Bias Against Guillermo Gonzalez (Privileged Planet)?

Conversation Side Conversation
142

alwallace:

You apparently missed my many concessions that it is possible that Gonzalez would not have been awarded tenure in any case, even outside of any prejudice against ID.

My main focus all along has been to establish that there was personal prejudice among some Iowa State faculty against Gonzalez, because he – in a popular book, not in any peer-reviewed work and not in his classroom teaching – endorsed intelligent design. I granted that this prejudice might not have been decisive in his tenure refusal, but I did ask for the concession that such prejudice existed. Daniel admitted that it existed right away, and seemed to admit that in itself the prejudice was not a good thing, though now he seems to be trying to say that not only existed but was entirely justified. T. aquaticus will not allow that it even existed in the Gonzalez case (against on-campus testimony that it did); but he also seems to say that it would have been a good thing if it did.

As for my other remarks on the way science departments conduct tenure reviews, you can take them as incidental gripes and beefs on my part; I shouldn’t have let myself get tempted into that area. Whatever objections I might have, whether valid or not, are not necessary to make my main points, so for the sake of bringing this long discussion to a close, I will tentatively concede to you all your objections about the tenure process in science departments, and restate only those main points. I will not justify these main points all over again (you can read the details in the earlier posts), but only summarize:

  1. There definitely was prejudice against Gonzalez for holding an ID view. (Empirically verified.)
  2. That prejudice may not have been the cause of his tenure denial, but its existence naturally left grounds for suspicion that it was a factor.
  3. Even if we finally conclude that it wasn’t a factor, that still leaves the question of principle to be decided, the question over which T. aquaticus and I firmly disagree: Supposing for the sake of argument that Gonzalez (or someone in an analogous situation) had met all the requirements later specified by Iowa State’s President; if he still had not received tenure, and the reason he did not receive tenure was that his colleagues, while respecting his peer-reviewed work, disagreed with the conclusions of his popular book endorsing design and didn’t want anyone who held those conclusions as a colleague, would that be an acceptable reason for tenure denial? I say no; T. aquaticus, apparently, says (or implies) yes.

That’s the core of the issue, as I see it. All the lengthy exposition I’ve provided, which you have complained about, is a result of trying to reply to remarks from several people at once, on several different fronts. These internet discussions really get out of hand, if one doesn’t watch it.

143

“Associated” in the sense that I maintain ongoing intellectual friendships with many of its members, yes; in the sense of being a Fellow, donor, board member, staff member, etc., no.

“Ancient” because of its date. Scores of more recent policy statements are available (I gave some links), and all of them without exception, at least as far back as 2005, state clearly that the DI is against mandating the teaching of ID in high school science class.

If a state legislature passes a bill authorizing capital punishment in 1904, and the same state legislature passes a bill abolishing capital punishment in 1920, the later policy supersedes the earlier one. The earlier policy is no longer in force. Modern policy trumps ancient policy. I don’t see anything hard to grasp in my meaning here.

And even that gives away too much, because I don’t interpret the Wedge document as a policy paper in the strict sense, but more of a sketching out of a broad direction. But even if we call it a policy paper, if it says anything against later policy papers, it is rendered impotent by them. Current Discovery policy is what the current spokespersons for Discovery (such as, e.g., John West) say it is, not what some collective of unnamed brainstormers 15 or 20 years ago said it was.

144

The university has to balance the concerns of other academics and people in the general public who actually have an impact on what they’re doing. If there are billions of dollars in doing ID research then I’m pretty sure Gonzalez would have been given another look. You’d also have to think of the impact of academic opinion. If the Iowa State astronomy department became known as a center for ID, then that would be disastrous for them, as academics would just avoid that place.

Well that’s the difference. It’s MIT, and it’s Noam Chomsky, who’s brilliant enough that he can afford to say and do more. Iowa State doesn’t have that luxury. Regardless, nowadays we’re seeing even prestigious institutions take a hit if they endorse politically extreme views or get mired in scandal.

So now you’re just angry at Iowa State for being a pipsqueak school? You’re basically unhappy that Gonzalez wasn’t brilliant or lucky enough that he got an assistant professorship at MIT instead. This is just life, Eddie. People have to play their cards right according to their situations.

OK. It seems however, that there are plenty of other people who are willing to study at Iowa State.

So I assume that you think most Christian colleges and universities are “masquerading self-interested collectives”?

This is not completely accurate. My precise views are:

  • Given the secular environment of most academic departments and the bad rep garnered by religion, there is probably some unconscious (if not conscious) bias against religious belief simpliciter.
  • However, this is not a severely crippling bias, as we see that people like Josh can get tenure despite being an outspoken Christian. Similarly, Collins has been able to get a job directing the NIH.
  • There is, however, a strong bias against intellectual movements deemed pseudoscience like ID and creationism, especially if mixed with politics, like the case of the DI.
  • In the case of Gonzalez, the bias was even stronger due to the aftermath of the Dover and Kansas cases. He was partially a victim of circumstance.
  • This stronger-than-usual bias was completely understandable and to some extent justified, given the university’s interest in maintaining a good reputation in the academic community and the public.
145

But that wouldn’t have happened, if the only faculty member supporting ID was Gonzalez, and he continued his policy of keeping ID out of his peer-reviewed research (or even if he didn’t). At the worst, it would have meant that Iowa State had one kooky astronomy professor who was a pretty good researcher regarding extrasolar planets but oddly insisted in endorsing a dubious theory of design. So if there were 20 astronomy profs there, and some grad student had an allergic reaction to a thesis supervisor who personally accepted intelligent design (even one who did not insist that the student also accept it), the grad student would still have had 19 other choices for a supervisor.

I thought some of my Religion professors in grad school were second-string thinkers, not worth studying with; I simply avoided having them on my supervisory committee, and placed myself under the faculty I thought were superior. Other grad students thought my supervisors were boring old frauds, and made exactly opposite supervisory choices. That arrangement was fine for supervisors and grad students alike. Let a million flowers bloom, as long as no one has to have a particular flower shoved up their nose – that’s my attitude. But some academics, both in science and in the arts, would like to ensure that within their discipline or area, only one authorized type of flower is allowed to bloom. I don’t get along with academics like that.

No; I’m only unhappy that there exist scientists who would vote against someone they in their heart of hearts respect as a qualified scientist purely because he supports a conclusion of design that they don’t agree with. Even if that did not happen at Iowa State, but ever happened elsewhere, or ever will happen elsewhere, it’s still wrong, in my view.

I reject Marxism, but if I were a political scientist, I would not hesitate to vote to give tenure to a Marxist scholar if I thought he or she was a competent thinker and motivated by a love of theoretical truth about politics (rather than by partisan shibboleths). In fact, if my whole department leaned heavily toward laissez-faire capitalism, even if I agreed with that consensus, I would probably want a maverick hired, for intellectual balance, to give the students the maximal university experience – the experience of debate and dissent among the experts, not merely over craft details or sub-hypotheses, but over fundamental views of the nature of political life, or of the nature of the discipline of political science.

That is an interesting question. Can you give me an example of what you have in mind?

I entirely agree.

It is not always a problem, I agree. That doesn’t mean that it never is. And it certainly is a problem whenever a Christian doctrine is perceived to be in conflict with what “consensus science” demands. In all such cases, Christians are expected to re-interpret the Bible or Christian theology to remove the conflict. The scientists (if secular ones) never offer to re-interpret the consensus scientific view to accommodate the Christian doctrine. Collins had no problem (well, he was implicitly belittled by Jerry Coyne for his belief in miracles, but it didn’t affect his appointment) because Collins holds to a view of the relationship between science and faith which makes real conflict between the two virtually impossible, and so secular scientists give him a pass. They may snicker at his private beliefs (as Coyne does), but they tolerate them because they don’t get in their way. But if Collins’s interpretation of the Bible required him to hold the view that design in nature was both real and detectable, he would have been given a much rougher ride – and, if he didn’t already have tenure, probably would never have got it.

Obviously I am against pseudoscience; the difficulty lies in distinguishing between pseudoscience and “views most scientists find uncongenial.” Galileo and most others in his day thought that “action at a distance” was pseudoscience, but that was reflection of their own intellectual limitations, not a correct assessment of the way nature really is.

I’m also against mixing science with politics, and to the extent that the DI does this (as in some editorials on ENV), I think that the DI does a counterproductive thing.

Thank you. I agree.

Maybe justified in a pragmatic sense, but I don’t think justified in an intellectual sense. But I concede that universities in practice often compromise between the intellectual ideal and urgent (or what seem urgent) pressures.

By the way, Daniel, if you look up a few posts, you will see another post of mine, fairly substantial in the issues it discusses, to which you haven’t yet replied. I wrote two in succession, and you may have seen only the second one. I don’t mind if you choose not to reply, but I would like to verify that you saw it, since I wrote it for you. :smile:

146

As you know, the DI’s “Wedge Strategy” set out to do exactly that: “To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God”.

You say that this has been superseded by more recent public statements by the DI, but don’t you think it’s pretty significant that a secret older document laid out a covert plan to undermine evolution? If the DI were still following the strategy outlined in the “Wedge Document”, wouldn’t it stand to reason that they would lie in their public statements?

I accept the possibility that the goals of the DI really have changed in the last 15 years or so, my point is that merely pointing to the fact that the DI say they don’t want to replace evolution with ID in schools for religious reasons isn’t good enough evidence.

3 Likes
147

Well, if that’s the case, then nothing at all could possibly constitute evidence for you. They could repeat the same policy every year for the next 50 years, and you would still say they were lying. So you’re offering an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

And there’s another flaw in your reasoning, and the reasoning of all the people who use the Wedge document to deny the plain meaning of the DI’s current policy. “Policy” can have two senses, one concerning present-day positions, and another concerning long-term goals. There is no need to assume that Discovery is lying when it says it does not want ID forced into the schools at this time. That position is completely compatible with a long-term goal of bringing ID into the schools, when conditions change. So even if the Wedge document is a policy document in the long-term sense, it doesn’t imply that Discovery is lying now.

What conditions cause Discovery to say that ID shouldn’t be taught in the schools? They have identified them, very clearly:

  1. ID isn’t advanced enough theoretically or in terms of empirical results to have earned a place in the school curriculum yet; it needs more work.

  2. Trying to push in into the high school curriculum before it is ready would only cause a reaction against it, and ruin its chances of a good hearing in the universities.

  3. The high school science teachers of America don’t know nearly enough about what ID means, or what the arguments for it are, to be effective at teaching about ID, even if ID were part of the curriculum.

Now, all of these reasons are not only intrinsically plausible; they are in agreement with what critics of ID say!

1b. Critics say ID hasn’t earned a place in the high school curriculum yet, because it hasn’t established itself as an alternative in the minds of university professors of the life sciences. They say ID should prove itself at the higher level first, and only if it succeeds should it be admitted at the lower level. Exactly what the DI says in point 1 above.

2b. Critics also say that they have reacted against ID so violently because it has tried to force itself into the schools prematurely. The DI denies that this is the case, but there is the perception that this is the case – hence the hostile reaction. Exactly what the DI said could happen, and must be avoided, in point 2 above.

3b. Critics, such as Jay313 on BioLogos, have said that many of today’s 9th-grade biology teachers are barely competent (if even that) to handle the basic biology on the curriculum, let alone learn a whole new set of concepts and vocabulary to teach ID, or even to teach criticisms of Darwinian theory from peer-reviewed literature. This is stronger than what the DI says in point 3 above, but still in the same vein.

So, when you look at the match-up between Discovery’s stated reasons for not wanting ID taught in schools, and the criticisms made of ID, the DI’s current policy makes sense. No conspiracy theorizing is needed to explain the policy, when the policy is simply a statement of the most practical thing ID can do at the moment. So the supposition of dishonesty is uncalled for. The natural explanation is that the DI policy says what it means, and means what it says: forcing ID onto the science curriculum would be theoretically premature, would backfire politically, and couldn’t be carried out effectively because of the inadequacy of current teachers. So the DI opposes that action.

Hence, the DI consistently told the Dover school board not to go ahead with its policy. And it was right about that, too; the statements by the Dover schoolteachers indicate severe intellectual limitations in scientific matters [point 3], and the statements by Bill Buckingham indicate that he didn’t really understand what ID was, or for that matter even what Darwinian evolution was [point 3]; and the Dover action caused a massive reaction not merely against putting ID into the schools, but against ID itself – the special witnesses for the plaintiffs were out not merely to stop the Dover school board from prematurely introducing ID, but to scuttle ID as a research program altogether [point 2].

Thus, the DI’s reasoning for its policy is completely coherent, and the Dover case showed how prophetic its warnings were. All the ducks line up in a row.

So everyone here should be willing to accept my statement that the current DI policy is its real policy – for the moment, and for the foreseeable future, until ID is better established in the universities. That doesn’t rule out a long-term goal of eventually integrating ID into the curriculum. The Wedge document may still represent the long-term vision of many with the DI. But my original statement against T. aquaticus – that the DI was not trying to “force” ID into the schools – was correct. Even under the Wedge document, ID has to earn its right to enter the schools, by improving itself as a scientific program first. If it can do that, it won’t need to be “forced” into the schools; as part of accepted science, it will naturally be written into the curriculum. So the language of “forcing” ID upon the schools is aggressively rhetorical, misleading, and not correct even in the light of the Wedge document.

148

I agree that it would be difficult to falsify. That’s what you get when you go about creating secret, long-term strategies to deceive the public about your intentions - suddenly there’s a lack of trust. Amazing, I know. That being said I don’t think it’s completely unfalsifiable. For example, if more internal documents were leaked (by a reliable source) that made it clear they had torn up the Wedge strategy, that would be something.

I agree with much of the rest of your comment, but I don’t think you’re addressing my point, or what you said previously. I quoted your comment denying that the goal of the DI introducing “doubts about Darwin” is to eventually evict evolution from schools and replace it with ID. I think that’s exactly what the Wedge strategy dictates. I think it’s what their current policy is. I agree they don’t want to “force” ID into schools right now, but I would say they certainly want to lay the groundwork in schools by introducing “doubts about Darwin”.

3 Likes
149

evograd:

I’m glad we have agreement on some points. My response here will not be an attempt to refute your statement, but an attempt to give some context to discussions about the Wedge document.

Surely the reason the writers of the Wedge document had for wanting to replace Darwin with ID was that they perceived the Darwinian formulation of evolution to affirm an unguided and purposeless process which implicitly denied the existence of the theistic God. So their real target is not evolution understood merely as “descent with modification” (which could be understood as a purposeful process); their real target is unguidedness and purposelessness. If evolution as a biological idea had not come to be associated with those other theological or metaphysical ideas, there would have been no need to object to it.

So sure, I agree that the writers of the Wedge document had an explicitly religious purpose – to uphold a theistic interpretation of the world against the view that the order of the world, particularly the biological order (including human beings), is the product of a series of cosmic accidents. But even if we never had the Wedge document, we would know that. The core Discovery people are Christians or at least theists of some sort, and admit this in their writings. So obviously their work on intelligent design is going to take place within a religious framework. And obviously, again, the kind of arguments that ID makes, whether motivated by prior religious faith or not, are arguments that point to an intelligent, designing mind, which is a theistic-friendly conception.

But the arguments for design themselves aren’t particularly Christian, and don’t start from dogmatic assumptions (Trinity, Incarnation, etc.) And the ID folks think the arguments, on testing, will hold up in the long run – and therefore will be admissible in science, and, once shown to be admissible in science, will be suitable for inclusion in science class. In other words, they think that an objective examination of nature will show design to be real, not a religious imposition of the mind on nature – and therefore, they reason, design conceptions ought to be taught in science class. So from their point of view, eventually including design arguments in science class (not now, but down the road) will be completely justified even from a scientific perspective. It’s not as if their long-term goal is to teach something religious instead of something scientific in science class. Their long-term goal is to teach a fuller and more thorough science in science class – a fuller science which by doing justice to nature, will do justice to theistic religion as well. They don’t see good science and good religion as at odds with each other.

Also, from their point of view, it is not ID which is trying to impose a religious view of the world on science class. From their point of view, a religious view of the world is already being imposed on students in science class, wherever a view of unguided, purposeless evolution is taught. They see that view as anti-theistic and metaphysical rather than truly scientific, and they see it as implicitly aimed at undermining traditional religious faith. So they see themselves as fighting bad theology and bad metaphysics slipped into the science classroom. So when the world accuses them of trying to sneak religion into the science classroom, to get around court rulings, they are indignant; from their point of view, a secular humanist agenda is already present in the science classroom (and in the schools generally, and in the culture generally) – and secular humanism is just as much a religious conviction as theism is.

I’m not asking you to agree with all their reasoning. I’m merely trying to point out that for them, ID represents a genuine scientific approach to nature, a broader approach to nature which, by admitting teleological reasoning, final and formal causes in modern dress, does more justice to nature in its fullness; and, in their view, a full and proper science of nature will prove to be completely consistent with theistic religious affirmations.

Is this a radical view? Is this a manifesto of some sort of religious takeover of the nation? They don’t think so. From their point of view, it is a return to the original notions of the nation – a nation which in the Declaration of Independence assumed the existence of a Creator God. It’s also, in their view, a return to the original notion of modern science. All of the great early modern scientists were theists of some sort, usually Christians even if Christians flirting with heresies. Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Boyle, Galileo, etc. – the list goes on. Those scientists assumed that a view of nature as designed was both scientifically and religiously sound. If there is any religious takeover, they think, it happened in the 18th through 20th centuries, as theism faced increasing hostility from the intelligentsia, and philosophies and views of the world and of man – those of the French atheists, Marx, Darwin, Nietzsche, Freud, Russell – became dominant in the universities and the literary world, and eventually became incarnated in our social institutions and school curriculum. So they seem themselves as fighting back against a modern secular religion which presents itself as metaphysically neutral – but isn’t.

So sure, the Wedge document is a religious document, but not because it endorses ID as a scientific project. It’s a religious document because it expresses opposition to a reigning religious view.

I see the ID part as separable from the culture-war elements. Someone like Michael Denton argues that the evolutionary process is not purposeless, but is shot through with design elements – but Denton is not interested in the culture-war side of ID, what happens in American schools, etc. Denton doesn’t rail against atheism and materialism. He doesn’t appear to be a theist at all – more like a Deist of some kind. And lots of ID supporters, including Dave Scot who used to moderate UD, have distanced themselves from the culture-war stuff and concentrated only on “design vs. Darwin” types of argument. David Berlinski, too, who though not strictly an ID proponent is a friendly associate of ID, is interested in the critique of Darwinism but doesn’t involve himself in attempts to revive theism or fights about the school curriculum. Many of the other ID folks these days, especially the younger ones, are concentrating strictly on things like computer modelling of evolutionary processes, information theory, etc., and aren’t involving themselves in the debate about school science curriculum at all. For them, design is an interesting theoretical perspective that looks more promising than traditional evolutionary theorizing. So any identification of the Wedge document with intelligent design theory is seriously misleading.

To put it another way, using initial letters of the two relevant phrases, the Wedge document may reflect the long-term goals of the DI, but ID now has an intellectual life of its own, that doesn’t depend on the Wedge document. That’s why I object to constant attempts to draw the discussion away from the contents of ID arguments to the Wedge document. In the end, ID has to stand or fall on its arguments, not on the motivations of the people who wrote the Wedge document.

150

Just what intellectual life do you think ID has now? ID arguments haven’t changed in 20 years. It’s still the false dichotomy / God of the Gaps “science can’t explain this to my satisfaction, therefore GOD, er, the Intelligent Designer did it!”. Also if it wasn’t for the DI keeping ID on life support ID would have dried up and blown away years ago. Can you name any groups doing work on ID that aren’t associated with the DI? Can you name any research being done on ID at all?. I’m not talking about the DI’s repugnant tactic of claiming scientific work by others somehow supports ID.

1 Like
151

Re the Wedge Document

You haven’t provided any evidence to support that claim.

The actions the DI took with the Dover school board, detailed in the Dover decision, are consistent with the Wedge Document, not their public statements of policy. So are their public complaints about the decision after it came down.

Given their actions in Dover, that certainly appears to be the case.

But you haven’t shown that it is a mere internal discussion paper–you’ve just made a claim. The evidence presented in the Dover trial supports the conclusion that the Wedge Document, written in 1998, was still being followed in 2004.

It sure doesn’t look that way from the Dover evidence:
At some point before June 2004, Seth Cooper, an attorney with the Discovery Institute contacted Buckingham and two subsequent calls occurred between the Discovery Institute and Buckingham. Although Buckingham testified that he only sought legal advice which was provided in the phone calls, for which Defendants asserted the attorney-client privilege, Buckingham and Cooper discussed the legality of teaching ID and gaps in Darwin’s theory. (29:133-143 (Buckingham); 30:9 (Buckingham)). The Discovery Institute forwarded Buckingham a DVD, videotape, and book which he provided to Nilsen to give the science teachers. (29:130-131 (Buckingham); 25:100-01 (Nilsen); 26:114-15 (Baksa)). Late in the 2003-04 school year, Baksa arranged for the science teachers to watch a video from the Discovery Institute entitled “Icons of Evolution” and at a subsequent point, two lawyers from the Discovery Institute made a legal presentation to the Board in executive session. (Trial Tr. vol. 4, B. Rehm Test., 48- 49, Sept. 27, 2005; 33:111-12 (Bonsell)).

I’m pretty sure that the exception that you just stated makes it true. :grin:

By the way, what exactly is this “theory of ID” (stated scientifically, since we’re talking about teaching real science to children) that allegedly exists?

No provision regarding providing the students with the contents of ID seems perfectly appropriate, given the lack of content to ID. :smile:

You’re leaving out the legal advice given to the entirely religion-driven school board by the DI.

152

I appreciate you taking the time to write such a lengthy reply, but I still think you’re missing the point.

My comments had nothing to do with ID as an idea or as a general movement, it was specifically about the DI, since that’s who you mentioned in the comment I was replying to.

You said to believe that the DI wants to introduce “doubts about Darwin” into schools specifically to eventually evict evolution from the schools and replace it with ID is to engage in a conspiracy theory. I pointed out that that was literally the goal of the DI, as laid out in the Wedge Strategy (WS).

Your (pre-emptive) rebuttal to this was that the stated goals of the DI have changed since the WS was written, to which I responded that it’s not really as simple as taking their word for it, given that the whole point of the WS was to be covert about it. I agree they don’t want to literally force ID into schools right now, that would be a bad move for them. However, that doesn’t stop them wanting to lay the foundations for (what they believe will be) the triumphant entry of ID into classrooms once they’ve got some science on their side.

As a side note, it has in fact been exactly 20 years since the WS was written (1998). How many of their 20-year goals have been met? How many of the 5-year goals?

2 Likes
153

Eddie:

I did not miss them. I am questioning your reticence to look at truly comparable cases. You still haven’t answered any of my questions about that.

I complained? No, sorry for giving that impression if I did.

I find the contrast between your massive efforts at arguing and your absence of efforts to obtain relevant evidence to be amusing. I think your Morton’s Demon is working overtime.

154

I find this tactic to be baffling.

If their reinterpretations of new science as supporting ID are correct, doesn’t it necessarily lead to the question of why ID researchers didn’t do the work themselves, or at least start following up the allegedly ID-confirming finding? That’s how real science works.

2 Likes
155

evograd:

Perhaps you and I are using “conspiracy theory” in different ways.

To me, a “conspiracy” suggests secret plans, plans one does not want the world to know about until the last minute, when some illegal or revolutionary act is done. So, one might talk about a “conspiracy” to assassinate Archduke Ferdinand, or to blow up the British Parliament with gunpowder, or the like.

The Wedge document outlines steps for a change in science, science education, and culture, but all those steps are to take place fully in the public eye. ID research is to take place (not in hidden secret labs), then gain admittance to peer-reviewed journals (which puts it under public scrutiny), then become accepted science (which requires a public judgment); ID is then to be added to the possibilities for “origins” in high school science class (which requires public actions of school authorities). In the meantime, Discovery and its various Fellows will be publishing books and articles under their own names (not anonymous pamphlets) through existing scientific and popular publishers (not slipped under doors or pinned up late at night on public bulletin boards), in order to persuade the public not only about ID but about the dangers of a materialistic civilization which acknowledges no God. Its members will appear in podcasts, on the radio, on television, at university campuses, etc. (under their own names), in debate with their critics (again, always in full view and hearing of anyone who cares to listen).

I do not see anything of “conspiracy” in this. I would see “conspiracy” if the document referred to secret support from unnamed high White House officials, or from unnamed multinational corporations, etc. I would see “conspiracy” if the document spoke about using payoffs and other means to manipulate school board elections in order to guarantee the right number of votes to pass ID policies against objections. But I don’t see anything like this.

The only evidence anyone has here for any “conspiracy” on Discovery’s part is that the document was in private circulation only, within Discovery. But corporations, unions, government departments, etc., routinely produce documents (discussion documents, reports, etc.) for private circulation only, that are not to be shown to people outside of the organization. Nobody says that such documents prove any “conspiracy” merely because they are not intended to be shown on the six o’clock news.

The argument that I was responding is that Discovery’s current policy on ID in the schools is a bald-faced lie, intended to cover up their real plan (which fortunately was leaked to the public) which is to forcefully evict evolution from the schools and replace it with ID (if not with creationism). I have shown (a) that even in the Wedge document the plan never called for illegal force, or for “conspiracy” as that term is normally used, and (b) that having a long-term goal to put ID in the schools is not incompatible with a wholly sincere current policy not to try to force ID into the schools today or in the near future.

Given your reply above, I think we are actually in agreement on points (a) and (b). If we agree on that much, even if we don’t agree on everything, then this forum has proved itself useful as a place to exchange ideas.

156

Anyone know the answers to these questions?

157

First of all, there is no reason to take Bill Buckingham’s testimony as always truthful, given that he and others were caught suppressing information from the judge during the trial. I presume you read that part of the trial proceedings with as much care as you read the parts which seemed to you to reflect badly on Discovery? (I myself read every single page of trial testimony, but I’m a bit unusual, I know.)

The fact that Discovery sent Dover school board members some material about ID, or let them watch a video about problems with Darwinian evolution, in no way proves that they advised Dover to adopt a compulsory ID policy. This charge has been dealt with by DI officials many times. Have you taken the time to read the DI side of the story, before deciding that those who were proved to have lied in the courtroom can be trusted?

This fact proves nothing, unless you can tell us what was said in that legal presentation. How do you know, for example, that the lawyers from Discovery didn’t advise them against mandating ID?

It is a little-remembered fact, but Dover originally contemplated doing more than read a four-paragraph statement to students. Originally they were thinking of putting some ID contents into the classroom time of the biology unit on evolution. They later backed down, and opted merely to have an administrator read a statement at the beginning of the biology unit. Why do you think they backed off? I think they backed off, in part, because the science teachers in the school raised objections; but given that Discovery’s policy, even at the time, was that ID should not be mandated as part of the curriculum, it is very plausible that Discovery had a role in causing Dover to adopt only the most minimal presentation of ID imaginable, i.e., merely letting students know that ID existed, without actually saying anything about it, and therefore without teaching it. But of course you can’t count on Buckingham to give a reliable story about that. For a guy at the center of the controversy, his memory was oddly selective.

158

You are unaware that the DI funds a research institute, which publishes its results in the journal BioComplexity?

I say this in answer to your question whether any ID research is being done. Whether you like or agree with the conclusions of the research published in BioComplexity is immaterial to answering your question.

In addition, if you look on the Discovery website, you can find a list of peer-reviewed publications by ID people. Not all of them are published in BioComplexity. Some of them are published in journals of biology, engineering, etc.

159

I already conceded the procedural questions to you en bloc, for the sake of argument, so that we could focus on the core issue I was raising, which was about the attitude of certain scientists toward ID, not about the pros and cons of the way astronomy departments decide on tenure. I have not heard your view on whether it would be right (in a hypothetical case) for an otherwise perfectly qualified candidate for tenure to be rejected solely because he endorsed ID in a popular book. My perception is that T. aquaticus thinks this would be a justified action. Do you think it would be a justified action?

160

I think you’re still missing my point. You were the one who brought up the term conspiracy theory! You said that anyone suggesting that the DI is introducing “doubt about Darwin” into schools with the eventual goal in mind of replacing evolution with ID was a conspiracy theory. I was the one who basically said “it’s hardly a conspiracy theory if it’s in their stated goals (WS)”. You agree that those are the actual goals, right?

In your comments since my first reply, you’ve made it clear that yes, the DI’s goal is to eventually get ID into schools, but they want to do it all above board, when the science in on their side. That’s fine. The issue was the subject of teaching “doubt about Darwin”. You were saying that this isn’t teaching ID, so there’s nothing wrong it with, while others were making the point that encouraging people to “doubt Darwin” is a pretty thin veil for “ID is the superior scientific explanation”. You then said that anyone suggesting that there was a concerted effort to teaching this “doubt about Darwin” was in any way done with the goal of laying the foundation for ID was a “conspiracy theory”.

You’ve made my point for me better than I did. They’re not exactly hiding it. It’s not a conspiracy theory if they’ve made it public (willingly or not) that that is their goal. It’s not even a “conspiracy” by your definition, since it’s barely done in secret. The only potentially “secret” part is the religious undertones, since their public face is one of neutrality on the subject.

Come on now. There’s a difference between “not intended to be shown” and “really, really, didn’t want it to be made public because it makes us looks bad”.

1 Like
161

That would be BioComplexity which has published a grand total of 7 research articles in the last 4 years, all by their own editors?

I take it you know of no other groups besides the DI funding ID research?

But none of that work is in support of ID.

1 Like