![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peristaltorForgive me, readers, for I have omitted. When I first started The Deist Miasma, I fully expected to answer that last question asked in Part I, Why do many creationists feel so threatened by the scientific explanations for life's diversity? After all, the "Fundamentally" in the post's title refers to the fundamental, underpinning assumptions Behe, Schlafly and Walker all hold that forces their science attacking actions. I wrapped up the third and last installment, though, and forgot to answer that question. Why? I am a forgetful idiot. That's why.
I've added the following to the original Part I. If you'd like to read the entire thing, be my guest. If you remember the original, continue after the cut to the original entry.
Why did Michael Behe interpret Richard Lenski's E. coli mutation experiment using such tricky language? Behe is a Senior Fellow at The Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. In 1999, the Center published something it called The Wedge, a document outlining the Center's strategy. (You can download a PDF copy of the original document here. I transcribed all the quotes below from that linked PDF.)
This document should be examined in detail. It opens with, "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built." Again, that is the document's opening sentence.
In the second paragraph, the document notes that this "cardinal idea," that humans were created by God ". . . came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science." It continues:
Any such attack against Western Civilization's primacy are labeled in the document "scientific materialism," a force to be fought. The Wedge declares war on this materialism, stating "The Center seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies . . .", and outlines how the Discovery Institute will engage the fight.
Behe's article on Lenski's discovery perfectly follows the three Phases, or strategies, the document outlines. First, Behe has been made a Senior Fellow, given (one assumes) a salary and the resources to publish. This gives him credentials according to Phase I:
I find it ironic that Phase I is introduced with: "Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade." Why? Just look at Phase II. "The primary purpose of Phase II is to prepare the popular reception of our ideas." This is essentially where the Institute promotes the work of the thinkers found in Phase I in order to ". . . build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians." (Emphasis mine.)
The final thrust of The Wedge comes in Phase III:
Behe's comments to Lenski follow that first sentence nicely, don't they? He completely twists the significance of Lenski's work by introducing the fictional distinction of "beneficial" verses "degradative" mutations, a concept he draws from religious and religiously-influenced thinkers. Though it doesn't really relate to this discussion, I left that second section in the block quote to remind you that Behe also served as an expert witness for the defense in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, a decision the creationist movement lost dramatically, but which should remind everyone what he and the Discovery Institute are striving to support.
And what are they trying to support? What is the endgame of their actions? Remember that The Wedge document accused Darwin, Marx and Freud -- but especially Darwin -- of doing great harm to Western Civilization:
Wow. Just, wow.
At the end of Phase III in The Wedge, we find the endgame, the Discovery Institute's answer to the crippling effects science has had on Western Civilization and its founding principle, Christianity:
The specific social consequences. It turns out this is also what Andrew Schlafly seeks to destroy with his Conservapedia. I am kinda bummed, though. When I first encountered Andy's "Trustworthy Encyclopedia," it was far, far, far more open about the reasons for its creation. I found great descriptions, like "a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American." Now, though it has hardly changed in its attacks on those it finds "anti-Christian and anti-American," it proves far more cagey when it describes itself. I couldn't find the description I quoted in that earlier LJ post, for example. I could find gems like this graphic on the Main Page:
Evolutionary Racism of Hitler and Darwin
Never mind that I found and described the extreme logical fallacy behind that connection ages ago. The fallacy lives on, it seems.
Speaking of Mischlinge (literally in German, "mixtures," a term Hitler used to describe part Jewish Germans) what about Tas Walker, the man who didn't understand the etymological difference between pure-bred dogs and mongrels? Where does he stand on the whole anti-Christian attitude toward the sciences? This page opens with the founding premise: "Starting with the Bible we can know the broad framework of Earth history because we believe the record is accurate." (Emphasis mine.) Translation: When we start with the belief that the Bible is accurate, we believe the Bible is accurate. This, folks, is circular logic.
Such fallacies aside, Tas openly states that he agrees wholeheartedly with the The Discovery Institute:
He then trumps Schlafly and his mere Hitler comparison by noting a quote from Jeffrey Dahmer:
If you want to show how despicable any position can be, just demonstrate that it was adopted by someone who everyone regards as despicable. It's the argument ad hominem fallacy.
What this tactic doesn't do, however, is demonstrate the argument is false, just that it was adopted by the despicable. By that reasoning, shouldn't we all eat meat, smoke and booze it up? After all, Hitler was a vegan who also abstained from smoking or drinking. In fact, that point was brought up very recently when a candidate for office was running in Germany, a candidate who (IIRC) got busted for driving drunk. When a reporter asked a supporter about the candidate's qualifications, the supporter said, "The last time we elected a non-smoking vegetarian who didn't drink, things didn't turn out so well."
Folks, I define "truth" as conclusions drawn from demonstrable facts, meaning that if the evidence disputes the facts supporting your conclusions, it becomes fair to question your conclusions. Furthermore, I regard the twisting of truth to fit ideology as the last resort of scoundrels.
Lenski clearly demonstrated a basic premise of Darwinian evolution. For this, his work's importance was twisted by Behe. For this, he was attacked by Schlafly. Walker wisely stayed out of this particular fray, but joins Behe and Schlafly in solidarity by attacking the overwhelming majority of geologists who, like Lenski, dare to question assumptions that support very specific biblical presumptions. They do this not to advance science in any way but to destroy it, and by doing so to promote what they feel is the only worthy bedrock principle, a literal Christian interpretation of the Bible.
There is, of course, a supreme irony in these denunciations. If these three are right and God did indeed create the world, their efforts denounce observations of God's Creation. Let's see. . . in the eyes of a creator, which would be more damaging: to deny the lessons one could impart from an amalgamated, anecdotal interpretation of a work; or to deny the physical reality of the work itself?
I've added the following to the original Part I. If you'd like to read the entire thing, be my guest. If you remember the original, continue after the cut to the original entry.
Why did Michael Behe interpret Richard Lenski's E. coli mutation experiment using such tricky language? Behe is a Senior Fellow at The Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. In 1999, the Center published something it called The Wedge, a document outlining the Center's strategy. (You can download a PDF copy of the original document here. I transcribed all the quotes below from that linked PDF.)
This document should be examined in detail. It opens with, "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built." Again, that is the document's opening sentence.
In the second paragraph, the document notes that this "cardinal idea," that humans were created by God ". . . came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science." It continues:
Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral or spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces. . . .
Any such attack against Western Civilization's primacy are labeled in the document "scientific materialism," a force to be fought. The Wedge declares war on this materialism, stating "The Center seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies . . .", and outlines how the Discovery Institute will engage the fight.
Behe's article on Lenski's discovery perfectly follows the three Phases, or strategies, the document outlines. First, Behe has been made a Senior Fellow, given (one assumes) a salary and the resources to publish. This gives him credentials according to Phase I:
Scientific revolutions are usually staged by . . . scientists who . . . are able to do creative work at the pressure points, that is, on those critical issues upon which the whole systems of thought hinge. So, in Phase I we are supporting vital writing and research at the sites most likely to crack the materialist edifice.
I find it ironic that Phase I is introduced with: "Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade." Why? Just look at Phase II. "The primary purpose of Phase II is to prepare the popular reception of our ideas." This is essentially where the Institute promotes the work of the thinkers found in Phase I in order to ". . . build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians." (Emphasis mine.)
The final thrust of The Wedge comes in Phase III:
Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of (intelligent) design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge(s) . . . . We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula. . . .
Behe's comments to Lenski follow that first sentence nicely, don't they? He completely twists the significance of Lenski's work by introducing the fictional distinction of "beneficial" verses "degradative" mutations, a concept he draws from religious and religiously-influenced thinkers. Though it doesn't really relate to this discussion, I left that second section in the block quote to remind you that Behe also served as an expert witness for the defense in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, a decision the creationist movement lost dramatically, but which should remind everyone what he and the Discovery Institute are striving to support.
And what are they trying to support? What is the endgame of their actions? Remember that The Wedge document accused Darwin, Marx and Freud -- but especially Darwin -- of doing great harm to Western Civilization:
This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art.
The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. . . .
Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions.
Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.
Wow. Just, wow.
At the end of Phase III in The Wedge, we find the endgame, the Discovery Institute's answer to the crippling effects science has had on Western Civilization and its founding principle, Christianity:
With added emphasis to the social sciences and humanities, we will begin to address the specific social consequences of materialism and the Darwinist theory that supports it in the sciences. (Emphasis mine.)
The specific social consequences. It turns out this is also what Andrew Schlafly seeks to destroy with his Conservapedia. I am kinda bummed, though. When I first encountered Andy's "Trustworthy Encyclopedia," it was far, far, far more open about the reasons for its creation. I found great descriptions, like "a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American." Now, though it has hardly changed in its attacks on those it finds "anti-Christian and anti-American," it proves far more cagey when it describes itself. I couldn't find the description I quoted in that earlier LJ post, for example. I could find gems like this graphic on the Main Page:
Never mind that I found and described the extreme logical fallacy behind that connection ages ago. The fallacy lives on, it seems.
Speaking of Mischlinge (literally in German, "mixtures," a term Hitler used to describe part Jewish Germans) what about Tas Walker, the man who didn't understand the etymological difference between pure-bred dogs and mongrels? Where does he stand on the whole anti-Christian attitude toward the sciences? This page opens with the founding premise: "Starting with the Bible we can know the broad framework of Earth history because we believe the record is accurate." (Emphasis mine.) Translation: When we start with the belief that the Bible is accurate, we believe the Bible is accurate. This, folks, is circular logic.
Such fallacies aside, Tas openly states that he agrees wholeheartedly with the The Discovery Institute:
Long-age geology basically says that the Bible cannot be accepted as reliable history. So if you can't believe the Bible's history, why should you accept the Bible's morality and salvation? Hence we have seen the collapse of Christian values in the West, in places like the UK and Europe.
With the collapse of Christian values we see rising crime, domestic violence, abortion, drug abuse, alchoholism (sic), homosexual behaviour (sic), sexual slavery, family break down, and disturbed children.
He then trumps Schlafly and his mere Hitler comparison by noting a quote from Jeffrey Dahmer:
Serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer's life, as well as his victims and their familes, were tragically impacted by his worldview. When interviewed in prison about the people he murdered he said 'If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s—what’s the point of—of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought, anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth that we all just came from the slime. When we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing …' (Dateline NBC interview with Stone Phillips, Aired November 29, 1994.)
If you want to show how despicable any position can be, just demonstrate that it was adopted by someone who everyone regards as despicable. It's the argument ad hominem fallacy.
What this tactic doesn't do, however, is demonstrate the argument is false, just that it was adopted by the despicable. By that reasoning, shouldn't we all eat meat, smoke and booze it up? After all, Hitler was a vegan who also abstained from smoking or drinking. In fact, that point was brought up very recently when a candidate for office was running in Germany, a candidate who (IIRC) got busted for driving drunk. When a reporter asked a supporter about the candidate's qualifications, the supporter said, "The last time we elected a non-smoking vegetarian who didn't drink, things didn't turn out so well."
Folks, I define "truth" as conclusions drawn from demonstrable facts, meaning that if the evidence disputes the facts supporting your conclusions, it becomes fair to question your conclusions. Furthermore, I regard the twisting of truth to fit ideology as the last resort of scoundrels.
Lenski clearly demonstrated a basic premise of Darwinian evolution. For this, his work's importance was twisted by Behe. For this, he was attacked by Schlafly. Walker wisely stayed out of this particular fray, but joins Behe and Schlafly in solidarity by attacking the overwhelming majority of geologists who, like Lenski, dare to question assumptions that support very specific biblical presumptions. They do this not to advance science in any way but to destroy it, and by doing so to promote what they feel is the only worthy bedrock principle, a literal Christian interpretation of the Bible.
There is, of course, a supreme irony in these denunciations. If these three are right and God did indeed create the world, their efforts denounce observations of God's Creation. Let's see. . . in the eyes of a creator, which would be more damaging: to deny the lessons one could impart from an amalgamated, anecdotal interpretation of a work; or to deny the physical reality of the work itself?