error. Researchers in biology go through more rigorous ethical discussion of their work than any other profession, by law. Anyone engaged in research dealing with human subjects must go through an institutional review board for approval. Almost all research done on human health is reviewed multiple times. When creationists start with absolutely erroneous premises, they arrive at good results only randomly. In this case, Wolpe misses.
The ID critic's attacks are rooted in ignorance. As you can see from this page, "Dr. Paul Root Wolpe, assistant professor of psychiatry and assistant professor of sociology as well as a fellow at the Center for Bioethics at the School of Medicine, has been named the first Chief of Bioethics and Human Subject Protection for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)."
Wolpe obviously understands the "rigorous ethical discussions" researchers must go through, just as he knows first hand about institutional reviews:
Dr. Wolpe's assignment entails providing key scientific advice and expertise for monitoring compliance with all relevant regulatory and statutory requirements; planning, organizing and integrating NASA's Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Animal Care and Use Committee (ACUC); external ethical reviews and developing standards and guidelines tailored to unique programmatic research requirements; and crafting an international bioethics policy for all countries involved in collaborative space exploration.
I think it much safer to conclude that Edarrell doesn't understand Wolpe's point. But then note the ID critic's final response "“ "When creationists start with absolutely erroneous premises, they arrive at good results only randomly. In this case, Wolpe misses."
Did you catch that? The ID critic just labeled Wolpe as a creationist! So you see, even in the post-wedge world it still takes very little to get an ID critic to point their finger and scream, "Creationist!" First, they see creationists in mainstream science textbooks.. Now they accuse the first Chief of Bioethics and Human Subject Protection for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration of being a creationist!
Creationists everywhere!
Threatiness is poisonous to critical thinking.
July 29th, 2006 at 6:54 pm
Creationist to the right of us, creationist to the left of us.
Wait! Left?
Even prior to the post-wedge world in 1997 we have:
The New Creationism: Biology Under Attack.
Here is an account of anti-Darwinian anthropology and sociology departments being labeled creationist. These are not IDers, but academics being labeled creationists. Anything seen evil is called creationist!
Or how about this recent (2005) blog where the author takes a radical femminist named Sandra Harding (who regards Newtonian Mechanics as a Rape Manual) and then relates her "science is a metaphor for rape" theory to ID theory:
Ok, I didn't try to uscrew the convolution here, but somehow I couldn't stop laughing.
Also, here is an essay about Gould and Lewontin being Left-wing creationists! The Conflict Within - The Left's Version of Creationism
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 29, 2006 @ 6:54 pm
July 29th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
Correction: I forgot to post a link to "ID/Sandra Harding" comparison.
Here it is:
Newton's Rape Manual
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 29, 2006 @ 7:00 pm
July 29th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
I see a trend with the use of sloppy labels, the use of any label that is disparaging regardless of whether it's true. Like "liar", ironically.
Comment by Guts — July 29, 2006 @ 10:32 pm
July 31st, 2006 at 5:04 am
You're extrapolating beyond the evidence again. Oh, yeah, I could have constructed that last sentence better: Wolpe misses with his premise, and creationists who claim that premise as a foundation for their arguments are off the rails from the start.
The simple fact is that Wolpe's article is no basis for any polemic against scientists, and in particular he makes no brief against Darwin. Whether he is creationist or not, your emphasis of his sentence out of context to suggest that scientists don't deal with ethics is in error.
Yes, read Wolpe. He does point out specifically that the biological sciences deal with ethical issues all the time. Why he overstates to the point of misstating his premise, I do not know.
But the reality is that biological research is thick with biologists considering ethical issues, something that few ID researchers seem to understand, or be willing to undertake.
This statement has not been rebutted, and is still critical: I wrote, "Researchers in biology go through more rigorous ethical discussion of their work than any other profession, by law. Anyone engaged in research dealing with human subjects must go through an institutional review board for approval. Almost all research done on human health is reviewed multiple times."
I merely pointed out the premise was in error; the knee-jerk response was then made by others.
Comment by edarrell — July 31, 2006 @ 5:04 am
July 31st, 2006 at 11:48 pm
Ed:
I don't think so. Ed begins his criticism as follows:
Of course, Ed fails to a) identify the premise and b) show the error, but that's not important now (I'm not sure what he was seeing, as he seems to have thought that Wolpe did not know about institutional reviews).
What is important here is that he clearly is clearly focused on Wolpe. Ed then ends his short commentary with this:
Ed clearly links Wolpe to creationists. He harkens back to the first sentence and makes the connection obvious with "In this case" - targeting Wolpe.
I think most reasonable people can see that Ed did label Wolpe a creationist. Of course, I am a nice guy who is willing to accept a charitable interpretation. Ed, however, does not allow for charitable interpretations when he disagrees with us. Does he think he is entitled to live by rules different from those he imposes on others?
Now, what is most ironic, is that it is Ed turns around and next extrapolates beyond the evidence to attack me:
Readers are invited to check out my blog to determine if my blog was a "polemic against scientists" that cites Wolpe making a "brief against Darwin," and arguing that scientists don't "deal with ethics."
I trust that most people can see that Ed did label Wolpe as a creationist in a knee-jerk fashion and that I did not write up some "polemic against scientists." Since I'm getting short on time, and have no desire to pretend otherwise, the thread is closed.
Comment by MikeGene — July 31, 2006 @ 11:48 pm