Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it
by KrauzePat Hayes of Red State Rabble criticizes the ID-friendly historian Richard Weikart, but ironically engages in some historical revisionism himself. Recalling when the Discovery Institute rented a hall at the Smithsonian to show the film "The Privileged Planet", Hayes writes:
Famously, O'Leary let the cat out of the bag about the Discovery Institute's plan to hold a screening of "The Privileged Planet" at the Smithsonian. Discovery hoped the implied endorsement of that institution would make up for in appearance what the film so badly lacked in substance: the imprimatur of science.
O'Leary's incautious post on the subject on her Post-Darwinist blog gave science supporters the advance notice they needed to alert leaders at the Smithsonian. Wisely, the Smithsonian allowed the screening to go forward, but issued a statement withdrawing the institution's endorsement from the event.
Oh, did they howl in Seattle.
Let's ignore the statement about what the Discovery Institute hoped the showing of the film would accomplish. Sure, Hayes doesn't present a shred of evidence to support his claim, but baseless speculations about the motives of others is something we hear from ID critics so often that it's hardly worth paying attention to any more.
No, what caught my attention was the expression, "Oh, did they howl in Seattle." Funny, I was blogging the event at the time, and I don't recall any howling from our Seattly-based friends at the Discovery Institute. In fact, the only howling came from ID critics like James "The Amazing" Randi, who said: "We need to be alarmed and militant about this situation." He went on to demonstrate just how alarmed and militant he was, by offering the Smithsonian 20,000 dollars out of his own pocket, if they'd only cancel the showing of the film.
The critics at The Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula were no less concerned. A small sample:
I imagine this is how science might have been done under the Taliban. Marvellous.
The Smithsonian is acting like a whore, anyone can rent her services. And for cheap, only 16,000 dollars. They could learn from my university: when Meyer Lansky wanted to make a monster donation, he was rejected. There are things more valuable like money.
One would hope that the scientific community would scream their heads off over this. If so, please keep us posted on how us civilians can help.
I'm reminded of the cheap Scotsman joke–Why does a Scotsman play the porno DVD backward? Because it shows the whore giving the money back to the john.
What was interesting about that whole debacle was the fact that critics chose to take on that fight. "The Privileged Planet" didn't deal with evolution, but instead argued for the fine-tuning of the cosmological constants and the settings of the solar system (distance of Earth from the Sun, size of the Moon, etc.). Similar arguments have been made by theistic evolutionists like Kenneth Miller and Simon Conway Morris. By attacking the film, ID critics made it clear that all the rhetoric about only wanting to protect the teaching of evolution from Biblical fundamentalists was just that - rhetoric. Many ID critics will object to anything with even a hint of teleology, no matter how compatible it is with Darwin and the findings of modern science.
September 17th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
Some ID critics, few thought they be, have admitted to seeing science as applied philosophical naturalism. However, when it comes to the formulation of policy and standards for science curriculum in the public schools, we are led to believe that the religious motivations of those attempting to re-write the standards are all important, while the obvious (anti?)religious motives of the gatekeepers of the status quo are irrelevant. It is bad enough to commit the genetic fallacy, but to compound it by being selective as which motivations are acceptable and which aren't is almost silly. Witness what is happening in Ohio right now.
Comment by DonaldM — September 17, 2006 @ 1:23 pm
September 17th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
I've added a "many" to the last sentence in my post. I try not to make sweeping statements about ID critics, knowing that there are some sensible people among them. but sometimes I forget.
Comment by Krauze — September 17, 2006 @ 2:08 pm
September 18th, 2006 at 9:23 am
Hi DonaldM
What is happening in Ohio right now? Are there atheists or other antichristians on the Ohio school board trying to put more evolutionary material in the Ohio public schools in order to promote atheism or alternative religions?
Comment by Aagcobb — September 18, 2006 @ 9:23 am
September 18th, 2006 at 10:31 am
Aagcobb:
My point is that the personal motivations of Ohio board members who desire to preserve the status quo is irrelevant. There are some who have expressed strong public support of the status quo and spoken out strongly against the proposed changes who are also well known for being champions of philosophical naturalism. But no one refers to that when discussing the proposals. The only group whose motivations are suspect are those who want to make some changes. But the proposal itself is fairly innocuous, as Nick Matzke himself has pointed out. Apparently they only become un-inoccuous when the motivations of the group proposing them are brought up. To me, that looks like selective employment of the genetic fallacy.
Take a different case where one has strong religious motives to get a certain law passed. Those motivations aren't a good reason to reject the proposed law if the proposal itself is fair for a pluralistic society such as ours.
Comment by DonaldM — September 18, 2006 @ 10:31 am
September 18th, 2006 at 11:26 am
Hi DonaldM,
I see that Nick is being quote-mined again. What was actually said is that the proposal seems innocuous upon first reading. The article then details why the proposal is nonsense designed to teach students that science can incorporate theology. Plus, Nick was only actually posting the analysis of the Ohio Citizens for Science; those weren't his words. This may look like a fallacy to you; to me, as an attorney, it looks like an attempt by the Ohio BOE creationists to violate the 1st Amendment.
Comment by Aagcobb — September 18, 2006 @ 11:26 am
September 18th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
DonaldM wrote…
In a pure forensics sense the motives of those defending the Status Quo are irrelevant. The burden of proof is on those proposing changes. Their motivations can be relevant. They become relevant when the offered explanation for the proposed change differs from the motivation, because the impartiality of the explanation is then questionable.
In Ohio (where I live) the proponents are explaining that their proposal will improve our children's general understanding of science. This explanation is suspect because staff experts from the Ohio Department of Educational have pointed out so many flaws with similar proposals that it is likely the results would be more harmful then beneficial. It is now up to the proponents to argue that the experts' opinion is biased and their's is not.
Of course it is not as simple as this. There are political maneuvers like stalling, hiding/switching proposals, denying over-the-dinner-table discussions are planning sessions, etc. The motivations and ethics of everyone comes into play here. In Dover, the proponents tried to pass off the last-minute vote to require reading the infamous statement as nothing special. The proponents in Ohio appear to be trying to do the same thing with their proposal.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 18, 2006 @ 12:51 pm
September 19th, 2006 at 4:01 am
Krauze writes:
Yep, we have no idea whatsoever as to what the motives of the DI are. No evidence at all we can use to inform our opinions. We've never ever heard them tell us their motives in their own words. Or have we?
Comment by Odd Digit — September 19, 2006 @ 4:01 am
September 19th, 2006 at 9:33 am
Hi Odd Digit,
Why don't you quote the part of that page which you think supports Hayes' claim?
Comment by Krauze — September 19, 2006 @ 9:33 am
September 19th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
Hey Krauze,
I was responding to your generalisation:
"baseless speculations about the motives of others is something we hear from ID critics so often that it's hardly worth paying attention to any more."
There are no such thing as 'baseless speculations' about the motives of the DI as we know exactly what their core motives are. The referenced document tells us in their own words.
But then unsupported exaggerations and/or misrepresentations are something we hear so often from ID supporters that it's hardly worth paying attention to any more.
Comment by Odd Digit — September 19, 2006 @ 1:03 pm