Wesley's wedge
by KrauzeWe all know those nasty wedge suppporters, who pretend to stand for principles of academic freedom, but who, when they're among friends, admit that they have quite different motives. Well, it seems that the practice is gaining popularity. Witness Wesley Elsberry, an ID critic and Information Project Director of the NCSE:
Judge Jones' decision clearly lays out how both the specific actions of the Dover school district and the general tactics of "intelligent design" advocates have been based upon deception, subterfuge, and lies. We as Christians should reject utterly the sort of lies, mendacity, and innuendo that not just characterize antievolution, but comprise it. It is a blot upon the reputation of the body of Christ, an erroneous and injurious digression from the serious business of making our lives an example to the world.
Sounds like Elsberry is standing on principle, huh? The fact that he has been explicitly spelling this out as a calculated strategy on the ID-critical blog Panda's Thumb must be a pure coincidence.
If you want to drive a wedge between an audience of evangelical Christians and the professionals in the ID movement, you need a third approach: show that the ID advocate on stage with you has been lying to his followers. Show misquote after misquote; demonstrate error after checkable error, and make the audience understand that if the ID advocate claims that the sky is blue, their next step had better be to look out the window to see for themselves. Evangelicals do want to take Christ's message to the world, but they also have a deep loathing of liars.
We've seen how Professor Paul Mirecki attempted to cover his political agenda with a veneer of academic enlightenment. So now I'm wondering: Is Elsberry genuinely concerned for his ability to make his life "an example to the world", or is he simply speculating in evangelicals' "deep loathing of liars"
December 23rd, 2005 at 6:56 pm
Wow. Notice how Elsberry turns misquotes into lies. And errors into lies. The motivation is to "make the audience understand that if the ID advocate claims that the sky is blue, their next step had better be to look out the window to see for themselves." The "example to the world" surely looks like character assassination.
Comment by MikeGene — December 23, 2005 @ 6:56 pm
December 23rd, 2005 at 10:20 pm
Krauze,
How is pointing out the truth political? If I misquote you, whether I do it purposefully or not, is it less an untruth? If telling the truth is a "calculated strategy," perhaps it is one the DI should consider. When judge Jones says that there are no peer-reviewed ID articles, that is simply not true and should be pointed out to him. It is not a matter of politics, is a matter of fact that should be a part of the public record.
Telling one audience one thing and another audience something else: that is political (as well as dishonest).
Comment by dogscratcher — December 23, 2005 @ 10:20 pm
December 24th, 2005 at 10:31 am
Why Wesley's Wedge will fail:
We as Christians should reject utterly the sort of lies, mendacity, and innuendo that not just characterize antievolution, but comprise it.
Perhaps he should tell his fellow christian evolutionists the following:
If you want to drive a wedge between an audience of evangelical Christians and the professionals in the ID movement, you need a third approach: show that the ID advocate on stage with you has been lying to his followers.
And to drive a wedge between christians and NDE just read the above passage from Zindler.
Comment by Joe G — December 24, 2005 @ 10:31 am
December 24th, 2005 at 11:11 am
Elsberry posts the following comment on his blog:
While Wesley is among the first in line to bring up other people's motives, he apparently does not like it if other people question his motives. I can accept the fact that his first impression of YECs was that they were liars, but this just calls Wesley's critical thinking skills into question. The PT comments show someone who confuses a misquote with a lie. According to Dictionary.com, a misquote just means that one quotes incorrectly. While a liar will quote incorrectly, quoting incorrectly doesn't mean one is lying. After all, journalists are constantly accused of misquoting. Does that make them liars? The PT comments show someone who also confuses errors with lies. Since when does an error become a lie? A liar will propagate error, but propagating an error doesn't make you a liar.
Wesley seems to miss the main point of Krauze's blog. Wesley's PT comments show that he has his own "wedge strategy" "“ a strategy to convert every mistake and every error into a "lie" (actually, if you look around, you'll realize this is a strategy that Wesley shares with many of his fellow networked debunkers). The strategic goal? "Make the audience understand that if the ID advocate claims that the sky is blue, their next step had better be to look out the window to see for themselves." Thus, Wesley's blog entry looks like nothing more than his own political wedge in action. Does Wesley think he is entitled to poisoning the well by smearing all "ID advocates" as liars, such that no one is supposed to comment on his agenda?
Comment by MikeGene — December 24, 2005 @ 11:11 am
December 24th, 2005 at 7:38 pm
I think there is a Bible verse somewhere that says "All Cretinists are liars".
Comment by Douglas — December 24, 2005 @ 7:38 pm
December 25th, 2005 at 3:31 am
Wes Elsberry is a fine man, generally extremely careful with a quote. He shoots straight. Had the ID side been represented by someone like Elsberry at the Dover trial, it might have produced a different result.
Elsberry raises a serious question: Now that a federal court (operated by a Christian, conservative Republican judge) has determined that ID advocates tried to advance their legal case through lies, is it not time for ID advocates to say they eschew lies as a tactic?
Rather than stand up for honesty, Krauze and Mike Gene take after the guy who calls for honesty among Christians.
Well, it tells us where you stand.
But you should reconsider. The (small "c") catholic church is under enough fire these days. We don't need people who are found clearly to be lying in federal court to be thought of as representative of Christianity. If you won't turn them out, perhaps the ID movement isn't at all what a faithful believer should be affiliated with.
Is there any hope that Teleological will stand up for at least not telling lies under oath in court?
Comment by edarrell — December 25, 2005 @ 3:31 am
December 25th, 2005 at 7:01 am
Hi Dogscratcher,
"How is pointing out the truth political?"
My post wasn't concerned with Elsberry "pointing out the truth". What I drew attention to was his strategy of turning disagreements and misunderstandings into "lies", and using this as a basis to raise some moral indignation.
If Elsberry simply wants to point out the truth, he could take a look at the example provided in this post. There, I reply to an ID critic whose post I thought contained some misleading ommisions. So I simply pointed out those omisions, explaining how they affected the issue under discussion. No assumptions that the omisions were done out of mallice, no accusations of lying, and no moral indignation. Simple as that.
Comment by Krauze — December 25, 2005 @ 7:01 am
December 25th, 2005 at 8:11 am
edarrell,
"Now that a federal court (operated by a Christian, conservative Republican judge) has determined that ID advocates tried to advance their legal case through lies, is it not time for ID advocates to say they eschew lies as a tactic?"
LOTS of people want to call themselves "Christian", often simply because it adds a kind of air of moral and social "respectability". There are also many who call themselves "Christian", but who reject the primary and clear teachings of Christianity. A true Christian (of any reasonable intelligence and discernment) would not have given the opinion that the judge in Dover (or presiding over the case in Dover) gave, especially not the overboard and incredibly faulty assessment of ID which that judge gave.
Comment by Douglas — December 25, 2005 @ 8:11 am
December 25th, 2005 at 8:14 am
Oh, but I forgot to add: true Christians ALWAYS "eschew lies". But as has been pointed out here, having a religious motivation behind wanting to present what one considers scientific evidence (or scientific failings on the part of a theory), or unknowingly presenting evidence which is faulty, is NOT equivalent to "lying".
Comment by Douglas — December 25, 2005 @ 8:14 am
December 25th, 2005 at 6:06 pm
Douglas, the lying in the Dover case was serious enough to warrant perjury charges. Don't take my word for it — read the decision, read the transcripts.
Judge Jones didn't call any one's religious motivation "a lie." He called bald-faced lying lying.
You could check it out and see, but then you'd be faced with a quandary: Should you criticize the lies and liars, or should you continue to stand with them? If you remain ignorant, you can rationalize your stance, to you.
What would Peter do? What would Jesus do? What should you do?
Comment by edarrell — December 25, 2005 @ 6:06 pm
December 25th, 2005 at 8:01 pm
edarrell,
"You could check it out and see, but then you'd be faced with a quandary: Should you criticize the lies and liars, or should you continue to stand with them? If you remain ignorant, you can rationalize your stance, to you."
First of all, having read bits of the judge's ruling, I'd be hard-pressed to trust the judge's opinion regarding the plaintiffs' committing "perjury". That is, I couldn't just take the judge's word for it.
However, I'd have absolutely no problem condemning lies and liars, regardless of which side of the ID/Evolution, Christian/Atheist fences they sit/stand.
"What would Peter do? What would Jesus do? What should you do?"
I think I already answered that completely and sufficiently. I said that "TRUE Christians ALWAYS 'eschew lies'". If the plaintiffs did indeed lie, either they are not true Christians, or (at the very least) they committed a grievous sin in lying, one which does not reflect Jesus' will nor character.
Can you provide me a link to a suitable summary or description of the evidence indicating that the plaintiffs lied?
Comment by Douglas — December 25, 2005 @ 8:01 pm
December 26th, 2005 at 2:55 am
Douglas, you're having difficulty condemning liars now. Judge Jones, a Bush appointee, a Lutheran, a fine federal judge, made the findings that the ID advocates were liars. When do you condemn the lying? What more do you need?
The True Scot argument doesn't wash. When do you stand up for the truth?
Here's a link to the transcripts, and other information: http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/
Here's the transcript for Day 18, morning, featuring the testimony of Alan Bonsell: http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/tr...
Here's a link to the afternoon testimony — you may want to pay particular attention to pages 30 through 34, in which it becomes clear Mr. Bonsell had earlier lied about his involvement in putting creationism books in the libraries of the schools: http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/tr...
Here's the decision from Judge Jones — I encourage you to read all 139 pages. He's a federal judge, confirmed without a dissenting vote in the U.S. Senate; he's got a reputation as a fine, careful and accurate judge; read his judgments, and understand that, as the trier of fact, he is qualified and authorized to note who lied and who did not; and note that as a lawyer and as a judge, he has sworn oaths to uphold and defend the law accurately: http://coop.www.uscourts.gov/p...
There is true evidence that demands a verdict. Happy reading!
Comment by edarrell — December 26, 2005 @ 2:55 am
December 26th, 2005 at 5:36 am
edarrell,
"Here's the decision from Judge Jones "” I encourage you to read all 139 pages."
Like I've nothing better to do over the holidays, and once I return to work and school. I rather doubt I'll read ALL 139 pages, but I'll read the specific items you mentioned above.
Comment by Douglas — December 26, 2005 @ 5:36 am
December 26th, 2005 at 5:58 am
Douglas, you may want to read this too: http://www.pennlive.com/news/p...
"The Patriot-News"
"Prosecutor seeks perjury evidence"
"WILLIAMSPORT - A federal prosecutor said testimony in the Dover Area School District's intelligent design case is under review to determine if perjury charges should be pursued."
""I want to question a couple of people who were present," he said."
"In his opinion, Jones accused some of those who testified during the six-week trial in Harrisburg of lying, singling out former board members Alan Bonsell and William Buckingham, the leading proponents of the policy."
"During the trial, Jones and lawyers for parents opposed to the policy confronted the men about the discrepancies and evasiveness in their answers to questions about their motivations and efforts to raise money for a pro-intelligent design textbook, "Of Pandas and People."
" During the trial, after questioning by Jones and lawyers, Bonsell and Buckingham acknowledged that Buckingham raised money for the books in his church, then wrote a check for $850 to Bonsell's father, who bought the texts and donated them to the school district. Neither man disclosed the transaction in their deposition.
"The inescapable truth is that both Bonsell and Buckingham lied at their Jan. 3, 2005, depositions about their knowledge of the source of the donation for Pandas. … ," Jones said in his ruling. "This mendacity was a clear and deliberate attempt to hide the source of the donations by [Bonsell and Buckingham] to further ensure that Dover students received a creationist alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution."
Comment by DataDoc — December 26, 2005 @ 5:58 am
December 26th, 2005 at 6:20 am
edarrell,
"Here's a link to the afternoon testimony "” you may want to pay particular attention to pages 30 through 34, in which it becomes clear Mr. Bonsell had earlier lied about his involvement in putting creationism books in the libraries of the schools:…."
I read the entirety of pages 30 through 34, and find no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Bonsell attempted to put creationism books in the libraries of the schools. Are you sure you referred me to the correct pages?
Comment by Douglas — December 26, 2005 @ 6:20 am
December 26th, 2005 at 8:37 am
edarrell:
the lying in the Dover case was serious enough to warrant perjury charges.
I agree. I am wondering when the ACLU "experts" will be charged.
edarrell:
Judge Jones, a Bush appointee, a Lutheran, a fine federal judge, made the findings that the ID advocates were liars.
Calling the school board members "ID advocates" is a stretch.
As for lies the judge's decision also contains them. ID is NOT Creation(ism) repackaged. ID is not religious- that is two lies right there.
Comment by Joe G — December 26, 2005 @ 8:37 am
December 26th, 2005 at 9:44 am
Perjury? A jury would decide that, not the judge…but be CERTAIN you can back up your accusation.
Otherwise, you have a whole other set of problems.
Comment by Stauffenberg — December 26, 2005 @ 9:44 am
December 26th, 2005 at 11:53 am
Edarrell writes, "Krauze and Mike Gene take after the guy who calls for honesty among Christians." No one is taking after Wes because he calls for honesty. You should read Wesley's blog, Ed. He does not confine his accusations to the Dover school board or the court case. On the contrary, he paints with a very wide brush, asserting, "Christians should reject utterly the sort of lies, mendacity, and innuendo that not just characterize antievolution, but comprise it." Now, I think it safe to assume that Wesley confuses antievolution and intelligent design. Thus, Wesley is accusing all ID proponents, including the contributors of this blog, of being characterized by lies. Yet it turns out that Wesley also has his own personal wedge strategy that involves converting any error or misquote into a "lie." That would seem highly relevant. We're not "taking after" the guy. We're just defending ourselves against people who would be quick to portray us as telling lies.
What if we were to apply Wesley's wedge strategy to Edarrell? It would be very easy to paint Edarrell as one who spread lies, given the many false claims he has presented on this blog. Here's a recent example.
Remember this blog? I compared average science ACT scores to the Evolution scores from the Fordham Foundation report.
So what did Ed ask? "Why compare with total ACT scores, instead of the science component?" Since I am not quick to imply someone else is liar, I originally responded:
But I will now use Wes' Wedge with Edarrell.
Why was Ed lying to us? I clearly stated that I was using the science component and he lied by wondering why I used the total ACT scores. So tell us, Ed "“ why are you preaching against lies from one side of your mouth while telling lies with the other side of your mouth?
As for Wesley, I'm sure he is "fine man." But after 20 years of battling the "lies" of creationists, then IDers, he's made it clear he is willing to transform misquotes and errors in "lies" for political reason. Perhaps Ed can explain why everyone is supposed to ignore this?
Consider also the way Wesley attempts to paint all ID proponents as characterized and composed of innuendo. Did we forget about the OSC report concerning Richard Sternberg? From one of the e-mails of a Smithsonian scientist:
Ed, how did this Smithsonian scientist learn about what the people at the NCSE suspected and why is this not innuendo?
Comment by MikeGene — December 26, 2005 @ 11:53 am
December 28th, 2005 at 4:09 am
Do I remember that blog? Well, no, not exactly. As I have now posted in that thread, I had intended to post that comment in another thread. More, the opening line at least has been garbled. Not my words (though, at 4:00 a.m. even computers get bleary-screened, I'm sure.) I did not write "science component." My regrets for the scrambling.
So let me confess, what's there is not what I intended.
The rest of it stands up pretty well, though. The Fordham Foundation report is corroborated by several other sources, and the ACT is a weak measure of evolution standards at best, plus the fact that current ACT scores would reflect earlier standards, perhaps, and not current standards. So a comparison of test scores to state evolution standards is unlikely to produce an accurate correlation of anything.
But regardless, my asking the questions and posing the difficulties is not "a lie." If MG thinks it is, that thinking merely shows there is some serious cognitive difficulty on this blog about what a falsehood is. I cited nothing that can be said to be in error, and nothing that could be construed to be intentionally false. Asking you a question, MG, can not in any fair sense be construed "a lie," especially one you can answer so easily. (In rhetoric, that's called a "fat pitch," one that you can hit out of the park. You must be really crabby tonight to call a fat pitch a lie.)
And there you have it. I misread, or fat fingered.
So now I set the example, MG. It's your turn, now, to go after the Dover board and the DI folks many prevarications.
We're waiting.
Oh, and about the OSC letter: The obviously illegal OSC letter is a shameful episode in the OSC's history. It's not the sort of thing that should be cited as authoritative, since it violates the rules of the OSC and the canons of lawyers who may have been (should have been) part of the drafting of the letter. OSC lacked authority, as they acknowledged; were there wrongdoing discovered, the law and ethical canons require them to pass that information on to the proper authorities. That they have failed to do so is a better indication that there was nothing wrong, though the purple prose of the letter might lead an unwary reader astray on that point.
The OSC letter noted that Sternberg's actions raised questions of ethics among researchers at Smithsonian. The OSC letter noted that Smithsonian scientists pondered whether they should take corrective or punitive actions, and then determined there was nothing they could do since Sternberg's actions were not in any official capacity, and were not done in the name of the Smithsonian, and because Sternberg was not a Smithsonian employee. Now, it may be that one needs to be a lawyer and former government official to get that from the letter as written, but I loan myself out for such interpretations when required.
The author of the letter, and Dr. Sternberg, seem to think the letter raised other issues. As I noted above, the author of the letter was legally and ethically obligated to bring any other issues to the proper authorities (the Smithsonian inspector general in this case), and it certainly would have been in Sternberg's interest to do so had he thought he was wronged. But neither of them bothered to get the information to the IG so far as anyone knows.
I suspect the Smithsonian scientist called or wrote the good folks at NCSE. Good scientists have large, active networks to exchange information. It's not innuendo because it's direct and not derogatory. As reported by you, it's hearsay in the e-mail.
I'm not sure why you are troubled by it. It's a statement of what is suspected, but it clearly says what is not known. It makes no claim beyond what is known.
The whole Sternberg affair is troubling, the way Sternberg dissembles when he claims not to have ties to creationists or to IDists, when those ties are plainly traceable from what is known of his connections with "baraminologists" in all their crankery. It's troubling that Sternberg doesn't understand why the journal he edited was an inappropriate place for the Meyers article. It's troubling that Sternberg claims to have followed the society's rules, though everyone else in the society claims to have no knowledge of Sternberg's doing so and the society had to formally disassociate itself with the paper. From my experience dealing with whistleblowers and wannabe-whistleblowers, it's clear that Sternberg is a troubled and troubling guy.
A serious investigation of the affair would probably yield something akin to the Jones decision in the Dover case, I think. Surely you are not defending either the Meyer paper or Sternberg's actions, are you?
Comment by edarrell — December 28, 2005 @ 4:09 am
December 28th, 2005 at 11:04 am
Edarrell:
Normally, I would accept such explanations. But if I did, I would be buying into your double standard, allowing you to make mistakes, while interpreting the mistakes of all evil IDers as lies. So if I apply your approach to you, I would have to conclude you are just covering your lie with more lies. Remember how the Wesley Wedge works:
It's a political strategy that can be applied to even you, Edarrell. Or didn't you know that? I would suggest that you and Wesley heed the words of your fellow ID critic and PT member, Jack Krebs:
As for your flood of questions and points about the OSC report, the fact remains that a Smithsonian scientist was sharing inneundo that he had apparently received from the NCSE.
Comment by MikeGene — December 28, 2005 @ 11:04 am
December 28th, 2005 at 5:40 pm
MG said:
Just list your admitted mistakes. That's step one.
I'm not sure why you've got such a grudge against me, MG. I don't interpret mistakes as lies, especially when people admit them.
Comment by edarrell — December 28, 2005 @ 5:40 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 5:45 pm
Douglas said:
Why not, Douglas? Shouldn't a "true" Christian stand up against the side that prevaricates?
Christians need to stand for those who shoot straight and tell the truth, first. Christians do not accept lying in federal court as acceptable behavior, let alone behavior to be condoned. No American should accept such lies. What in the world were you thinking?
Comment by edarrell — December 28, 2005 @ 5:45 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 5:55 pm
edarrell,
"Why not, Douglas? Shouldn't a 'true' Christian stand up against the side that prevaricates?"
Absolutely, but not by spreading lies themselves.
"Christians need to stand for those who shoot straight and tell the truth, first."
Yes. Which is why I am not willing to stand for Judge Jones.
"Christians do not accept lying in federal court as acceptable behavior, let alone behavior to be condoned. No American should accept such lies. What in the world were you thinking?"
I was thinking the following:
"Edarrell has not yet proven to me that any of the defendants lied. I read a portion of what he referred me to, and it did not support his assertion. I asked him whether he inadvertently directed me to the wrong pages to read, but he has not responded to this point. Strange, though, that Edarrell does not apply the same energy and commitment to warning the world regarding the lies that Judge Jones made and perpetuated in his ruling."
Comment by Douglas — December 28, 2005 @ 5:55 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 7:58 pm
edarrell:
Christians do not accept lying in federal court as acceptable behavior, let alone behavior to be condoned. No American should accept such lies. What in the world were you thinking?
It appears as if you accept the lies of the alleged ACLU "experts". What in the world are you thinking?
Comment by Joe G — December 28, 2005 @ 7:58 pm