VoijaRisa
Offline
Post: 36157931_1 created on Thu Dec 27, 2007 12:35 amPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 12:35 am
 |
Now that I've got your attention:
Welcome to another exciting thread on Intelligent Design (ID)/Creationism from VoijaRisa! In my previous threads, we've looked at whether or not Intelligent Design is any different than Biblical Creationism, whether or not they're science, and how their main argument of "Irriducible Complexity" fails. In this thread, we'll explore something slightly different: Why are they so intellectually dishonest? If you're not already intimately familiar with the ID/Creation "debate", then you may not be so familiar with the dishonesty of these snake oil salesmen, so before I put forth my opinions on that topic, I'll first highlight some of the distortions, fabrications, intellectual dishonesty, double standards, plagiarism, and even outright lies of the ID/Creation movement. Since I've already demonstrated that Intelligent Design and Creationism are the same thing (see link above), for the rest of the thread I shall often refer to them interchangeably. Quote Mining One of the favorite tricks of creationists is to take texts and phrases out of context in order to make their position seem as if it has a legitimate controversy in the scientific field. In fact, this has become such a common occurrence that an entire project has been created to keep track of phrases that creationists frequently try to misuse to support their agenda! Perhaps the most frequently misused quote, however, is from Darwin himself. This will serve as a good example for the standard methodology of creationists. The quote is as follows: Charles Darwin To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. However, if one goes to the original work (Origin of Species) and continues reading, the paragraph from which they quote continues: Charles Darwin Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. The tactic being used here exploits the fact that scientists (as well as other writers) often use the literary technique of first setting up the problem and then proposing the solution. Creationists then take the problem, ignore the solution, and use the former as "evidence" of uncertainty. However, the eye is hardly the only example as you can clearly tell if you visit the project linked to above. One of the key players in the IDC movement today is Michael Behe. He is the originator of the failed "Irreducible Complexity" notion, and author of several pro ID books. His most recent one, Edge of Evolution is loaded with mined quotes. In fact, Behe is so dishonest, that he even changed some of the quotes in order to distort their true meaning and hide the fact that the problems being set up were given solutions. Intentionally Old Sources Science is a quickly changing field. What isn't understood at one point may come into clear understanding in a short amount of time. Thus, creationists frequently peer backwards through the literature to find quotes stating that something is not well understood when, in the present reality, it is exceptionally well understood. In reality, this is just another form of quote mining, but since it is a special kind, I feel it deserves special attention and illustration. Jonathan Sarfati is a popular creationist at Answers in Genesis. In the chapter on Astronomy from his book (available online here) he quotes from a cosmologist named Dr. Trefil who said that the understanding of galaxy formation was fundamentally flawed. However, this quote came from 1988 and at that time, rested on the assumption that there was a uniform distribution of matter in the universe as a result of the big bang. However, the year after Trefil published his comment, the COBE satellite showed that the distribution of matter in the early universe was somewhat clumpy, thus alleviating the problem that Sarfati tries to imply is still present. Further observations by the later WMAP probe have mapped the sky at even higher resolution, further confirming the big bang model. Thus we see there are two extremely significant studies that Sarfati is intent on sweeping under the rug. This is another dishonest method of creationists: If a problem has been solved and they don't like it, quote mine from a point when it wasn't solved to create "controversy". Another example is from the creationist who made headlines a few years ago for federal tax evasion, Kent Hovind. In one of his frequently used presentations, he uses a slide that reads "If the "Big Bang" produced hydrogen and some helium, how did the other 105 elements evolve?" The answer should be obvious to anyone that's taken an introductory astronomy class or watched a PBS special: They're created through fusion in stars. In fact, this process was laid out in high detail in 1957 (see more here)! However, Hovind is keen on ignoring over 50 years of research in favor of outdated ignorance. In the interest of space, I won't give any more examples (although they're numerous) but instead point to a revealing statistic from Creationism's Trojan Horse by Barbara Forrest which states that creationists (including Intelligent Design proponents) barely use cite sources published in the past 7 years, than they do ones 20 years old or more (p. 43). Meanwhile, reputable scientific journals cite nearly 3 times as many recent sources as they do old ones. If the ratio of new sources (<7 years old) to old sources (>20 years old) is taken, creationists have an average score of <1. Reputable scientific journals have scores of >3 and as high as 5 for ones over cutting edge research in new fields. Thus, the intentional use of dated sources is clearly highlighted. Self Martyrdom The recent "documentary", "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" claims to cover the persecution of Intelligent Design Creationists by the "Darwinian orthodoxy." This tactic of crying about persecution is another scheme used by creationists to draw public support. In the past two years, there have been two major cases in which IDC proponents have attempted to martyr themselves. One of them is the recent denial of tenure to well known IDC proponent, Guileremo Gonzalez, seeking a position at a university in Astronomy. The ID think tank known as the Discovery Institute insists that the reason for the denial of tenure is because of his ID views. However, when other qualifications for tenure are analyzed, it becomes clear why he did not receive tenure. One of the requirements is a high number of publications in peer reviewed journals. When beginning at a university, it should be common for a researcher to be the primary author on the paper since they are doing most of the primary research. However, as they become more established, they should become secondary authors or even later as they gain authority and direct the program instead of following it. Gonzalez's publication record shows the exact opposite. As soon as Gonzalez became involved in the IDC movement, his publication record became dismal and he never became a lead figure for research. Another aspect considered for tenure is how much a candidate has brought in for the department. Typically, good candidates bring in several hundreds of thousands to millions in the form of grant money. Gonzalez did not. Instead, he brought in marginal sums. The money he did make from grants went to fund research for a grad student at another university as well as revenue from Gonzalez pro-ID book which went directly into his pocket. Thus, Gonzalez fails the requirements for tenure in two extremely important areas. All of this is conveniently ignored by creationists who need a martyr for their crusade. Instead, they acquire Emails from the other professors in the department and then quote mine from them. However, since part of his university's tenure policy forbids “(2) dishonesty in teaching, research or extension activity” and I've shown that ID is a creationist sham, such things are fair to consider, especially given that Gonzalez put his pro-ID book as part of his publication record. Furthermore, Gonzalez had not successfully mentored any graduate students, another key requirement for professors to gain tenure. Another recent incident involves another IDC (Sternberg) proponent who was working at the Smithsonian who threw a fit when his time was up for working there and decided to cry persecution. Again, in the interest of space, I'll not go into a full account here, but this source has a full account of the affair. In short, Sternberg underwent no persecution but creationists are trying to get public sympathy for their movement to get it recognized without actually having to do science. Expelled has several more supposed cases of persecution, such as Caroline Crocker, Robert Marks, Pamela Winnick, and Michael Egnor. However, when their situations are analyzed, none of them suffered for their views, only their dishonest actions. For more on their cases and the previously mentioned ones, see the Expelled Exposed website. Double Standards For all the complaining that creationists do about their supposed persecution and how we should "teach the controversy" they are strangely silent when actual cases of persecution go on. Recently, in Texas, an Email was forwarded to the members of the department of education, informing them about an upcoming talk by Barbara Forrest revealing on how ID is a Trojan horse for Creationism. As a result of this, the woman that forwarded the Email (which originally came from the National Center for Science Education), was forced to resign (read: fired). Thus, there is a clear case of persecution here, but IDC proponents have been strangely quiet (and I doubt this will make it into their movie). Furthermore, while this would have clearly been a talk that would have helped to "teach the controversy" it was silenced. Apparently, creationists only want their side of the "controversy" taught and don't care if people are persecuted as long as they disagree with them. As such, this is a blatant double standard and intellectually dishonest. Additionally, when Creationists call for the expulsion from society or disenfranchisement of voting rights for evolution supporters they fail to see the irony in which they claim to be suppressed while in fact, suppressing others. The article linked to states, Tom Willis The facts warrent [sic] the violent expulsion of all evolutionists from civilized society. I am quite serious that their danger to society is so great that, in a sane society, they would be, at a minimum, denied a vote in the administration of the society, as well as any job where they might influence immature humans Plagarism One of the most condemnable forms of academic dishonesty is that of plagiarism. Sadly for creationists, one of their leading proponents, William Dembski, has recently been caught stealing animations from Harvard. At a recent talk given at Oklahoma State University, Dembski gave a talk in which he showed an animation apparently titled "The Cell As An Automated City". However, it was soon realized that this was a Harvard work and that Dembski had removed the original title (Unlocking the Mystery of Life), the credits, the original narration, and redubbed it to fit his purposes (although he denies he actually did the latter and that he "found it on the internet" although no one has been able to find where. He also claims that the credits were there, although several people present do not remember it and recordings of the presentation don't show it. Dembski later claimed they were "not visible due to bad lighting".). Dembski also admitted that he had earlier sought permission to use the animation from Harvard but permission was denied. But he used it anyway, and knowingly used a doctored version. Although Dembski could have feigned ignorance and pretended that it was a legal misunderstanding, evidence has shown that Dembski knew the legal ramifications and had attempted to remove similar errors from his newest book. But Dembski wasn't the only Creationist to steal this video. Following Dembski's fiasco, the major Creationist film, Expelled, also attempted to use the film without permission. To avoid any legal entanglements, they recreated the video. However, given that it was nearly shot for shot identical, the film was still slapped with a lawsuit. Sadly, it seems that creationists have absolutely no understanding of what copyright actually entails. Popular Creationist Kent Hovind, in every one of his videos has claimed that his material is free of copyright so that the gullible may better spread his disinformation. However, he then attempted to claim copyright in order to remove videos criticizing him from Youtube. Lack of Rational Discourse For a movement that claims to be upholding a scientific movement, the creationist movement, especially those in charge of the ID wing, frequently leave out any semblance of rational discourse. Instead of writing well argued peer-reviewed papers, they substitute mockery of their opponents. Again, we can see Dembski as a prime example. After their defeat in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, Dembski with the rest of the "Discovery Institute", produced a flash animation of various participants in the trial repeating the facts they had stated during the trial that the Discovery Institute did not like. Instead of addressing the points, they simply gave the characters high pitched mocking voices and farting noises (the latter of which was eventually removed). Instead of addressing points raised against their movement made by blogger Kevin Padian, Demsbki instead made an animation of him turning into Archie Bunker and substituted this in place of any sort of intelligent discourse. Stealth Implementation Aside from the obvious back door attempt Creationists have tried to use to disguise themselves under the guise of "Intelligent Design", they continue to try to use back door tactics to get their ideas into the public without scrutiny. One of their main tactics, is to try to sneak the new politically correct version of creationism (ID) into schools. However, since proponents are well aware that ID cannot pass constitutional muster, they have had to attempt to get teachers to teach it without directly promoting it. As such, the main ID think tank, the Discovery Institute, (as well as many other creationist organizations) claim not to want their beliefs taught until they are fully matured. But as with so many other creationist schemes, their actions bely their true movies. This can be illustrated by several examples: For the school year 1987-1988, Burlington-Edison High School hired teacher Roger DeHart, fresh from teaching at a Christian school. For the next decade he proceeded to teach Intelligent Design until 1997 in which he asked the question of his class "Do you think both sides or views should be studied?" One 14 year old girl answered: student No, I do not. Religion is supposed to be separated from the schools. Evolution, however, should be taught because it is the "scientific" version of how we came about and has nothing to do with religion. Those who want to form an educated opinion, however, should study many religions, not just the creation story, as well as evolution. The Discovery Institute sent president Bruce Chapman as well as Jonathan Wells to give talks in Burlington. DeHart left Burlington-Editon by 2002 to teach at Marysville-Pilchuck High School and credited the fact that he was allowed to teach again to the help of the Discovery Institute (although he quickly resigned in 2002). In March 2002, Discovery Institute fellow Stephen Meyer published an article entitled Teach the Controversy, promoting the teaching of Intelligent Design in Ohio classrooms. Later that year, Dembski also published an article in which he explicitly admitted that he felt that kids needed to be recruited young, saying, William Dembski ID must first be developed further as a scientific and scholarly program before it may be legitimately taught in public school science curricula. Before the dissolution of my ID think tank at Baylor, my sentiments were largely the same. But I've come to reject this view entirely. ...by presenting ID at the high school level some of these same students would go on to careers trying to develop ID as a positive research program? If ID is going to succeed as a research program, it will need workers, and these are best recruited at a young age. In 2000, the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC), a subset of the Discovery Institute, posted a webpage full of "Science Education Resources". It included such things as lesson plans and "learning objectives". By mid-March 2000, the CRSC restricted access to this portion of the webpage, requiring a username and password, for which there was no method of application from the website, forcing educators to contact the CRSC directly and thus be subject to screening. By summer 2001, the link to this page was deleted entirely. Following the sweeping ruling against Intelligent Design in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, the Discovery Institute tried to distance themselves, saying that they had not been involved and that the board had acted of its own volition in implementing Intelligent Design. However, it was made very clear during the trial that the Discover Institute had been in contact with board member William Buckingham and had sent him promotional materials including videos, DVDs, and possibly books. Following the trial, Buckingham admitted that he had also been in contact with other Discovery Institute members. Yet, as stated, the Discovery Institute is not the only organization promoting Intelligent Design in classrooms. In 2002, Intelligent Design supporters assisted John Omdahl (professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine), sent letters as well as a copy of Behe's book Darwin's Black Box to science department chairs of 77 middle and high schools in New Mexico. Although not explicitly stated in his letter, Omdahl received the funding for these books from the New Mexico Family Council, a Christian oriented organization (which again shows the theistic ties). This was confirmed by an e-mail "alert\" by the New Mexico Family Council and confirmed by young-earth Creationist group "Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico" on their website. The Foundation for Thought and Ethics, publisher of Of Pandas and People make it clear that their goal is to target children. The mission goal at the bottom of their main page states: Foundation for Thought and Ethics The Foundation for Thought and Ethics advances initiatives for young people in important matters of world view... So why? At this point, I've clearly demonstrated five clear tactics of intellectual dishonesty frequently perpetuated by creationists: Quote mining, out of date sources, self-martyrdom, double standards, pathetic ad-hominem attacks, and even the serious offense plagiarism. All of this begs the question of "Why creationists are such dishonest bastards!?" Especially given that they claim to represent the "Christian morals". I think the answer is pretty clear: It's because it's not a scientific movement which relies on peer review, facts, testing, and reason. Creationists rely on deception, logical fallacies, and dishonesty. This is much more in tune with another type of movement: political. Although they pretend to be scientific in nature, they attempt to sidestep scientific procedures through the political system. But this still begs the question of what drives this. I think Catholic biologist Ken Miller has the answer. As part of his frequent talks (example here @ 8:47) Miller shows a slide from Answers in Genesis showing the notion of Evolution as the base of all corruption in the world. This view is frequently taken by creationists as they love to conflate evolution with atheism, and subsequently blame everything up to and including invoking Godwin's Law by saying that evolution was responsible for the Holocaust. They feel that atheistic materialism has cause the ruin of society, and that the only way to bring it back is to bring it back to God. This is explicitly stated in the ID movement's foundational document, the Wedge Strategy which states that their goal is to "replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan[sic] beings are created by God." Additionally, those seeking a literal truth from scripture find it directly in conflict with evolution, and thus, an acceptance of evolution requires a rejection of the Bible. As such, creationists see it as their duty to save souls, no matter the method. This was even admitted to Miller and recounted in his book Finding Darwin's God (page number and more information forthcoming when I have my copy of the book again). To them, the ends justify the means. This explicit foundation in promoting faith based morality is evident in every part of the Creationist/ID movement. Dembski has recently used design to imply morality and object to equal protection for transgendered persons. His own Discovery Institute has a sub group that was formerly known as the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, again referring to the infamous Wedge Document that states that the objective of Intelligent Design is to bring people to God. To me, this is the entirety of the explanation: Biblical literalists can't pull their heads out of their asses enough to recognize good science, so they commit intellectual dishonesty to redeem souls and society. But Ken Miller thinks there may be an even deeper cause. In a talk at the University of Kansas in 2006, Miller suggested that this theistic uprising is in at least somewhat a direct response to the recent in atheist philosophers such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Denett, Christopher Hitchens, and others, who attempt to use evolution as a justification for the non-existence of god(s). The creationist movement is a counter movement to the atheistic movement. However, I take direct exception to this argument, because even as Miller admits (see earlier youtube link during questions at ~83:00) that the rejection of evolution has always roughly been constant. In fact, evolution has been under attack since it was originally proposed, and its demise has been prophesized since then. Summary So we've seen that creationists are amazingly intellectually dishonest. The reason for this is clearly due to a religiously driven political movement posing as science due to a contrived "controversy". Discuss - Creationist (including ID) dishonesty - Reasons for dishonesty Further reading: Evidence & Testing in the Scientific Field The Failure of Irreducible Complexity Evolution, Entropy, the Big Bang, and the Second Law Is Intelligent Design Different that Creationism? Evolution - What it is and isn’t Evolution and its Compatibility with Creationism Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (An ID Propaganda Film) Updates 1/3/08 - Added additional section on Dembski's lack of rational responses. 2/22/08 - Added additional section on the stealth attempt to put creationism into classrooms while lying and claiming otherwise. 4/15/08 - Added link to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (An ID Propaganda Film). 6/9/08 - Added more information to Plagiarism section and fixed minor typos. 6/13-08 - Added link to Double Standard Section on call for disenfranchisement and expulsion from society of evolution supporters by Tom Willis. Updated Self Martyrdom section to reflect the release of Expelled and added link to Expelled Exposed cases of the martyred. 6/14/08 - Added new quote from Dembski regarding recruiting at young age and targeting students. |
|
