peristaltor (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
peristaltor) wrote2008-07-22 07:42 pm
peristaltor) wrote2008-07-22 07:42 pm
The Deist Miasma Part I: Evidence of Something Fundamentally Different
Very recently, researchers led by Richard Lenski announced something momentous: For the first time in recorded scientific history, researchers have been able to observe evolutionary change in progress, confirming and refining Darwin's epochal 1859 theory on the genetic level.
Flasks of evolved E. coli
One would think that this coffin nail would have silenced the Creationist crowd forever. It didn't. If anything, it momentarily energized them. Michael Behe was quick to point out the difference between the Lenski experiment and the important points Lenski might conveniently have overlooked:
To an evolutionary scientist, Behe's distinction between a "beneficial" and a "degradative" mutation seems downright silly, since the mutations helped the subsequent bacterial descendants adapt to their particular surroundings. All mutations are random, so why would he specifically note that a "random mutation much more easily breaks genes than builds them. . . ?" Only non-beneficial mutations hurt organisms, leading to the eventual death of the organism or of the organism's family line, so to close the above phrase with ". . . even when it helps an organism to survive" seems superfluous if highly misleading. To those inside his philosophical realm, however, Behe's words contain hidden assumptions and triggering language bordering on political dog whistles those outside his religious worldview (like me) might easily miss. Let me try to translate Behe's italicized objections. In an earlier post, I learn from Stephen Jay Gould that the term "degenerate" actually has more than simple derogatory meaning. Gould explains, citing the work the man who coined the term Caucasian, J. F. Blumenbach:
Caucasians, or those whose families originated most recently from the Caucasus mountain regions, according to Blumenbach, must be the nearest to the original Garden of Eden and thus human creation. Why? They are the most attractive. All other phenotypes suffered from the degenerative deterioration other modes of life and environment inflicted.
To return to Behe, this degenerative deterioration is exactly analogous to the "degradative" "damage" done by the E. coli mutations in Lenski's experiments, those that "knocked out or rendered less active" the "functional genes." The closer one gets to the Creation, the fewer "broken" genes one should find . . . meaning more "coherent" systems are those which have seen less change since the days described in the Genesis I creation story.
When it comes to reactions to Lenski's research, things get better in terms of entertainment value. Take Andrew Schlafly, son of Reagan-era conservative gadfly Phylis Schlafly and a big-wig at Conservapedia. (I poked a bit of fun of Conservapedia here.) Unlike Behe, Schlafly didn't bother to interpret Lenski's results for his readers in any confusing if nuanced dismissal. Instead, he wrote Lenski and called him a liar. For real:
Translation: "You're a liar. Prove you aren't. I dare you." And Lenski doesn't disappoint:
I've removed the meat of Lenski's response with the ellipsis, since I really only wanted to get to the heart of the disagreement, and the fact that, despite the very detailed information Lenski provided in his return letter, Schlafly called him a liar again, throwing in a little threat with his demands for proof:
It's one thing to be a rude dick; it's quite another to be a persistently rude dick. I won't bother even paraphrasing Lenski's Second Letter response, since the entire glorious thing should be read, digested and savored like a fine pwnage wine in its bitch-slapping entirety. Enjoy.
Richard Lenski was by far not the first to have his scientific results dismissed by those who simply cannot seem to grasp the abundance of the evidence, the consilience of induction from many disciplines that all point toward a validation of Darwin's theory of Natural Selection. What strikes me funny, though, is the lengths folks like Behe and Schlafly go toward dismissing the entire concept of evolution. I'm not talking here about ignorant knuckle-dragging sub-humans, either, but about highly educated people who devote a great deal of their reasoning energies to, it seems to me, undo the sound reasoning others have so ably presented.![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
firstashore turned me on to Tas Walker and his site on Biblical Geology. Here is an obviously well-trained geologist bending the whole of his brain toward proving that every bit of rock on earth proves Noah's Flood really happened.
Remember, folks, this model didn't build itself.
That's dedication to an idea.
Walker draws upon a large body of literature to prove his point, and I'm not just referring to the Old Testament. I mean, really, an entire book dedicated to proving the feasibility of the Ark? Fascinating. What I found even more fascinating, though, is the inevitable confluence of Biblical teaching and the modern science the teachings are supposed to refute. What happens when simply borrowing a bit of the science you're trying to discredit actually helps your case? Well, here we have another example of "degradative" genes, a convenient and necessary mislabeling dismissal. When speaking of how many animals the ark needed to hold, Walker gives an off-the-cuff estimate:
"That's just dogs." That's rich. Walker reduces the cumulative phenotypical differences in domesticated dogs, from the Great Dane to the Chihuahua, to "just dogs." Keep in mind, folks, that the definition of "species" occurs when two branches of a common ancestor can no longer breed successfully. No, I'm not saying Great Danes and Chihuahuas can't bear offspring; but I am saying the natural act of insemination and fetal nurturing become in this case comical just to consider. This size situation might just effectively isolate the two lines long enough for their DNA to drift and diverge, to accumulate mutations, and in the long run to create different species.
I think the mongrel reference is likewise precious. You see, a "mongrel" by definition is something of "no definable type." The wolf is quite definable as a type. The wolf is, in fact, the likely ancestor to all domesticated dog breeds -- meaning all our canine pets are degenerate wolves, not "pure" breeds. Furthermore, "mongrel" specifies mixing in the breed. If the wolf is the original dog, as geneticist maintain, it is by definition unmixed, pure -- not a mongrel.
Finally, that bit about the domestication of the wolf: I wonder if Walker knows where that theory comes from? I read it first in a book I'm pretty sure Walker didn't bother consulting . . . Charles Darwin's On The Origin of Species.
I'll wrap up here with a simple acknowledgement: I realize this post doesn't cover any new ground. As the song goes, ". . .this battle's been raging since Zeus was on the Bottle, between science like Democritus and faith like Aristotle. . . ." What I hoped to do here was lay the groundwork for a growing insight I have into the motives science denial might share, motives that actually have nothing really to do with the science behind evolution's conclusions.
I got a niggling of this insight years ago. I used to debate Creationists all the time. (I still do, but I know fewer of them nowadays that are willing to debate. I blame the lack of free time everyone seems to be experiencing.) Chris was my fave, a genuinely nice guy who just happened to be an ardent evangelist. Just to give you a taste of my debate style, Chris -- who, judging by the grin on his face had been studying for this debate and loved this opening tactic -- opened by asking me "How old is the earth?"
I didn't miss a beat. "Twenty-eight," I answered. "Prove me wrong."
This went back and forth for weeks, whenever we were both scheduled to work together with lots of easy drifting (he was one of my captains in my deckhand days). Finally, I got an interesting thought, one I had never considered. I noted that I have no problem with his religion. Many scientists feel the same way. After all, it's not often you see a cordon of lab coats surrounding a church with a protest picket line. Why, then, were folks like him and those in his church so threatened by the work of scientists?
He didn't answer me. In fact, he seemed genuinely puzzled by the question. He was new to evangelism, new to the reasons evolution and Darwin and science and all that needed to be hated, and I don't think he had yet thought through the threat they posed enough to articulate it to someone like myself, someone who defined "secular" as something other than a threat, someone who didn't share the definition of words like "degradative" and "degenerate." Folks like Behe and Schlafly and Walker, however, know exactly what they are doing by continuing this debate . . . and why.
*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?
Addendum, July 24, 2008: Just for fun, I headed over to Conservapedia and looked up the latestbashing entry for "evolution." I found this sentence:
Weird. With such recent communications with the researcher who just observed and duplicated evolution in the lab, one would assume Schlafly would have rushed to his site to make corrections. . . wouldn't one?
*Addendum, April 5, 2009: Forgive me, readers, for I have omitted. When I first started The Deist Miasma, I fully expected to answer that last question, Why the creationists felt so threatened by the scientific explanations of life. After all, the "Fundamentally" in this 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 lazy, forgetful idiot. Let me rectify that omission now, with a supplement to the original entry that runs from the asterisk to the LJ cut.
Flasks of evolved E. coli
One would think that this coffin nail would have silenced the Creationist crowd forever. It didn't. If anything, it momentarily energized them. Michael Behe was quick to point out the difference between the Lenski experiment and the important points Lenski might conveniently have overlooked:
I discuss Lenski’s fascinating work in Chapter 7 of The Edge of Evolution, pointing out that all of the beneficial mutations identified from the studies so far seem to have been degradative ones, where functioning genes are knocked out or rendered less active. So random mutation much more easily breaks genes than builds them, even when it helps an organism to survive. That’s a very important point. A process which breaks genes so easily is not one that is going to build up complex coherent molecular systems of many proteins, which fill the cell. (Emphasis Behe's.)
To an evolutionary scientist, Behe's distinction between a "beneficial" and a "degradative" mutation seems downright silly, since the mutations helped the subsequent bacterial descendants adapt to their particular surroundings. All mutations are random, so why would he specifically note that a "random mutation much more easily breaks genes than builds them. . . ?" Only non-beneficial mutations hurt organisms, leading to the eventual death of the organism or of the organism's family line, so to close the above phrase with ". . . even when it helps an organism to survive" seems superfluous if highly misleading. To those inside his philosophical realm, however, Behe's words contain hidden assumptions and triggering language bordering on political dog whistles those outside his religious worldview (like me) might easily miss. Let me try to translate Behe's italicized objections. In an earlier post, I learn from Stephen Jay Gould that the term "degenerate" actually has more than simple derogatory meaning. Gould explains, citing the work the man who coined the term Caucasian, J. F. Blumenbach:
Blumenbach believed that Homo sapiens had been created in a single region and had then spread out over the globe. Our racial diversity, he then argued, arose as a result of our movement to other climates and topographies, and our consequent adoption of different habits and modes of life in these various regions. Following the terminology of his time, Blumenbach referred to these changes as "degenerations" -- not intending, by this word, the modern sense of deterioration, but the literal meaning of departure from an initial form of humanity as the creation (de means "from," and genus refers to our original stock). (Gould, I Have Landed, Three Rivers Press, 2003, p. 362.)
Caucasians, or those whose families originated most recently from the Caucasus mountain regions, according to Blumenbach, must be the nearest to the original Garden of Eden and thus human creation. Why? They are the most attractive. All other phenotypes suffered from the degenerative deterioration other modes of life and environment inflicted.
To return to Behe, this degenerative deterioration is exactly analogous to the "degradative" "damage" done by the E. coli mutations in Lenski's experiments, those that "knocked out or rendered less active" the "functional genes." The closer one gets to the Creation, the fewer "broken" genes one should find . . . meaning more "coherent" systems are those which have seen less change since the days described in the Genesis I creation story.
When it comes to reactions to Lenski's research, things get better in terms of entertainment value. Take Andrew Schlafly, son of Reagan-era conservative gadfly Phylis Schlafly and a big-wig at Conservapedia. (I poked a bit of fun of Conservapedia here.) Unlike Behe, Schlafly didn't bother to interpret Lenski's results for his readers in any confusing if nuanced dismissal. Instead, he wrote Lenski and called him a liar. For real:
June 13, 2008
Dear Professor Lenski,
Skepticism has been expressed on Conservapedia about your claims, and the significance of your claims, that E. Coli bacteria had an evolutionary beneficial mutation in your study. Specifically, we wonder about the data supporting your claim that one of your colonies of E. Coli developed the ability to absorb citrate, something not found in wild E. Coli, at around 31,500 generations. In addition, there is skepticism that 3 new and useful proteins appeared in the colony around generation 20,000. . . .
Please post the data supporting your remarkable claims so that we can review it, and note where in the data you find justification for your conclusions.
I will post your reply, or lack of reply, on www.conservapedia.com . Thank you.
Andy Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D. Conservapedia
Translation: "You're a liar. Prove you aren't. I dare you." And Lenski doesn't disappoint:
Dear Mr. Schlafly:
I suggest you might want to read our paper itself, which is available for download at most university libraries and is also posted as publication #180 on my website. . . . All these issues and the supporting methods and data are covered in our paper.
Sincerely,
Richard Lenski
I've removed the meat of Lenski's response with the ellipsis, since I really only wanted to get to the heart of the disagreement, and the fact that, despite the very detailed information Lenski provided in his return letter, Schlafly called him a liar again, throwing in a little threat with his demands for proof:
Dear Prof. Lenski,
This is my second request for your data underlying your recent paper . . . .
Your work was taxpayer-funded, and PNAS represents that its authors will make underlying data available. I’d like to review the data myself and ensure availability for others, including experts and my students. Others have expressed interest in access to the data in addition to myself, and your website seems well-suited for public release of these data. . . .
Given that this is my second request for the data, a clear answer is requested as to whether you will make the key underlying data available for independent review. Your response, or lack thereof, will be posted due to the public interest in this issue. Thank you.
Andy Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D.
www.conservapedia.com
cc: PNAS, New Scientist publications
(Emphasis mine)
It's one thing to be a rude dick; it's quite another to be a persistently rude dick. I won't bother even paraphrasing Lenski's Second Letter response, since the entire glorious thing should be read, digested and savored like a fine pwnage wine in its bitch-slapping entirety. Enjoy.
Richard Lenski was by far not the first to have his scientific results dismissed by those who simply cannot seem to grasp the abundance of the evidence, the consilience of induction from many disciplines that all point toward a validation of Darwin's theory of Natural Selection. What strikes me funny, though, is the lengths folks like Behe and Schlafly go toward dismissing the entire concept of evolution. I'm not talking here about ignorant knuckle-dragging sub-humans, either, but about highly educated people who devote a great deal of their reasoning energies to, it seems to me, undo the sound reasoning others have so ably presented.
firstashore turned me on to Tas Walker and his site on Biblical Geology. Here is an obviously well-trained geologist bending the whole of his brain toward proving that every bit of rock on earth proves Noah's Flood really happened.Remember, folks, this model didn't build itself.
That's dedication to an idea.
Walker draws upon a large body of literature to prove his point, and I'm not just referring to the Old Testament. I mean, really, an entire book dedicated to proving the feasibility of the Ark? Fascinating. What I found even more fascinating, though, is the inevitable confluence of Biblical teaching and the modern science the teachings are supposed to refute. What happens when simply borrowing a bit of the science you're trying to discredit actually helps your case? Well, here we have another example of "degradative" genes, a convenient and necessary mislabeling dismissal. When speaking of how many animals the ark needed to hold, Walker gives an off-the-cuff estimate:
Take dogs, for example, would Noah have taken two Alsatians, two cocker spaniels, two collies, two red setters, etc.? No, he would have needed just one pair of dogs, a mongrel kind like the wolf. We know that the different breeds of dogs have been produced from the wolf, and this only took a few thousand years. That is not evolution; that’s just dogs.
(Emphasis mine.)
"That's just dogs." That's rich. Walker reduces the cumulative phenotypical differences in domesticated dogs, from the Great Dane to the Chihuahua, to "just dogs." Keep in mind, folks, that the definition of "species" occurs when two branches of a common ancestor can no longer breed successfully. No, I'm not saying Great Danes and Chihuahuas can't bear offspring; but I am saying the natural act of insemination and fetal nurturing become in this case comical just to consider. This size situation might just effectively isolate the two lines long enough for their DNA to drift and diverge, to accumulate mutations, and in the long run to create different species.
I think the mongrel reference is likewise precious. You see, a "mongrel" by definition is something of "no definable type." The wolf is quite definable as a type. The wolf is, in fact, the likely ancestor to all domesticated dog breeds -- meaning all our canine pets are degenerate wolves, not "pure" breeds. Furthermore, "mongrel" specifies mixing in the breed. If the wolf is the original dog, as geneticist maintain, it is by definition unmixed, pure -- not a mongrel.
Finally, that bit about the domestication of the wolf: I wonder if Walker knows where that theory comes from? I read it first in a book I'm pretty sure Walker didn't bother consulting . . . Charles Darwin's On The Origin of Species.
I'll wrap up here with a simple acknowledgement: I realize this post doesn't cover any new ground. As the song goes, ". . .this battle's been raging since Zeus was on the Bottle, between science like Democritus and faith like Aristotle. . . ." What I hoped to do here was lay the groundwork for a growing insight I have into the motives science denial might share, motives that actually have nothing really to do with the science behind evolution's conclusions.
I got a niggling of this insight years ago. I used to debate Creationists all the time. (I still do, but I know fewer of them nowadays that are willing to debate. I blame the lack of free time everyone seems to be experiencing.) Chris was my fave, a genuinely nice guy who just happened to be an ardent evangelist. Just to give you a taste of my debate style, Chris -- who, judging by the grin on his face had been studying for this debate and loved this opening tactic -- opened by asking me "How old is the earth?"
I didn't miss a beat. "Twenty-eight," I answered. "Prove me wrong."
This went back and forth for weeks, whenever we were both scheduled to work together with lots of easy drifting (he was one of my captains in my deckhand days). Finally, I got an interesting thought, one I had never considered. I noted that I have no problem with his religion. Many scientists feel the same way. After all, it's not often you see a cordon of lab coats surrounding a church with a protest picket line. Why, then, were folks like him and those in his church so threatened by the work of scientists?
He didn't answer me. In fact, he seemed genuinely puzzled by the question. He was new to evangelism, new to the reasons evolution and Darwin and science and all that needed to be hated, and I don't think he had yet thought through the threat they posed enough to articulate it to someone like myself, someone who defined "secular" as something other than a threat, someone who didn't share the definition of words like "degradative" and "degenerate." Folks like Behe and Schlafly and Walker, however, know exactly what they are doing by continuing this debate . . . and why.
*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?
Addendum, July 24, 2008: Just for fun, I headed over to Conservapedia and looked up the latest
The theory of evolution posits a process of self-transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory.
Weird. With such recent communications with the researcher who just observed and duplicated evolution in the lab, one would assume Schlafly would have rushed to his site to make corrections. . . wouldn't one?
*Addendum, April 5, 2009: Forgive me, readers, for I have omitted. When I first started The Deist Miasma, I fully expected to answer that last question, Why the creationists felt so threatened by the scientific explanations of life. After all, the "Fundamentally" in this 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 lazy, forgetful idiot. Let me rectify that omission now, with a supplement to the original entry that runs from the asterisk to the LJ cut.