Comments on Greg Cootsona and ID

To be blunt, the reason I had to settle the point of fact is that far too many people here (and elsewhere) have formed their opinions about Discovery from secondhand and thirdhand sources, and haven’t been willing to take the time to read statements on the Discovery site. I’ve followed the Discovery site – on this issue, anyway – since before the Dover trial started, and was perfectly aware that they had a consistent policy statement from 2005 on (and Seth Cooper says that goes back to at least 2003, in his experience). The unwillingness to believe that Discovery said what it in fact said has to be attributed to prejudice. It amounts to: “They couldn’t possibly ever have said that, because it’s not consistent with my picture of their goals and motives, so I won’t believe they ever said that.” Once the implicit reasoning is laid out so crudely and honestly, it’s easy to see how prejudiced and unscholarly it is.

That’s the same Discovery site which claimed ID has nothing to do with religion.

Too many people have formed opinions on the guilt of convicted felons based on the more than reasonable doubt evidence presented at trial and haven’t been willing to listen to the felons’ pleas of “but I’m innocent!”. :roll_eyes:

What’s that saying - if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck…

1 Like

No, it’s actually consistent with evaluating the DI’s policies in terms of how they are carried out rather than how they are stated.

I didn’t say they’d published Of Pandas and People. I was mistaken in saying the DI itself had published the manual on the approach to curricula, when in fact that was published by some fellows of the DI through FTE. And yes, the DI did make that statement about school boards not mandating IDC, but when push came to shove the DI decided to go to work for the cause of a school board mandating IDC.

I look forward to the day when a man accused of murder, caught at the scene with the weapon in his hand, announces that he is innocent because he once said that it was against his policy to murder people.

1 Like

Yes, you’re right – I momentarily confused titles. But we both know the title I’m referring to.

An odd addition – “some fellows of the DI through”. The more normal expression would be simply “by FTE”. But of course, you add those words to put your “spin” on the facts. Have it your way.

A statement that is not true unless heavily qualified, given that Discovery, as such, did no work for the Dover Board once it went against its advice with its policy. Some Discovery fellows chose to speak up for the educational value of ID as expert witnesses. They acted as individuals.

Yes, pointing out who the authors are is the very worst sort of spin, isn’t it?

Again, the attorney for the DI said he was retained by the DI to represent its interests, as well as the interests of its fellows who were experts, in the litigation. And one of those fellows was Stephen Meyer, who was already at that time the Director of the Center for Science and Culture at DI. While of course an expert witness “acts as an individual” because a corporate entity like DI, lacking a mouth, cannot physically testify on its own behalf, it’s fair to say that when the head of the organization and multiple fellows get neck-deep in the litigation and seek not only to be represented themselves but seek also to have legal representation for the organization in that litigation, the organization is fully involved.

1 Like

The spin lies in the fact that, having been forced to admit that the book was published not by DI but by FTE, you tried to still slip in a “DI publishing” claim by speaking of authors who happened to be DI fellows as “publishing through” FTE. Just wanted you to know that I observed the sleight of hand. Have a nice evening. :wink:

I am sure that the principles of relative motion account for this perception on your part. Surely, once the DI has you spinning as hard as you are, ordinary expressions of plain facts bearing directly upon the point at issue must look as though they are spinning wildly. What’s the DI got you up to? I’m guessing at least 5000 rpm.

I’m quite calm, actually. ID is winning the war for hearts and minds. Despite the concerted effort of a massive – and heavily publicly funded – propaganda machine against it, ID continues to persuade people who don’t have rigid prior conceptions. Its books continue to sell extremely well on Amazon, and it generates constant and ferocious rebukes – even mentions (albeit caustic or slighting ones) in scientific articles or science journal editorials from people who say it doesn’t even count as science.
They don’t mount that kind of constant and venomous attack against other things, e.g., astrology, Chariots of the Gods, phrenology, aliens at Roswell. It’s clear that ID has “got under their skin” – which it couldn’t do if it didn’t have some basis in the facts of nature.

I’m quite confident who the winner will be, in the long run, unless a non-democratic, quasi-fascistic government run by science-technology “experts” comes into power (a vision of the future that doubtless some people here would like) and uses not merely the school system but control of the internet (perhaps appointing a minister in charge of Wikipedia entries) and if necessary various intrusive forms of chemical and psychological manipulation of the brains of citizens to get them to truly love Big Brother Charles. Where the exchange of ideas is free, and where theoretical discourse is free, i.e., not tied to various forms of political, economic and social advantage (e.g., positions at prestigious institutions, tenure, lucrative research grants, control over the the decisions of granting bodies, etc.), the truth will always out in the long run. Just as, 25 years from now, people will be laughing at some of the extreme claims pushed as “settled science” regarding global warming, so, in another 25 or 35 years, scientists will be puzzled by the “man the fort” attitude against design, as design language will permeate many areas of biology, and not for religious reasons but as a theoretically useful description of the way nature works.

So, yes, about 5,000 rpm, give or take.

1 Like

I love it when Eddie does his Baghdad Bob impersonation singing the praises of ID-Creationism. Darwinism will be overthrown any day now…any day now…any day… :rofl:

The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism

1 Like

I’m reminded of Dembski’s 2002 cock-sure statement:

“They are herewith throwing down the gauntlet. I’ll wager a bottle of single-malt scotch, should it ever go to trial whether ID may legitimately be taught in public school science curricula, that ID will pass all constitutional hurdles.” - William Dembski

I wonder if Dembski ever paid off the bet. :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

Not that I’m a particular fan of the man, but that seems a bit unfair to Baghdad Bob. After all, Baghdad Bob’s side did have an actual army, capable of shooting actual bullets from actual guns. He wasn’t making that part up. ID Creationism doesn’t have anything except a lobbying organization and a stack of the worst books ever written.

2 Likes