Conflicting Explanations for Withdrawal of Dover Experts?

To an interested outsider, it sounds like there are at least two and perhaps more strong preferences for how the "Official Truth" should be positioned. Perhaps the risk is that any ultimate court decision might explicitly rule against one perferred version of the Truth over another.

Who knows, maybe we're seeing the symptoms of what might happen if ID were to win out and be presented in classrooms. Right now, the notion is so vague ("using unstated mechanisms, some unstated intelligence did something unspecified at some unspecified time(s) in the past") that anyone trying to present this as "science" would face doctrinal difficulties as soon as they tried to answer any students' questions at all. How WOULD the teacher field questions like: Who was the designer? Did the Designer create entire organisms or just tiny molecular substructures? If there was no Designer, how could we tell?

The teacher would have two choices: play dumb ("Nobody can answer any of these questions, now or ever") or teach their own denomination's religious position. Since neither one is suitable for public schools, perhaps schoolteachers should also ask to have a lawyer present.

I wouldn't put too much stress on a reporter's condensation of a phone interview with Dembski into a couple of sentences, nor assume that Dembski was privi to all the arguments between law firms.

Pete, that's probably a fair point to make. There are inconsistencies here, but they may not be due to intentional deceit.

I find this fascination with Dembski, well, fascinating! I mean, really, who is Bill Dembski?

He's a minor scholar, if that, who has written unremarkable books that have been discredited. He was fired from Baylor, though to be accurate, Baylor did not have the wherewithall to actually fire Dembski, rather, they let him ferment for four years until his contract ran out. Now, the Alfred E. Neuman of Intelligent Design, is employed at a minor Bible college. Also, he edits the vacation Bible school level, scientifically discredited, coffee table picture book "Of Pandas and People" which is laughingly hawked as a "textbook", although not even the most irrational school board has approved its use.

And, yet, amid all this mundaneness, he's the focal point of scores if not hundreds of real scientists, engineers and educators who follow his every move.

Dembski has become the Paris Hilton of Intelligent Design; unremarkable for anything he's produced, but an object of intense curiosity nevertheless. We'll know I'm on the right track when Dembski starts toting around a little dog. I'd suggest a Beagle.

So who's the Nicole Richie of ID...Behe? Meyers? Johnson?

Why do expert witnesses need lawyers?

Dembski has become the Paris Hilton of Intelligent Design; unremarkable for anything he's produced, but an object of intense curiosity nevertheless. We'll know I'm on the right track when Dembski starts toting around a little dog. I'd suggest a Beagle.

Re "Why do expert witnesses need lawyers?"

Maybe they're afraid somebody else's lawyer might want to ask them questions that they don't want to have to answer? (Or was the question rhetorical?)

Henry

So who's the Nicole Richie of ID . . . Behe? Meyers? Johnson?

— neo-anti-luddite

The opinions offered at trial by expert witnesses are running an increasingly greater gamut of scrutiny. First, they are subject to the judicial scientific reliability tests of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical Inc., 507 U.S. 579 (1993). Once that hurdle is cleared and the opinion given, the experts can be sued by the party who hired them, both in tort and contract, if the opinion did not live up to the party's expectations.

Dembski has become the Paris Hilton of Intelligent Design; unremarkable for anything he's produced, but an object of intense curiosity nevertheless. We'll know I'm on the right track when Dembski starts toting around a little dog. I'd suggest a Beagle.

It seems clear that the religious right is quite comfortable with the unrestrained use of lies and deception to accomplish their goals. Maybe TMLC was worried that independent counsel, whose duty it is to work in the best interest of their client, might remind them about, say, perjury ?

Finally, a testable version of the question : "What happens to Christians who lie (under oath) ?"

"Looks like there's an argument brewing on the Generals' bench... Oh, my! Dembski's just taken a swing at Thompson! You know, it's funny to reflect that going into this game, the Generals said they really thought they could take the Globetrotters this time..."

Re "Wouldn't that beg the question of where the Beagle came from?"

The boat that Darwin went on for his trip? Probably came from some shipyard someplace. ;)

But I thought that Paris Hilton was seriously considering withdrawing from public life . . .

Re "TMLC (looks like they're heading to the same place that Thomas More did) "

Huh? I thought TMLC was Thomas More? (his organization, that is.)

But I thought that Paris Hilton was seriously considering withdrawing from public life . . .

— Mike Walker

Cordova?

— EmmaPeel

More than likely, the TMLC lawyers are not up to the task of defending ID with the obfuscating talking points the DI has developed over the years. They seem to be honestly fanatic. The professional IDists created the Kansas Kangroo Court because the honest fanatics were showing up at the public hearings. Unfortunately, the professional IDists can't control the TMLC and Dover school board and they've either jumped ship or walked the plank.

Henry J:

I like your handle.

Why not? Under Daubert, Sal Cordova is as much a recognized expert in biology as is William Dembski.

last night, Dembski posted on his blog that it was not the Discovery Institute's insistence on separate legal representation that was a problem at all. In fact, Dembski says that the TMLC would allow Stephen Meyer of the DI to have legal representation, but would not allow Dembski to have an attorney with him and that it was the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE), for whom he works as an editor, who insisted on the separate representation

This is, of course, exactly an example of what would happen if "ID won", sleazy details notwithstanding.

There would be an immediate and viscious battle over whose specific dogma to falsely present as "science", and nobody thinks that "unspecified 'designer' who had something to do with the details of the bacterial flagellum" is going to satisfy anybody for long. Especially not anybody looking to make a lot of money selling officially sanctioned books.

This already happened before. It was called "the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries". It was also rerun as "Protestant prayer forced on Catholic students in US public schools", and in many other versions.

This is why religion belongs in the Sunday School you choose, and public school, where all the kids are allowed to go, teaches mainstream science.

Why can't people get this? Because of their faith? No, their faith is better protected when everyone's freedom of conscience is protected, and in their heart, they know that.

Because of their desire to use power to force others, however grudgingly, to submit to them, and because of their greed. Let's just not mix those things up with the teachings of Jesus.

from a litigator's perspective, the whole thing just doesn't add up. the experts are all supposed to be on the same side, and they all purport to place great importance on winning the case. so, it's simply hard to imagine a difference of opinion so severe it could not be easily resolved by negotiation within the ID camp.

and anyway, what's wrong with letting one or more experts have their own counsel present? isn't their testimony going to be consistent no matter who represents them?

Dembski's view of events is doubtful, at best. instead, it would be reasonable to infer the disagreement was not a "technical" one over the legal representation as Dembski claims, but the substance of what was to be said. so the lawyers decided to dump their experts.

someone on PT will probably know the answer to this: did any of the science experts who testified against the use of textbook disclaimers last year in Cobb County, Georgia (Selman case) bring their own lawyers to depositions or the court? I would be surprised to hear that was the case.

Re "TMLC (looks like they're heading to the same place that Thomas More did) " Huh? I thought TMLC was Thomas More? (his organization, that is.)

Eh, Dembski feels he needs two lawyers.

If I had called ID a mathematical restatement of a certain part of christian theology, and yet was in court alleging ID is science rather than religion, I'd want as many lawyers as I could get.

The opinions offered at trial by expert witnesses are running an increasingly greater gamut of scrutiny. First, they are subject to the judicial scientific reliability tests of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical Inc., 507 U.S. 579 (1993). Once that hurdle is cleared and the opinion given, the experts can be sued by the party who hired them, both in tort and contract, if the opinion did not live up to the party's expectations.

Our responsibility, then, unless we badly misread the Supreme Court's opinion,is to resolve disputes among respected, well-credentialed scientists about matters squarely within their expertise, in areas where there is no scientific consensus as to what is and what is not "good science,"and occasionally to reject such expert testimony because it was not "derived by the scientific method." Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. (9th Cir.1995) 43 F.3d 1311, 1316. [emphasis mine]

No, you've got it right. Daubert IS the test that federal judges are to use when exercising their "gatekeeper" function over the admission of scientific testimony in ANY kind of case where such testimony is in issue. It's just that product liability and toxic torts are the kinds of cases that most frequesntly tend to raise those kinds of issues. But the same thing can happen with DNA testing in criminal or paternity cases, or really in any kind of case where a less-than-well-settled issue of science somehow becomes involved.

Some state courts follow that test too, where others continue to follow an older test having to do with whether the testifying expert is appropriately qualified and whether the scientific opinion proffered is generally accepted by experts in the field. The two tests can, at times, yield different results, but generally both tests are intended to ensure that "junk" science is kept out of the courts--of course, different experts can still reach differing conclusions starting with roughly the same set of facts...and unlike science, the courts don't get to revisit the same observations and hypotheses again and again until they get them "right."

Rev Flank wrote:

"Everyone who sent DI a check should sue them."

To which I add - I'm not an attorney, but it sounds to me as if even a small number of people who did so could initiate a class action law suit on behalf of everyone else who wanted to do so.

This is a highly reasonable suggestion, in terms of Dover County and any other place where the misleading claims of the DI have led to substantial waste of public money, as well as in terms of anyone who sent the DI money because they thought that DI REALLY DID have a scientific theory.

What happened in Kansas in 1999 was different - that was literally an effort to censor evolution out of the curriculum, without replacing it with anything. It was probably legal, but proved unpopular when elections rolled around. But in Dover County, they've bought the DI's claims of a scientific theory, wasted a good deal of money and time as a result, and are about to be disappointed.

And it is indeed highly ironic, even offensive, that the name of Thomas More, who died because he refused to bend his conscience to the dictates of the official state religion, is being attached to efforts to force an "official religion" onto children in public schools, regardless of their families' wishes.

Everyone who sent DI a check should sue them.

— Lenny

To Ed Brayton:

Dear Ed. I have nothing to hide in this matter. If you like, give me a call at 1-254-710-4928 (leave a message with a number where I can reach you if I'm not in). I'll be happy to answer your questions.

WmAD

I'll be happy to answer your questions.

Dr. Dembski,

Why not here????

Dear Ed. I have nothing to hide in this matter. If you like, give me a call at 1-254-710-4928 (leave a message with a number where I can reach you if I'm not in). I'll be happy to answer your questions.

Some state courts follow that test too, where others continue to follow an older test having to do with whether the testifying expert is appropriately qualified and whether the scientific opinion proffered is generally accepted by experts in the field.

I have nothing to hide in this matter.

— Wm A Dembski

My question for Dembski is, what's the plan for after the disaster? Whether it comes at Dover, or somewhere else, I'm sure you guys have seen the fate of ID. The sophisticated-sounding mumbo-jumbo math, and IC jibber-jabber, in the hands of the school board rubes inevitably turns into "let's put Jesus back into the classroom!". It's a matter of time before ID is legally held to be creationism, and prohibited as high-school science.
So what's the plan for after? This has been a long contrivance, and it's about to go down in flames. What are you guys going to do? Change the name again? Advocate private schools?

Dear Ed. I have nothing to hide in this matter. If you like, give me a call at 1-254-710-4928 (leave a message with a number where I can reach you if I'm not in). I'll be happy to answer your questions.

— William Dembski

Because the evolutionary view is not perfect and is not agreed upon by all scientists, creationists argue that evolution is false and that scientists, in supporting evolution, are basing their views on blind faith and dogmatism. To an extent, the creationists are right here: The details of evolution are not perfectly known.

The details of evolutionary theory are in dispute precisely because scientists are not devotees of blind faith and dogmatism. They do not accept even as great thinker as Darwin without question, nor do they accept any idea, new or old, without thorough argument. Even after accepting an idea, they stand ready to overrule it, if appropriate new evidence arrives.

However much scientists argue their differing beliefs in details of evolutionary theory, or in the interpretation of the necessarily imperfect fossil record, they firmly accept the evolutionary process itself.

This is so much fun. Average creationists have taken DI spin at face value for years. Confident that evolution has been debunked for anybody who considered the evidence, they saw a profound tragedy in diehard ignoramuses continuing to teach it.

So when the indignant peasants finally march into town with their torches and pitchforks, it's kind of like slogging all the way to the emerald city to find that the wizard is fake, or Life of Brian where Brian's cult takes on a life of it's own, or ... someone help me out here ... there's got to be some famous old weepy where the kid talks up his father to all his friends only to find out at the worst possible moment that he was making it all up

I don't believe this. Ed, you're getting a straight shot at talking to Dr. Dembski one on one, even geting the phone number to dial up so you can get your particular concerns addressed, and you apparently want to turn it down?

If that's the case, that doesn't make sense.
I honestly believe you should take advantage of the offer. Not everyday a person gets an offer like that one.

If you're sincerely "just curious to know what really happened here", the sensible thing to do is dial up the source, listen and learn, and then go from there. Firsthand info always trumps 2nd and 3rd hand.

I can understand how some of the PT'ers want Dembski to open himself up for X number of questions, followup questions, and comments from X number of posters on the PT blog. (Notice that Rev has already sloshed five questions on the table, actually it's 12 if you count the sub-questions.)

Let's see. Take just four or five PT'ers who each have a total of 12 questions (five plus followups, just like Rev) and suddenly Dembski has to make time for 48 to 60 questions, plus plenty more questions and comments generated therefrom.
Not a time trap I'd want to get into.

And that's only one issue. I notice the contrast of the tone and wording of your particular piece, Ed, with the tone and the wording of some PT posters like steve and Rev and others here in this and other threads. There is a respectful tone in your words there; it makes you sound sincere about wanting to get answers.

But I cannot imagine Dembski trying to spend a bunch of time here at PT, sloshing through what one PT'er correctly termed the "obvious sneering hatred" that is often present here towards Dembski and other ID advocates. Can't speak for Dembski, but it would seem like such a total waste of time.

Besides, the PT'ers really worth responding to, he's responded to already, in print or online, and they've responded to him in print or online as well, so that's that.

At any rate, Ed, you got a shot. It's your shot, not anyone else's.
You're wasting valuable time, imo, trying to get Dembski to throw aside his valuable time with other folks who may not have earned their shot, haven't really done their homework either, but want to throw their questions and attitudes at him all the same.

So may I suggest? Just take the shot and then do your postings. This is how I'd do it whether I agreed or disagreed with ID and Dr. Dembski.

Maybe it's just my journalism background, but if a source gives you a shot, you take the shot. Gain the additional information while you can, then go from there.

FL

This is so much fun. Average creationists have taken DI spin at face value for years. Confident that evolution has been debunked for anybody who considered the evidence, they saw a profound tragedy in diehard ignoramuses continuing to teach it.

I wonder if this is a simple misunderstanding between TMLC and the three ID witnesses in question. It is possible that one of them thought they were going to be allowed representation but in reality weren't going to. That could explain why William Dembski went for his own representation, probably thinking quite rightly that he should be allowed to as his colleages were (or so they thought). That miscommunication somewhere down the line probably led to a large internal dispute and them being fired out of spite.

I don't think there is some evil conspiracy here, despite the ID movements past record.

Jan Peczkis' (aka "John Woodmorappe") recent long reviews of the Holocaust books (such as Finkelstein's "Holocaust Industry") are quite interesting:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A3Q04XXGGED746/ref=cm_aya_rev_more/104-9464050-3827952?%5Fencoding=UTF8

Certain passages (e.g. "Ironically, Polish anti-Semitism festered and grew primarily because Polish Jews had been so successful in the first place-actually and perceptively at Polish expense") really make one wonder about "Woodmorappe"'s view of the Jews...

And - he defends "John Birch Society".

There certainly is a need for clarification and I am surprised that Dembski hasn't done so on his blog.

It is possible that the TMLC were more averse to having lawyers representing FTE than lawyers representing DI

It is possible that TMLC only decided to allow DI lawyers in after Campbell walked or was dismissed.

It is possible that Dembski's comment to the press was made before Meyer was allowed a lawyer (although that would seem to invovle some tight timing).

But if the solution is that simple, why isn't it being explained publically rather than over the telephone ? Indeed, why didn't Dembski expain the differences between his account and the comments he is reported as making in the blog entry where both appear ?

And here's the whole page with his reviews:

http://www.glaukopis.gross.pl/?ids=7

Woody again: his review of Shahak's book:

http://www.glaukopis.gross.pl/pdf/shahak.pdf

"For instance, when Martin Luther wrote his infamous tract about Jews, he raised many of the same themes raised by the Jewish author Shahak: Jews taught to spit whenever they passed by a church, the Talmud misrepresenting and slurring the Christian religion, the use of the word Jesus as a curse word, Jews thanking God in prayer that they are not gentiles, Jewish males thanking God in prayer that they are not women, the overall condescending attitude Jews were imbued with against gentiles, etc. To this we can also add that Jews were taught that it is OK to cheat gentiles, as well as the aforementioned tendency for Jews to think that their suffering is to be exalted above the sufferings of all other peoples. Shahak is also skillful in pointing to ways that the Talmud had been deliberately mistranslated at times in order to soften or conceal these aspects from gentiles. Personally, whatever residual anti-Jewish feelings I have are weakened, rather than reinforced, by seeing a Jewish author willing to own up to the faults emanating from the Jewish side. Shahak, you have done a true mitzvah!"

RBH, it seems you can order tapes from PCN online. Here is their website.

For the more legally minded among us, what are the chances that a judge decides that ID doesn't meet the test of what is a science simply because it doesn't pass the peer review test? If that were to happen, could the IDers simply turn around and say, "Of course it doesn't, yet. That's why we simply want to 'teach the controversy.' When ID is more mature, then we can mandate it in the schools."

Also, if ID is ruled not science by the courts, what does that mean for other states that have ID as an optional lesson? If the court doesn't explicitly say that ID is religion, would the optional teaching of ID be legal?

Hey, FL, here's a quiz:

David Wolpert, author of the NFL theorems, says Dembski's use of them is crap.

The biology community says he's utterly wrong about biology.

As we saw on here last year, real Information Theorists laugh at him.

Given those facts, under Daubert, is there any scientific topic in which Dembski would qualify as an expert, and be permitted to testify?

I don't believe this. Ed, you're getting a straight shot at talking to Dr. Dembski one on one, even geting the phone number to dial up so you can get your particular concerns addressed, and you apparently want to turn it down?

— FL

I notice the contrast of the tone and wording of your particular piece, Ed, with the tone and the wording of some PT posters like steve and Rev and others here in this and other threads. There is a respectful tone in your words there; it makes you sound sincere about wanting to get answers. But I cannot imagine Dembski trying to spend a bunch of time here at PT, sloshing through what one PT'er correctly termed the "obvious sneering hatred" that is often present here towards Dembski and other ID advocates. Can't speak for Dembski, but it would seem like such a total waste of time.

I wonder if this is a simple misunderstanding between TMLC and the three ID witnesses in question. It is possible that one of them thought they were going to be allowed representation but in reality weren't going to. That could explain why William Dembski went for his own representation, probably thinking quite rightly that he should be allowed to as his colleages were (or so they thought). That miscommunication somewhere down the line probably led to a large internal dispute and them being fired out of spite.

— Joseph O'Donnell

you're getting a straight shot at talking to Dr. Dembski one on one...and you apparently want to turn it down?

BTW, I don't mind Lenny's tone, I mind his wordiness. But tone or no tone, the fact is, IDers run from Lenny's questions, because they have no good answers. Spin that however you want.

I want an answer to my question--after the rubes ruin the legal strategy, what will the IDers do? Change creationism's name again, advocate for sectarian schools, a constitutional amendment, christian exodus(1), or what? Sadly, the Dembskis can't answer that question, because if they admit the case is terminal, the checks would soon stop cashing.

Before you spend four years and $75,000 to learn Charles Darwin's philosophy of law, take four days to get the Founding Fathers'!

For the more legally minded among us, what are the chances that a judge decides that ID doesn't meet the test of what is a science simply because it doesn't pass the peer review test? If that were to happen, could the IDers simply turn around and say, "Of course it doesn't, yet. That's why we simply want to 'teach the controversy.' When ID is more mature, then we can mandate it in the schools." Also, if ID is ruled not science by the courts, what does that mean for other states that have ID as an optional lesson? If the court doesn't explicitly say that ID is religion, would the optional teaching of ID be legal?

This is certainly possible. One need not jump to a sinister conclusion about these things to point out that there are inconsistencies in the public stories.

It's not as though getting an opportunity to talk to Dembski on the phone is going to give me bragging rights on the junior high school playground or anything.

I want an answer to my question---after the rubes ruin the legal strategy, what will the IDers do? Change creationism's name again, advocate for sectarian schools, a constitutional amendment, christian exodus(1), or what? Sadly, the Dembskis can't answer that question, because if they admit the case is terminal, the checks would soon stop cashing.

Ed, I guess I was wondering whether a judge could (or would) rule that the specific case in Dover is illegal since they are mandating ID in the classrooms, but might stay mute on whether optional teaching of ID is legal or not. Could a judge rule that way, and how likely is a ruling like that? If the judge simply says, "ID is not science," but does not specify that it is religious in nature, how does that affect states like Ohio? If the judge says, "ID is just religious arguments dressed up as science," then I would expect that the ACLU or somebody would jump on any place that does teach it.

It's not about "obtaining bragging rights", it's simply about obtaining the information you suggested you'd like to obtain concerning this topic.

— FL

Ed, I guess I was wondering whether a judge could (or would) rule that the specific case in Dover is illegal since they are mandating ID in the classrooms, but might stay mute on whether optional teaching of ID is legal or not. Could a judge rule that way, and how likely is a ruling like that? If the judge simply says, "ID is not science," but does not specify that it is religious in nature, how does that affect states like Ohio? If the judge says, "ID is just religious arguments dressed up as science," then I would expect that the ACLU or somebody would jump on any place that does teach it.

— GCT

Brayton is right. The Dover case boils down to the plaintiffs demonstrating to the judge's satisfaction that ID is inherently religious; the defendants must demonstrate not only that it's not but that it fits the definition of scientific. The issue of ID's scientific validity, to this non-lawyer, will be mostly a sidebar, but will surely aid in answering whether ID is religiously rooted or not.

The contretemps between TMLC, its original "expert" witnesses, and the latter's right to have their lawyers attend their depositions and advise them at the trial (I assume the latter) is probably a manifestation of fundamental difference in both strategy and the emptiness of ID's scientific quiver. It has no arrows to shoot other than faith, and faith isn't admissible in scientific or legal debate. And there's also the probable wide range of theologies subscribed to by the supporters of ID. In fact one strategy the ACLU and Pepper Hamilton (pro-bono counsel for the plaintiffs) could follow would be to call as witnesses a sampling of a dozen of so ID promoters and creationists and take them through their scientific views for the judge and the public to see. Such a trial would be like the sideshow at the circus, very much akin to the Kansas hearings, but with a real judge and adult in charge. But then I suspect that plaintiff's counsel will achieve the same end cross-examining the witnesses the defense calls

As many have already pointed out, the "designer" must necessarily be supernatural, since aliens (often thrown out as an alternative) could not evolve naturally without themselves being designed by some supernatural diety.

It seems to me this incontrovertible fact should be enough in and of itself to prove in court that ID is a religious statment at heart. It doesn't matter if IDists are loathe to name the designer--it's the unavoidable logical conclusion of their claims.

Any opinions out there on Judah Landa's latest work titled IN THE BEGINNING OF, A New Look at Old Words, in which he seems to convincingly demonstrate that the perception of conflict between the Bible and science is entirely based on the popular but sloppy and inaccurate translations of the original Hebrew Bible? Landa's science is rigorous, the linguistics is sound, the analysis is incisive and the conclusion is inescapable - that the original Bible, if translated carefully and correctly, does not conflict with science even if it is interpreted literally! This should come as a big surprize to our fundamentalist friends. I found the book at www.Amazon.com and it made a great impression on me. This is an important development. I would like some commentary.

Carol Clouser

if honest answers will be provided, the questions to Dembski and/or the Dover lawyers boil down to (1) why did the witnesses feel they needed separate legal representation, and (2) regardless of whether the witnesses had valid reasons for this, why was it not possible to arrive at a negotiated solution to such a request (as typically happens even in complex, multi-party cases)? I would have thought all the witnesses were appearing voluntarily to support ID, so the underlying substance of an irreconcilable conflict is, well, hard to fathom except as an expression of severe disagreement over the content, credibility, or purpose of the testimony.

Any opinions out there on Judah Landa's latest work titled IN THE BEGINNING OF, A New Look at Old Words, in which he seems to convincingly demonstrate that the perception of conflict between the Bible and science is entirely based on the popular but sloppy and inaccurate translations of the original Hebrew Bible? Landa's science is rigorous, the linguistics is sound, the analysis is incisive and the conclusion is inescapable - that the original Bible, if translated carefully and correctly, does not conflict with science even if it is interpreted literally! This should come as a big surprize to our fundamentalist friends. I found the book at www.Amazon.com and it made a great impression on me. This is an important development. I would like some commentary.

I think the answer to this has been pointed out here over the past several days. There are strong hints that some factions are already starting to bail on 'Intelligent Design', and pinning their hopes on 'Teach the Controversy'. That seems to be how they've slimed into Ohio public schools. Plus, it's so legally amorphous, it's harder to fight. However, time has shown us that abolutely nothing that gets used in the Creationist/ID arsenal ever gets totally thrown out, so expect to see people here and there still using the old terminology and old arguments forever. If science has any hope, it's that the Creationist/ID crowd can't all stick to one story to save their lives.

If I were Dembski, I wouldn't post my phone number around the Lenny Flanks

Any opinions out there on Judah Landa's latest work titled IN THE BEGINNING OF, A New Look at Old Words, in which he seems to convincingly demonstrate that the perception of conflict between the Bible and science is entirely based on the popular but sloppy and inaccurate translations of the original Hebrew Bible?

Landa's science is rigorous, the linguistics is sound, the analysis is incisive

and the conclusion is inescapable - that the original Bible, if translated carefully and correctly, does not conflict with science even if it is interpreted literally! This should come as a big surprize to our fundamentalist friends.

I found the book at www.Amazon.com and it made a great impression on me. This is an important development. I would like some commentary.

Who knows, maybe we're seeing the symptoms of what might happen if ID were to win out and be presented in classrooms.

Carol Clouser -

I have no familiarity with the book you mention, but I will offer some commentary.

1) In my view, the Bible is intened as a spiritual work, and has been since its earliest inceptions. Its role is not to provide scientific explanations of the material world, any more than the role of a Chemistry book is to provide spiritual commentary and guidance. It is obvious to any honest reader that the Bible in any translation is full of symbolism, parables, and deliberate exaggerations of emphasis.

2) Therefore, I don't consider any translation of the Bible to be at odds with science. Nor do I consider the spiritual works of other religions I am familiar with to be at odds with science either.

3) So if your claim is that the Bible is "compatible" with science, it already was, so I strongly agree and encourage you in your quest for spiritual fulfillment.

4)If your claim is that the Jewish Bible alone among spiritual works is consistent with science, to the exclusion of other religions' texts, I object to that on three grounds -

a) it sounds unlikely, because the Bible has been studied for centuries already, and was never intended to be a science textbook b) it sounds as if someone might be trying to use false claims of a "scientifically accurate" Bible to "force" people of other beliefs to "admit" that one particular stance is the "true" faith, which is reprehensible and c) it is clearly in contrast with the actual message of the Bible, most pointedly in the Book of Job but also throughout the Old Testament, and the New Testament as well, that God demands faith, and does not provide superficial physical "proof" of his existence for the convenience of his followers.

A widespread cultural phenomenon, more or less the reason for the existence of this board (or at least, most of the posts on it), is the false claim that Christianity commands some "conservative" political action such as cracking down on homosexuals etc, followed by the false claim that the existence of God has been "proven", so that the aforementioned political claim must be valid. "Intelligent design" is entirely a variation on this theme. An abandonment of the true moral teachings of Jesus is characteristic of those who follow this strategy, as is, usually, an effort to make a great deal of money by peddling "proof" of God. I sincerely hope the book you mention is in now way related to this phenomenon. I freely concede that I have not even looked at it yet.

What's the legal status of recorded phone calls then (eg which might later be transcribed and/or held as evidence)?

Based on what I now see posted, I may have pre-judged Landa too harshly. I stand by my comments, but apologize if the speculation parts were way off. Yet one more thing to add to the list of negative consequences of ID/Creationism...

1) ID/creationism weakens the moral fiber of America, by teaching children that dishonesty is okay if you don't get caught, or can get a bunch of people to agree with you, or use equations.
2) ID/creationism weakens science in America, thus sowing the seeds of economic decline.
3) ID/creationism has parallels with Lysenkoism, which was promoted by Stalin.
4) ID/creationism wastes public funds, and contributes to budget deficits.
5) ID/creationism clogs America's courts, at a time when judges are reported to be stretched thin. This could indirectly promote crime, or disrepect for the law. And lastly...

6) ID/creationism promotes cynicism - just look at what it's doing to me!

"Dr" Hovind kept pestering me to call him, too.

— Lenny Flank

SEF, in Washington state, and I expect in a good many others, it is illegal--under various "privacy" provisions and, in some cases, under descendants of wire-tapping laws--to record a private telephone conversation. An illegally-taped conversation usually cannot be used as evidence.

One major exception, at least here, is where the intent to record the conversation is disclosed ahead of time, and permission to record is obtained. One example would be when you call in to report a claim to your insurance company, and they ask your permission to telephonically interview you about the circumstances.

Similarly, when you call in to the various customer service lines and, as you fritter your life away working through the menu, at some point they inform you in advance that "in order to monitor the quality of service," the conversation that you are about to have--once you finally get through to the live person!--may be recorded.

Thus, surreptitiously recording a phone call WITHOUT obtaining the other conversant's permission could subject the person making the recording to civil and criminal liability on top of being "inadmissable" as evidence.

It is tempting to speculate that this is exactly WHY some of the ID fellers don't want to come here, and prefer to discuss controversial matters on the phone. It confers the illusion of transparency without the substance, since if you don't record the conversation with them, they are in a position to deny anything you say about it, and if you do record it, you can't ever safely admit that you did so. Of course, you could ASK for permission to record and transcribe the conversation, but who wants to take a bet that the persons we're talking about will actually agree to THAT...

Based on what I now see posted, I may have pre-judged Landa too harshly. I stand by my comments, but apologize if the speculation parts were way off.

6) ID/creationism promotes cynicism - just look at what it's doing to me!

Of course, you could ASK for permission to record and transcribe the conversation, but who wants to take a bet that the persons we're talking about will actually agree to THAT . . .

Bill would not feel comfortable posting much here. No chance to edit the comments.

Brayton is right. The Dover case boils down to the plaintiffs demonstrating to the judge's satisfaction that ID is inherently religious; the defendants must demonstrate not only that it's not but that it fits the definition of scientific.

And, since I'm in the mood to pontificate (grin), here's some of my thoughts specifically on the Dover statement and its legality, or lack thereof:

http://www.geocities.com/lflank/doverstatement.html

Sorry about the off-topic post here, but Dembski is crowing about the outcome of legal action against the California Academy of Sciences and the NCSE. Details at http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/150.

Anyone know anything about this? (Perhaps it deserves a separate article/thread here)

Posted by caerbannog on June 21, 2005 08:40 PM (e) (s)

[quotes] Sorry about the off-topic post here, but Dembski is crowing about the outcome of legal action against the California Academy of Sciences and the NCSE. Details at http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/150 . . . . [/qoute]

It includes some comments by someone using the name of PT's dear departed friend, DaveScot. He's such a sweetie. I won't sully this board with a direct quote.

Raven and Harold,

The intriguing thing about IN THE BEGINNING OF by Judah Landa is that it undermines the case of the anti-evolution forces in a different way. It does so not by defending or attempting to prove evolution, but by negating the reasons many people have for seeking to oppose evolution and the teaching thereof in the first place. Let us face it, the prime motivation for opposing evolution is that it appears to contradict a literal reading of the Bible. Landa's message is: fine, let us accept (at least for the sake of argument) that the Bible is meant to be interpreted literally and that it cannot be wrong. But let us look at the original. After all, nobody disputes the proposition that the English Authorized Version is a second or third generation translation of the Hebrew original. Well, if we translate the original accurately and correctly (but literally) there is no conflict with science.

Here is not the place to review the entire 196 page book, covering the first eleven chapters of Genesis. But I can say that the physics, biology, geology and linguistics are presented to the layman, clearly, succinctly and correctly (as far as I can discern). The transliteration system Landa uses is explained in a short section at the beginning of the book, and is designed to make the process easier for the non-Hebrew-speaking masses.

It seems to me that we ought to support this effort. It will animate any reasonably open-minded fundamentalist to take another look at the major assumptions underlying his or her opposition to evolution.

CAROL CLOUSER

It will animate any reasonably open-minded fundamentalist to take another look at the major assumptions underlying his or her opposition to evolution.

Carol -

How on earth can Landa (or anyone) make, say, the Deluge story "compatible with science" (other than by declaring the whole thing a metaphor or somesuch literary device)?

H. Humbert,

I think you confuse 'translation' with 'interpretation'. Yes, alternate interpretations have been proposed but these have been rejected by fundamentalists because, well, they are fundamentalists. They see these alternatives as contrived. Landa is proposing to interpret literally but translate (the original)accurately. That is an entirely different matter. He treats the Bible exactly as they claim it ought to be treated, taken seriously and literally at its word, and yet there is no conflict with science.

As a good example, Landa demonstrates that the original Hebrew Bible does not speak of seven sequential days of creation, but of seven overlapping periods of (evolutionary) development, not in chronological order. The Bible does not say, 'the first day', 'the second day', and so on, but 'one era', 'a second era', etc. And the point is that this is WHAT THE WORDS MEAN, not your or my theory. The only way to disagree with this is to argue the meaning of the original (Hebrew) words.

Pierce,

The deluge, according to Landa's translation of the original words of the Bible, occured in the plain of ancient Sumeria (approximately present day southern Iraq) where much of the rest of early Genesis takes place. There is substantial evidence that the area was indeed flood prone in ancient times when the major rivers there were more active.

Folks, there is no way around this but to read the book!

Carol Clouser

No, Carol, I'm not confusing "translation" with "interpretation," I'm saying it makes no difference to fundamentalists. It has been previously pointed out that the Hebrew word in Genesis does not literally translate into the English word "day." This is not a novel observation. It's just that this has absolutely no affect on those who already have it in their mind that it happened in a "day." They will reject Landa's translation on principle.

Maybe I'm wrong. I'll gladly acknowledge as much if I see a great many fundamentalists adopting this new translation, but I'll not hold my breath.

I know this is only loosely related to the topic at hand but I'd like to know, why is the posting pace at ISCID so slow lately?

I should add why they reject new translations. There is indeed a certain amount of interpretation in translation. For instance, a particular word can mean "day" or simply "period of time." The translator chooses the word which he thinks best fits the passage.

The fundamentalists already believe that their translation is correct. That there exists enough linguistic wriggle-room in the original text to be alternately translated into terms which are vague enough not to directly contradict scientific fact misses the point. They aren't remotely interested revising their bibles to coexist with science. Remember, they believe that the bible is a holy book whose integrity god has protected through centuries of various translations. Messing with it now is blasphemy.

Re: Comments 35970 and 35975 by Carol Clouser.

I have not read Landa's book, but the very idea that the contradiction between the Bible and scientific data is only due to a bad translation is ridiculous. Has Landa discovered in the Hebrew Bible anything that has not been known hitherto? This is utterly implausible: the original text of the Tanach (the Hebrew scriptures) is well known in every detail to thousands of rabbis who have spent years on studying it without resorting to any translation. Hundreds of thousands of Israeli school kids for whom Hebrew is the mother tongue study Tanach in the Tanach classes likewise without a need for a translation. There are numerous books, papers, dissertations, etc. devoted to the analysis of literally every word in the Tanach from every angle imaginable, all by Hebrew native speakers or by scholars who spent endless hours on studying Hebrew. Among these sources there are many specifically discussing the contradictions between science and the Bible, including endless arguments purportedly "proving" that the contradiction is an illusion. Books by Schroeder, Aviezer, Carmell & Domb (eds), and many more, are in this vein. All these writers are fluent in Hebrew. (Btw, all these books happen to be much more popular than that by Landa.) All of them have in fact failed to prove their thesis. The reason is simple -- it is not because they are not as smart as Landa but because the thesis is wrong: the biblical story hopelessly contradicts scientific data. (See, for example, articles posted to Talk Reason, ( http://www.talkreason.org/ ), the section "Faith vs.Reason.") I also apologize for taking the liberty of pointing to my book Unintelligent Design (where part 2 deals with Schroeder, Aviezer, Spetner, Heeren, Ross, Carmell & Domb, etc.)

Regarding the (often discussed) example with the six days of creation (referred to by Carol Clouser) whatever Landa says must be an unfounded interpretation because the word actually used in the Hebrew text is "yom" which unequivocally means "day" and not any other period of time, and the structure of phrasing unequivocally points to a sequential order of days. Just this example (referred to by Carol Clouser) shows that Landa's linguistic contortions are designed for gullible readers who'd swallow any nonsense if it fits their preconceived beliefs.

Btw, I am a professional physicist with many years of experience and I am fluent in Hebrew (I've read the entire Tanach several times in original rather than relying on a translation).

Good post, Mark. So "yom" does literally mean day. Well there you go.

I know this is only loosely related to the topic at hand but I'd like to know, why is the posting pace at ISCID so slow lately?

I know this is only loosely related to the topic at hand but I'd like to know, why is the posting pace at ISCID so slow lately?

re: Comment 35960

According to Summary of Consent Requirements for Taping Telephone Conversations, Washington is a "two party consent" state regarding telephone call recording. Others are one party consent states. federal law seems to be a one party consent, but the interaction of federal/state laws appears pretty complicated. For us non-lawyer types, it's best to get a two party consent to be completely safe all around.

Thanks to all who helped with my legal question(s).

Reinterpreting the Tanach seems to be yet another strategy towards bring the scriptures in line with observation. It doesn't surprise me that this strategy has been added to the list, which now reads:

1) Regard Genesis as the sacred fictions of yet another primitive tribe, as anthropologists have found all over the world. All such tribes have some imaginative tale to answer the question "where did we come from."

2) Reject scientific observation and theory altogether, in favor of regarding (one's chosen interpretation of) scripture as God's Absolute Truth. Fundamentalists use this approach. A classic example of choosing certainty over correctness.

3) Reinterpret the Biblical Hebrew creatively enough to eliminate contradictions between the actual words in their contexts, and what has since been learned that contradicts them. If the bible is declared to be correct and is prima facie wrong, we must be misreading it.

4) Try to understand our universe without reference to the sacred writings of any particular religion. Presumably there are parts of the world attempting to do this, who are not culturally bound to cram observation into the context of ancient myths. There may even be individuals in the Western world whose exposure to Biblical texts is indirect, minimal and ignorable.

Amazing that this one book has done more damage than every other book ever written taken all together. This probably says something profound about human nature.

That an all-powerful God took even seven days to create is ridiculous. Why not blink the cosmos into being, mature and complete, in Planck time, rather than using any number of days whatever--much less millions of years? The notion that an all-good, all-powerful divinity would have "created" through a process that necessarily "sculpts" using starvation, disease and predation is pretty insulting to the whole notion of a god.

I was an evangelical Christian for around 20 years, have a degree in Bible from a conservative fundamentalist college, worked for Billy Graham for a while. I guess I tried just about as hard as anyone to reconcile Genesis with reality. It cannot be done. Genesis, like the rest of the Bible, is OK mythology. But we need to grow up and start taking things on evidence rather than letting our perceptions of the world conform to Bronze Age ignorance.

I do not entirely agree with Professor Perakh - we do not know every word in the Tanakh because the text was not stabilized until the invention of the printing press. Additionally, we do not know the meanings of all the words in the Tanakh, some of which survive nowhere else. Neither statement bodes well for Biblical literalism.

My Hebrew is probably 20 decibels lower than Professor Perakh's, but it seems clear to me that he is completely correct in claiming that yom means day and nothing else. For example, yom-yom means every day; ha-yom means today; yom tov is a holiday. It is hard to see how yom could also mean an era, though I admit that certain Jewish holidays sometimes seem interminable.

Contrary to Ms. Clouser, I can see no evidence that chapter 1 of Genesis is intended as anything but chronological order. At the end of each day, Chapter 1 says, "One day [oddly, not 'first day'], ... second day, ... third day," and so on. Interpreting these days as eras is to interpret the Bible allegorically, not literally, and is a device often used by liberal clergy to preserve the authenticity of the Bible. It is nice, in a way, to see that Biblical literalists can also understand allegory.

Cannot the Bible be interpreted to mean just about anything, and if so, what good is it if that is the case?

In other words, many people place their faith into a book that can be (mis)interpreted for their own use.

Sounds like a dangerous and ignorant piece of work.

tytlal:

That's part of what I meant about human nature. It's been pointed out ad nauseum that the Bible is internally inconsistent, that much of what it is absolutely clear and explicit about is simply ignored (much of Leviticus), that the historical context of important chunks has been lost so we don't know the whole truth behind the words, and so on. This is over and above the issues of archaic languages of the original and multiple translations. Not to mention the many times the book has been redacted, with some chapters added, others omitted, and much of it subjected to heavy editing at a time (perhaps not different from any other time?) when fiction that made converts was considered more pleasing to God than uncongenial fact.

The adage that the devil can quote scripture to his purpose was old centuries ago. But the only practical way to quote scripture is to pick and choose. Combine this with the broad range of plausible interpretation of so many verses, and the ONLY way to read scripture is with your self-interest uppermost in mind. Would Mark Perakh's hundreds of generations of Talmudic scholars keep at it if there were no scope for creativity?

Biblical literalism doesn't really mean taking the Bible literally -- as has been pointed out, this isn't really possible. Instead, it means being so inflexible and learnproofed in your self-interest that you can't afford to see any interpretation but your own. It's not God's word that's being considered infallible, it's the interpretations of the literalists. And this says something important about human nature.

I believe my friend Matt Young, stating (in comment 35994) that he "not entirely agrees" with my comment, in fact addresses a point I did not mention at all, which is the question of the historical transmission of the Tanakh's text. Of course it is common knowledge that the text of the Tanakh (or Tanach) has undergone multiple modifications in the course of its long history (see for example the excellent essay by Prof. Cohen at http://www.talkreason.org/articles/sanctity.cfm . However, from Carol Clouser's comment seems to follow that Landa's discourse is not about this point.

Rabbis who spend years on studying Tanach normally deal with the Masoretic text which, although substantially differing from earlier versions (e.g. Qumran manuscripts) has acquired a reasonably stable shape in the last ten centuries. Anyway, this point has little to do with the meaning of the word "yom" and other points where the Bible is at odds with science. Likewise, although the exact meaning of certain words in the Tanach may be ambiguous (for example there is no firm view as to the actual length of the "ama" which in KJV is translated as "cubit") such words have been subjected to a detailed discussion and rabbinical sources provide an interpretation more or less adopted by almost all Orthodox rabbis.

Re: comments by Mark Perakh.

I must disagree with you. You are utterly wrong in many respects.

First, you ought not criticize or analyze what you have not read. I realize that much nonsense has been written on this subject and I cannot blame you for getting a bit annoyed by it all, but we must maintain an open mind. Landa is not Aviezer, just as Aviezer is not Schroeder and Carol is not Mark. Their approaches are VERY different.

Second, let us discuss the merits of the ideas proposed. I for one am at all not impressed by mud slinging, touting your own horn, pulling rank, lumping together (otherwise known as card stacking) and similar devices, all of which your comments (#35980) managed to include.

Third, your argument that Judah Landa cannot possibly be right because nobody thought of it up to now, is prima facia nonsense. Had Einstein had that attitude in 1905, special relativity would not have seen the light of day. And I submit to you that if you consulted all those experts in Hebrew you cite they would confirm that each of Landa's assertions pertaining to Hebrew usage is correct.

Fourth, getting to some substance here, you are wrong about 'yom' in Hebrew. As Judah Landa cites in his IN THE BEGINNING OF, there are many places in the Hebrew Bible where yom appears and where all the medieval commentators, some of whom lived about 900 years ago, translate those words to mean era. Surely you cannot even remotely consider that they were motivated by scientific discoveries of enturies later. I personally checked these references and they indeed are there. You claim to have read the entire Bible in the original several times. Well, apparently you haven't read carefully enough. Why not check out Hosea 6:2 and Paslms 86:3, to cite just two such references.

Landa also brilliantly demonstrates that just a few verses after the alleged 'first day' the Bible uses yom in a manner that must mean era. I refer to Genesis 2:4. Read Landa's book, page 21.

The other side of the coin is also pertinent. The only word for era in ancient Hebrew is yom. 'Tekufa' does not quite make it because it refers to cyclical time, as in the seasons. Your proposed 'sefira' and 'minyan' (Talk Reason) mean counting, not era, and will not do AT ALL.

Even in ordinary conversation in English the word day may mean era, as in "in the day of George Washington", meaning the era of George Washington.

It is important to bear in mind that Hebrew is a language known for its unusual brevity, relatively few words and words with multiplt and borrowed meanings. Yom is one such word. The fact that it is used more frequently in the Bible to mean day than era is reflective of the fact that the Bible more frequently has occassion to speak about days than eras. This has no bearing on its meaning here, in Genesis 1:5. This cannot be decided by a vote.

The reason the fundamentalists opt for the 'day' translation is because the verse begins with, "and there was morning and there was evening." Sounds like a 24 hour day. But that is very simplistic. As Landa demonstrates convincingly the Bible frequently employs the singular as an intentional understaement that implies an enormous plurality. The Bible means to say, "and there was many an evening and many a morning".

Bottom line, Mark, you are doing yourself a disservice by jusr sniping from the sidelines. Read the book (it is easily available on Amazon, I will helpfully provide you with the ISBN # 0963971611) then we will eagerly listen to your reasoned comments. Otherwise your ranting just rings hollow (at least to me).

Fifth, Landa proceeds to demonstrate that 'echud' means 'one' not first. The Hebrew word for first is 'rishon'. So 'yom echud' could very reasonably mean 'one era'. Now, 'yom shainy', instead of 'ha-shainy', means 'a second era', not 'the second era'. As Mat Young (comment # 35994) noticed, this is odd. Why not just say, the first, the second, the third, and so on? Why one era, a second era, a third era? This sounds like the Bible is steering us away from a sequential interpretation. Landa also provides additional persusive arguments that the eras were never meant to be sequenmtial. That was just sloppy translating.

This has turned out to be a bit longer than I intended. In conclusion, Mark, and Pierce and H. Humbert and Raven and Harold and everybody else, we cannot discuss this intelligently in a vacuum. I have read the book and was most impressed. Could the Bible be translated in a manner that leads to conflict with science? Of course it can. Landa's point is that it can JUST AS REASONABLY be translated and not lead to said conflict. If we can agree that a good case has been made here perhaps we can plant some doubt in the minds of some (dare I say many or all) of our fundamentalist fellow americans, thereby animating them to stop contesting evolution and the teaching thereof.

And that would be progress indeed! Don't you think?

Carol Clouser

Re: Carol Clouser, comment 36002. Since you seem to know beyond doubt that Landa is correct while I am wrong, your appeal to keep an open mind sounds odd. Those arguments in favor of the word "yom" meaning "era" or some other period of time you suggested in your comment are quite far from being original or new - they have been suggested many times before and repudiated as many times as well. If these arguments are representative of Landa's discourse, this only reinforces my reluctance to waste time on reading one more attempt (by Landa) to prove the unprovable thesis by means of linguistic acrobatics. You are entitled to believe anything you like and to stay confident that I am wrong - just your pretense to keep an open mind and avoid "mud slinging" etc. is hardly convincing to those who indeed keep an open mind. This exchange of comments has led beyond the topic of this thread, so if you choose to respond once again, I'll not reply any more. Best wishes.

"Could the Bible be translated in a manner that leads to conflict with science? Of course it can. Landa's point is that it can JUST AS REASONABLY be translated and not lead to said conflict."

Where can the Bible be translated to not conflict with science?

tytlal:

As an ignorant outsider, I'm willing to venture a guess without fear of understanding the right answer! What I suspect is, we have someone here who desperately wants BOTH science and the Bible to be true. Some way must therefore be discovered to interpret some version of the texts in such a way as to evade any conflict, yet without forcing interpretation to become so metaphorical as to deprive these texts of any real meaning.

Landa seems to have produced Yet One More of a line of analyses making this attempt. But I'm not sure I follow Mark's claim that these are "repudiated", since all of these different interpretations seem to repudiate one another, and whatever position you take depends not on the quality of the scholarship but on whether the findings meet your needs. I'm glad Carol has found Landa, who seems to be saying what Carol wishes to hear.

Now, back to why the DI seems to have dropped out of the Dover lawsuit. Have we run out of speculations?

Mark,

Sounds like your feelings have been hurt. You are taking your marbles and leaving the game. That was most certainly not my intention.

But again you make claims but don't provide the substance. Where is the beef?

Carol

Flint (comment 36005): When saying that the alleged proofs of the allegoric meaning of the word "yom" all have been repudiated, I simply stated the fact without revealing whether or not I agree with any particular repudiation. My own view of this matter has been explained in detail in my book and in the essays posted to Talk Reason. That is where the "beef" is while this thread is not the place to repeat all that stuff. Cheers.

Flint (comment 36005): When saying that the alleged proofs of the allegoric meaning of the word "yom" all have been repudiated, I simply stated the fact without revealing whether or not I agree with any particular repudiation. My own view of this matter has been explained in detail in my book and in the essays posted to Talk Reason. That is where the "beef" is while this thread is not the place to repeat all that stuff. Cheers.

Some food for a curious mind: The tone of admiration of Landa's book so evident in Carol Clouser's comments sounded a bit suspicious in regard to the real source of her attitude to that book, so some fast investigation seemed in order. Here it is: the book in question as of today has on Amazon the rank of 354,000. Compare it with Schroeder's book published in '91 - its rank as of today is 12,178 which means it is still immensely more popular than Landa's recently published book (despite the egregious errors in Schroeder's output). While usually there are dozens of readers reviews of various books on Amazon, there is only one anonymous reader's review of Landa's book whose wording is almost identical with Carol Clouser's comments to this thread. The most curious detail is perhaps that one of Landa's books was published by an otherwise obscure publisher named Jae-El publications. Now, the email address of Carol Clouser as given in her comments is jayel923@aol.com . Is it where the real beef is? Is it still suprising that Carol was so much impressed by Landa's book?

If we can agree that a good case has been made here perhaps we can plant some doubt in the minds of some (dare I say many or all) of our fundamentalist fellow americans, thereby animating them to stop contesting evolution and the teaching thereof.

But again you make claims but don't provide the substance. Where is the beef?

Would that be Jae-El/jayel as in Judah Landa (JL)?

It is not only the most important work on the subject ever written, I dare believe it provides the decisive analysis we all looked for. ... The author, great scholar and incisive thinker that he is, clearly shows how the accumulation of errors in translation in the Authorized Version has led to a grotesque distortion of the plain meaning of the Bible. Make no mistake about it - the science in this book is rigorous and so is the linguistics. As far as I am concerned, the debate is over. ... This is MUST reading for all who care!

The implication seems to be that Jae-El publications is the vanity press. Kinda tawdry.

While usually there are dozens of readers reviews of various books on Amazon, there is only one anonymous reader's review of Landa's book whose wording is almost identical with Carol Clouser's comments to this thread. The most curious detail is perhaps that one of Landa's books was published by an otherwise obscure publisher named Jae-El publications. Now, the email address of Carol Clouser as given in her comments is jayel923@aol.com . . . . Is it where the real beef is? Is it still suprising that Carol was so much impressed by Landa's book?

While usually there are dozens of readers reviews of various books on Amazon, there is only one anonymous reader's review of Landa's book whose wording is almost identical with Carol Clouser's comments to this thread. The most curious detail is perhaps that one of Landa's books was published by an otherwise obscure publisher named Jae-El publications. Now, the email address of Carol Clouser as given in her comments is jayel923@aol.com . . . .

— Amiel Rossow

Landa proceeds to demonstrate that 'echud' means 'one' not first.

— Clausen or Landa

...if you consulted all those experts in Hebrew you cite they would confirm that each of Landa's assertions pertaining to Hebrew usage is correct.

— jayel923@aol.com who described Landa

"...so far as I know there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the Biblical story; and (c) Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and to have extinguished all human and land animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any professor, as far as I know."

— James Barr, Emeritus Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford University, Emeritus Distinguished Professor of Hebrew Bible, Vanderbilt University, in a letter dated 23 April 1984 to David C.C. Watson

Folks,

Before some of you get carried away congratulating yourselves on your great detective work, here are the simple facts:

I am the Scholarly Book Editor at a small publishing firm whose name is Jay El Publications. I was enthusiatic about Dr. Landa's book when I first saw it in manuscript form and still am. My email address at work therefore begins with the letters jayel and 923 is my personal number. I wrote to Amazon for the same reason I wrote to Pandasthumb and other places - I think highly of the book and think it could make a difference in the ongoing cultural war which is only getting lauder with each passing week. And I intend to continue to do so. I make no money from books sold, I am on fixed salary. Is there anything wrong with all this? And I hope you will see fit to read this important work and see for yourselves.

Raven, I DID have an enjoyable conversation with you and did want to solicit opinions. It never entered my mind to use your or anyone else's words here for commercial purposes, nor am I in a position to do so. You saw just two pages of the book on Amazon and I think you were positively impressed. I think you and everybody here will be equally impressed when you read the entire book. IT IS AN EYE OPENER!

Carol Clouser

Raven -

Yes, my cynicism, or should I say skepticism, appears to have been at least partially justified. Although the level of transgression here may be mild.

I have never read any part of the Bible in anything other than traditional English translations (the only other languages I can even come close to reading in are French and Spanish, at any rate). I make no claim of theological expertise, to put it mildly, even though, of course, I have my own private religious opinions. With that rather strong caveat, it always struck me that the authors knew perfectly well that they were speaking metaphorically, in a sense. Genesis is simply not written in the way that someone who intended a pedantic, concrete description of physical reality would write. It draws on deeply rooted and psychologically powerful cultural material to express profound thoughts (even if you don't agree with them) about the relationship between humans, God, and an imperfect-seeming physical world. In fact, its apparent influence, whether for good or ill, is testament to its literary and psychological power, as is the fact that its translations have sometimes been literary masterpieces in themselves. I repeat that, except if a deliberately obtuse viewpoint is adopted, it is not and cannot be in conflict with science.

A lot of the "good guys" who post here have been conditioned by obnoxious "Christians" to take any positive statement about anything Christian, or "religious" in general, the way a cat takes having its fur rubbed the wrong way, and I don't blame them. This can create confusion, though. It's important to remember that science is, to a large degree, one of the things that people of many different religious perspectives can agree on.

I don't think many people believe in a "literal" Bible, at any rate. There's always an ulterior motive behind such claims. Creationism and ID are political, not sincerely religious, creations. The essential idea is to force people to accept harsh political policies by making them think that God is on the side of the harsh politicians, so they'd better choke down their objections and go along. A while ago, I asked creationists how they can square cheating with Christian morality, and the result was . I've made a few comments about the ultimately political nature of the "ID" phenomenon, and gotten the same response. I'm fairly confident that no creationist will honestly tell me that he or she would support ID or creationism if it were associated with "liberals". This really is the bottom line.

Re "Had Einstein had that attitude in 1905, special relativity would not have seen the light of day."

A perhaps minor point here, but Einstein's conclusions were based on recently acquired data, rather than a rereading of data that had been around for 1 and a fraction millinia.

Henry

I make no money from books sold, I am on fixed salary.

— Carol Clouser

Carol Clouser -

Well, you'll probably be banned, but I don't think you've done anything outrageously wrong, and you did stimulate some interesting discussion. No doubt some more critical interpretations will be posted, though.

As a general rule, to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, commercial relationships can simply be revealed at the initiation of a discussion. There's nothing inherently wrong in having a commercial stake in something you're genuinely enthusiastic about, at least in many cases, but it's obvious that such a stake can bias most of us. Just putting all cards on the table right at the beginning is usually the best way to go.

Creationists -

Please stop using Albert Einstein as a prop, ever.

1) Einstein had an excellent and complete understanding of the branch of science he proposed new ideas in.
2) Einstein would never have done anything so foolish as denying the basic success of Newtonian physics at most levels, nor denigrating the great physicists who preceded him, nor suggesting that all scientists were blinded by a bias against his ideas, etc.
3) Einstein presented his ideas in the mainstream physics literature.
4) Before Einstein presented his ideas, almost all mainstream physicists already agreed that the issues he addressed were then-current problems for physics.
5) Einstein presented ideas that had no supernatural component.
6) Einstein presented ideas that not only were testable, but WERE TESTED before they were fully accepted.
7) Einstein presented ideas that represented his true interpretation of scientific data, and were not disguised efforts to promote a political agenda (as is obvious from "6").

Einstein was, in short, the opposite of a creationist, and really, really the opposite of an ID creationist.

To wrap this all up, I think that Carol's pitiful masquerede is typical of the behavior we have all come to know and love from our Desparately Seeking Salvation friends like Behe and Dembski, whose exclusion from the Dover Debacle started this thread.

I'd like to suggest that we spend a few "yoms" trashing Dembski's career, but that begs the question: What career?

Personally, I believe Carol when she says she was honestly excited about what she felt was a ground-breaking piece of scholarship (that she just happened to be familiar with because it was published at her company) and that she hoped might open a few eyes. It's just that it isn't and it won't. If anything, she might be guilty of being a bit naive.

Then again, it's quite possible I am.

Wesley wrote to Carol Crouser (comment 36031): "Try better." It says all. Was there anything wrong in what you've done? What about posting a rave review on Amazon pretending to be a reader while in fact representing the publisher? There are on Amazon two distinctive categories of reviews: editorial reviews and readers' reviews. This distinction has a good reason: editorial reviews are by definition always positive (and therefore editorial reviews do not include rating the reviewed books by assigning stars) while readers' reviews may vary in their estimation of books' quality from very negative to very positive. By posting your review as allegedly written by a reader and assigning it 5 stars you've committed fraud, dear Carol. Then, your publishing house is rather parochial as it publishes religiously motivated books (mainly related to Judaism) arguing in favor of religious views. Concealing this fact both from Amazon readers and from this blog's commenters you've committed fraud again. All this shows that your comments extolling Landa's book and pouncing on its critics are worthless and deserve to be ignored.

Posted by Timothy Scriven on June 22, 2005 01:37 AM (e) (s) I know this is only loosely related to the topic at hand but I'd like to know, why is the posting pace at ISCID so slow lately?

Posted by Amiel Rossow on June 23, 2005 01:17 AM (e) (s) Wesley wrote to Carol Crouser (comment 36031): "Try better." It says all. Was there anything wrong in what you've done? What about posting a rave review on Amazon pretending to be a reader while in fact representing the publisher? There are on Amazon two distinctive categories of reviews: editorial reviews and readers' reviews. This distinction has a good reason: editorial reviews are by definition always positive (and therefore editorial reviews do not include rating the reviewed books by assigning stars) while readers' reviews may vary in their estimation of books' quality from very negative to very positive. By posting your review as allegedly written by a reader and assigning it 5 stars you've committed fraud, dear Carol.

Ah yes, it's at:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000562.html

Amiel,

For your info, Jay El Pub produces a wide array of material on a wide array of topics, and is not at all limited to the areas you described. There goes fraud #1.
If you would like a catalogue I will be happy to send you one.

Also, I was not representing the publisher in my comments on Amazon pertaing to Landa's IN THE BEGINNING OF, just myself as one who read the book. Amazon policy allows for this. There goes fraud #2.

And my comments here can in no way be described as "pouncing" on the critics. I was very respectful throughout, unlike the attitude of one of those critics who looked down from his high horse and used words like gullible and ridiculous, then made catagorical claims that were based on ignorance. When these points were made by me, this individual suddenly announces that he is discontinuing the discussion. Then you come to his defense by looking for fraud in the messenger (me). What a great demonstration of scientific open mindedness!

I wonder what your colleagues think about such behavior.

Carol Clouser

Carol:

Whatever Mark is, it's not ignorant. He knows what he is talking about in great detail, unless he says otherwise. His reputation is well deserved. Dismissing him as closed-minded or ignorant does you no credit at all. Instead, you seem to be someone who has divided the world into two groups of people: those who agree with your opinions, and those who are ignorant and closed-minded. This is not respectful, despite your protests.

It appears that Landa's interpretation is in just as much a minority among scholars as creationist biologists are among biologists. This material has been examined, as Mark says, from every possible perspective by countless people who have devoted much of their lives to the effort. The overwhelming majority of such people disagree with Landa. If you yourself can read the original as a native, you haven't said so. What makes you so much more of an authority that those who can and have?

It seems reasonable to speculate that Landa has taken a position you very much wish to hear, since so many MORE authorities of AT LEAST equal weight oppose his views. Alternatively, perhaps Landa's book is the only one with which you are so familiar, so you lack the context Mark Perakh possesses. In which case, I have some advice for you: Those who know a great deal more than you do and disagree with you probably do so not out of their ignorance, but rather your own. At least, that's always the way it's been with me. As Mark Twain wrote, when he was 17 he couldn't believe how ignorant his father was. By the time he was 21, he couldn't believe how much the old man had learned in only four years!

Ms. Clouser asks what Mr. Rossow's "colleagues" think of her behavior. I am very sorry, but I think it is wholly unethical for anyone who has any connection with a book to publish a "review" of that book - let alone disguised as "a reader" - without disclosing that connection. The ethical obligation to avoid even the appearance of impropriety is so serious that many magazines will not even invite a review from anyone who has written a jacket blurb. The latest issue of Biblical Archeology Review, for example, enforces precisely that policy, and the editors freely disclosed their reason for making a specific exception. Ms. Clouser needs desperately to take a leaf from their book.

Didn't Dembski get caught doing something similar a few months ago? Wasn't he posting anonymous negative reviews to drive the rating of books opposed to ID down?

Re: comment 36070 by Carol Clouser. Your awkward attempts to somehow justify your unseemly behavior only drags you deeper into unenviable position of dubious honesty. Ed Brighton shows a substantial tolerance letting your comments stay in this thread despite being a clear case of misusing the thread for advertizing a book published by your outlet. (Its list of publication is available on Google, for all to see what kinds of books it offers). I think the readers of this thread have had enough of your pretentious escapades; each reply to you causes another shot from you. If you respond to this I'll not reply any more.

the perception of conflict between the Bible and science is entirely based on the popular but sloppy and inaccurate translations of the original Hebrew Bible

— Carol Clouser (#35941)

Landa's science is rigorous

— Carol Clouser (#35941)

the linguistics is sound

— Carol Clouser (#35941)

the analysis is incisive

— Carol Clouser (#35941)

and the conclusion is inescapable

— Carol Clouser (#35941)

the original Bible, if translated carefully and correctly, does not conflict with science even if it is interpreted literally!

— Carol Clouser (#35941)

it undermines the case of the anti-evolution forces in a different way.

— Carol Clouser (#35970)

It does so not by defending or attempting to prove evolution, but by negating the reasons many people have for seeking to oppose evolution and the teaching thereof in the first place.

— Carol Clouser (#35970)

Let us face it, the prime motivation for opposing evolution is that it appears to contradict a literal reading of the Bible.

— Carol Clouser (#35970)

Landa's message is: fine, let us accept (at least for the sake of argument) that the Bible is meant to be interpreted literally and that it cannot be wrong. But let us look at the original.

— Carol Clouser (#35970)

After all, nobody disputes the proposition that the English Authorized Version is a second or third generation translation of the Hebrew original.

— Carol Clouser (#35970)

if we translate the original accurately and correctly (but literally) there is no conflict with science.

— Carol Clouser (#35970)

I can say that the physics, biology, geology and linguistics are presented to the layman, clearly, succinctly and correctly (as far as I can discern).

— Carol Clouser (#35970)

It seems to me that we ought to support this effort. It will animate any reasonably open-minded fundamentalist to take another look at the major assumptions underlying his or her opposition to evolution.

— Carol Clouser (#35970)

I think you confuse 'translation' with 'interpretation'. Yes, alternate interpretations have been proposed but these have been rejected by fundamentalists because, well, they are fundamentalists. They see these alternatives as contrived. Landa is proposing to interpret literally but translate (the original)accurately. That is an entirely different matter. He treats the Bible exactly as they claim it ought to be treated, taken seriously and literally at its word, and yet there is no conflict with science.

— Carol Clouser (#35975)

The Bible does not say, 'the first day', 'the second day', and so on, but 'one era', 'a second era', etc. And the point is that this is WHAT THE WORDS MEAN, not your or my theory. The only way to disagree with this is to argue the meaning of the original (Hebrew) words.

— Carol Clouser (#35975)

I must disagree with you.

— Carol Clouser (#36002)

You are utterly wrong in many respects.

— Carol Clouser (#36002)

First, you ought not criticize or analyze what you have not read.

— Carol Clouser (#36002)

we must maintain an open mind.

— Carol Clouser (#36002)

Landa is not Aviezer, just as Aviezer is not Schroeder and Carol is not Mark. Their approaches are VERY different.

— Carol Clouser (#36002)

let us discuss the merits of the ideas proposed.

— Carol Clouser (#36002)

your argument that Judah Landa cannot possibly be right because nobody thought of it up to now, is prima facia nonsense.

— Carol Clouser (#36002)

Had Einstein had that attitude in 1905, special relativity would not have seen the light of day.

— Carol Clouser (#36002)

I submit to you that if you consulted all those experts in Hebrew you cite they would confirm that each of Landa's assertions pertaining to Hebrew usage is correct.

— Carol Clouser (#36002)

there are many places in the Hebrew Bible where yom appears and where all the medieval commentators, some of whom lived about 900 years ago, translate those words to mean era. Surely you cannot even remotely consider that they were motivated by scientific discoveries of enturies later.

— Carol Clouser (#36002)

This sounds like the Bible is steering us away from a sequential interpretation.

— Carol Clouser (#36002)

I have read the book and was most impressed.

— Carol Clouser (#36002)

Could the Bible be translated in a manner that leads to conflict with science? Of course it can. Landa's point is that it can JUST AS REASONABLY be translated and not lead to said conflict.

— Carol Clouser (#36002)

If we can agree that a good case has been made here perhaps we can plant some doubt in the minds of some (dare I say many or all) of our fundamentalist fellow americans, thereby animating them to stop contesting evolution and the teaching thereof.

— Carol Clouser (#36002)

The Preservationist by David Maine When God informs 66-year-old Noah (Noe, here) of an imminent flood, he sets out to procure lumber from desert-dwelling giants. He appoints eldest son Sem to find his siblings Cham (a skilled carpenter) and Japheth (an Old Testaament erotomaniac) and commence building the ark. Meanwhile, the older brothers' wives, Bera and icy Northerner Ilya, are given the unenviable task of gathering the menagerie, while Noe's former teen bride questions the old man's sanity. Drawing on the actual narrative of Genesis--e.g. mythical creatures, ancient cities, and bizarre social rites--Maine brings a vivid, often hilarious clarity to the mundane difficulties of Noe and his family's epic task in this remarkably inventive story of faith and human folly.

Carol writes "I am the Scholarly Book Editor at a small publishing firm whose name is Jay El Publications. I was enthusiatic about Dr. Landa's book when I first saw it in manuscript form and still am. My email address at work therefore begins with the letters jayel and 923 is my personal number. I wrote to Amazon for the same reason I wrote to Pandasthumb and other places - I think highly of the book and think it could make a difference in the ongoing cultural war which is only getting lauder with each passing week. "

Now thats rich. A moral defective trying to make a difference in the culture war.

Does the expression " Avoid the appearance of impropriety" mean anything to you?

If the fact that you work for the publushers is not a big deal, then it should not have been a big deal for you to disclose that information.

Now that the dormant venum and intolerance has begun oozing out of the woodwork (#36092 by SEF and others) perhaps it's time for me to leave.

It is now 72 hours since I presented three specific citations in the Bible where all the medieval commentators translate 'yom' to mean era and all I have seen are attempts to kill the messenger and run away from the message. Except for the gentleman on the high horse who asserts that it has already been repudiated but refuses to talk about it (#36003 and #36007). He tells us it is discussed in his postings on "talk reason" but these references are not even mentioned there.

The greatest of all the ancient commentators is one that goes by the acronym RASHI. He elucidated not only the entire Bible but also almost the entire Talmud. By universal agreement, he is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, expert on ancient Hebrew and Aramaic. He lived about 900 years ago, so he knew nothing about recent scientific discoveries. Yet he translates 'yom' there as era.
And the context there includes the phrase "third era' as it does in Genesis. So there is significant evidence from this and the other citations that the Bible's Hebrew could turn to the word 'yom' for era. Scientists are supposed to face evidence squarely and forthrightly, right? So why do you refuse to deal with this? Because the gentleman on the high horse said it cannot be? The same gentleman who says that 'sefira' and 'minyan' mean era? Why not check that in any Hebrew-English dictionary? If you wish to verify my citations you can visit the "artscroll" website (in the interest of full disclosure, I do some occasional consulting work for them - see I have been chastened) and order the appropriate Biblical volumes with Rashi's commentary translated into English? Could it be that you are afraid of what you might discover?

I feel like I have wandered into a den of pseudo-intellectuals acting like a pack of wolves.

If we cannot talk substance and this becomes my last comment here, what will you do when you no longer have Carol to kick around anymore?

Carol Clouser

Who's taking their marbles and going home? C'mon you're salty because these Ph.D professors, scientists, etc called you on your hustle.

Now that the dormant venum and intolerance has begun oozing out of the woodwork

— Carol Clouser

If we cannot talk substance and this becomes my last comment here, what will you do when you no longer have Carol to kick around anymore?

It is now 72 hours since I presented three specific citations in the Bible where all the medieval commentators translate 'yom' to mean era... the Bible's Hebrew could turn to the word 'yom' for era.

— Clausen

By universal agreement, RASHI is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, of all the ancient commentators on ancient Hebrew and Aramaic. ..visit the "artscroll" website (I do some occasional consulting work for them) and order the appropriate Biblical volumes with Rashi's commentary.

Yet he translates 'yom' there as era. Could it be that you are afraid of what you might discover?

Carol, for myself I have no argument with Rashi on this point, nor what the Rambam writes in his first chapters of "Guide of the Perplexed", and in Judaic traditions, the days of Genesis have long been understood to be "days of God", not necessarily of man.

But there is also no evidence of a Noachian deluge. You can't treat Genesis as scientific primer.

Back to what I came down hard on you for. It is not up to you to decide if you are biased or not. You make a disclosure and let the reader decide. Thats the way its done.

The greatest of all the ancient commentators is one that goes by the acronym RASHI. He elucidated not only the entire Bible but also almost the entire Talmud. By universal agreement, he is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, expert on ancient Hebrew and Aramaic.

Yet he translates 'yom' there as era.

John K,

You asked for an example in the Bible of a number + yom where 'yom' means era. Please check out Hosea 6:2. The phrase there 'yom ha-shilishi' is identical to its usage in Genesis. See Rashi and other ancient commentators there (not the error prone Authorized Version).

Rashi does interpret yom in Genesis to mean day, he had no reason to suspect otherwise! But since yom can definately also mean era, that (era) could easily have been the Bible's real intent in Genesis. Rashi would be wrong then in Genesis, not on the Hebrew but on the science.

Is Rashi's commentary on the other citations (I have so far mentioned no fewer than five of them) also available? If so, great! Check them out!

Stuart,

I recommend you read Landa's work to see how he deals with the flood. And its all based on sound ancient Hebrew. No gimmicks, no acrobatics!

It may have been 'midrashic' to interpret yom as God's days. But that has not been the commonly perceived literal translation in Judaism and certainly not in fundamentalist Christianity. They are real literalists. Landa's point is they too should see no conflict with science.

There is much more to the issues between religionists and secularists than just 'yom'. The entirety of the first eleven chapters in Genesis are in contention.

I get your point about disclosure and accept your criticism. It is extreme post watergate morality in this case, but I accept it for what it is.

Carol Clouser

It is extreme post watergate morality in this case

I recommend you read Landa's work to see how he deals with the flood.

I think (hard to tell) I share with Lenny some curiosity at a slightly different level: Why is what the Bible says important, in any scientific sense? Yes, I'm painfully aware that in the Biblicized western world, the Bible stands as a guidepost/foghorn/roadblock too obtrusive to be ignored within the culture. But cultural issues aside, it's irrelevant. So Landa thinks there's no conflict between the Bible and science, Landa happens to be a member of a very tiny minority in his interpretation (and make no mistake: ANY meaning ascribed to ANY words is an interpretation), and the vast majority of scholars arguably more authoritative than Landa (a large number in and of itself) cannot avoid the finding of clear and present conflict. But so what? Let's say that Landa's ideas are so persuasive that if only a few thousand qualified Hebrew scholars would only buy the damn book, there would no longer be the slightest doubt, and Landa's insightfully limpid obviousity carries the day. Would scientific knowledge change even a little bit? Nope, it would not. Do Chinese biologists really NEED to care whether or not Italian biologists ponder the enuncifications of the Vatican?

Whether or not what Dawkins calls the local origin myths of an ancient tribe of mid-Eastern camel herders can or can not be interpreted as congruent with science is surely beside the point. WHO CARES what those camel herders believed? Surely not the Chinese. Is their biology any less biological?

Flint,
In regard to your query over the possibility of a vanity press publication. One of the three jobs I hold to keep food in my cat's bowl is in a bookstore. I thought to try and order this book since I could peruse it and try to add comment here(hopefully without stepping on copyright too much) without actually having to give money to this shill. My store is one of the three largest brick-and-mortar corporate chain booksellers in the country. If this book could be got then I should be able to get it. And I can't. I have two different systems for looking up and ordering books and one does not even list the book. The other acknowledges the existence of the book, but again, ordering the book is not possible. This must be a very small publisher. If the book had any kind of credentialed academic reputation I should be able to get it. Of course if that was true the author could have gotten a bigger publisher to begin with.

I am reminded of the monthly visits my store has from publisher marketers and (less frequently) authors who ask if we could please put their books on the shelves. Yes, they have made the request through the proper corporate channels, but that takes so long, or they were turned down, and they just know the book will sell if we just put it on the shelves. Conversations on PT may be the best marketing this poor book has gotten.
Sincerely,
Paul

Flint,

The point of Landa's book is not to reconcile scientists to the Bible, but to reconcile fundamentalists to science. In this endeavor the support of scientists vis-a-vis the cultural war going on is crucial.

Paul,

Surely you can access all the info you need for ordering the book via Bowker. But I am not here to market the book. I came here to solicit opinion.

In this era (no pun intended) of the internet, Jay El Pub has chosen to bypass the archaic book store scene in favor of direct marketing through the websites of Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and others. We can offer a much better price to the consumer this way. All our books are marketed this way except for bulk sales of educational products to schools, for which we don't need book stores. Landa's book is very recent but has already received two very positive reviews (London Chronicle and Jewish Book World magazine). Ads in various media outlets are also planned. For the size of the publisher the book is doing quite well, thank you.

Carol Clouser

Surely you can access all the info you need for ordering the book via Bowker.

In this era (no pun intended) of the internet, Jay El Pub has chosen to bypass the archaic book store scene in favor of direct marketing through the websites of Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and others. We can offer a much better price to the consumer this way.

Landa's book is very recent but has already received two very positive reviews (London Chronicle and Jewish Book World magazine).

For the size of the publisher the book is doing quite well, thank you.

But I am not here to market the book.

Am I missing something here?

Isn't it obvious that "Jay El" is the phonetic spelling of JL, which coincidentally happen to be the initials of Judah Landa?

...of course, maybe the company founder was a Mrs. Jane Lovejoy... but somehow I doubt it.

Third, your argument that Judah Landa cannot possibly be right because nobody thought of it up to now, is prima facia nonsense. Had Einstein had that attitude in 1905, special relativity would not have seen the light of day.

Then you come to his defense by looking for fraud in the messenger (me). What a great demonstration of scientific open mindedness! I wonder what your colleagues think about such behavior.

Folks, Before some of you get carried away congratulating yourselves on your great detective work, here are the simple facts:

Flint, The point of Landa's book is not to reconcile scientists to the Bible, but to reconcile fundamentalists to science. In this endeavor the support of scientists vis-a-vis the cultural war going on is crucial.

Carol is not Mark. Their approaches are VERY different.

I found the book at www.Amazon.com and...

Paul Flocken,

I do not run the company nor is marketing my responsibility. I came here to discuss a book with which I was thoroughly familiar ON THE MERITS. When people started commenting on the issues raised in the book without having read it, I recommended that they read it. That is all.

What all this demonstrates is that some scientists are just as human as some fundamentalists - both sides are incapable of calmly and objectively listening to opposing arguments on sensitive issues. Instead of responding to my citations of 'yom' meaning 'era' on the merits, we have people slamming doors on their way out and seeking to attack the proponent of the argument. As if that has anything to do with anything.

Your taking words of mine out of context and twisting some imprecisions in those words into major crimes, is not appreciated. But I am not shaking my fist. Instead I offer my sympathy at your predicament, which is: how do I demolish the argument without reading the book?

Yes, special relativity would most likely have been developed without Einstein over time, probably in bits and pieces. But not as a package in 1905.

The "thousands of rabbis over thousands of years" had no reason to suspect that the nuances of their translations carry heavy baggage - conflict with as yet undiscovered science. So they opted for the simplest most common translations. But they would agree that Landa's translations constitute sound and reasonable Hebrew and, if alive today, might very well reconsider (as many rabbis have indeed been doing). At least that is Landa's contention. And there is nothing wrong with this approach. Science always accomodates theory to fit the data. So the "thousands of rabbis" theme repeated here lately ad nauseum is an irrelevancy.

Back to sunstance: What about the five citations where 'yom' means 'era' even with a number associated with the term? There are many more, but let us focus on these. They are: Hosea 6:2, Psalms 86:3, Genesis 2:4, Psalms 137:7 and Hosea 2:2.

Carol

The point of Landa's book is not to reconcile scientists to the Bible, but to reconcile fundamentalists to science. In this endeavor the support of scientists vis-a-vis the cultural war going on is crucial.

I came here to discuss a book with which I was thoroughly familiar ON THE MERITS. When people started commenting on the issues raised in the book without having read it, I recommended that they read it. That is all.

— Carol Clouser

Yes, special relativity would most likely have been developed without Einstein over time, probably in bits and pieces. But not as a package in 1905.

— Carol Clouser

I have a BA in physics, and that statement (I'm seeing it entirely by itself, with no modifying context) look fine, and not Hovindish.

Flint,

First, I am quite fluent in Hebrew and science and a few other things (if that matters). One does not become a scholarly books editor on a whim, believe me.

Second, science and scientists are one side of the war. And not the winning side, despite some court victories. We (and I am one of you) need a different strategy. Beating our opponents with ridicule just causes them to come out and vote in ever greater numbers, as the last election demonstrated. It is a losing proposition.

Besides, I was just trying to have a nice discussion with some intelligent people. Why is that "preaching"? Just because the Bible is part of the discussion?

Carol

Perhaps what Jim meant was, relativity was already being developed in bits and pieces by people such as Poincare and Lorentz. Well, it was, that's true. On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies was still a phenomenal set of ideas, though.

Beating our opponents with ridicule just causes them to come out and vote in ever greater numbers, as the last election demonstrated.

Carol:

So you think fundamentalists will "rejoice at discarding the error of their lifelong convictions, and embrace the scientific method in all its tentative and falsifiable glory" if you can get a bunch of scientists to argue about possible interpretations of ambiguous words in ancient Hebrew, on a website precious few fundamentalists would read even if all of them had heard of it? Really?

I can agree if you are implying that this is a battle of hearts and minds, and the use of brains is really useless. You really have come to the wrong place. The Bible is not a biology text. Much as you may wish otherwise, it's not part of the discussion. And I submit that science is, very slowly, winning this battle. As a scholarly book editor, surely are aware of the difference between the role religious ritual and doctrine play in public life today as opposed to 50, 100, and 150 years ago. The trend at this 50-year-increment remove is unmistakeable.

Another indication is that we are not really fighting against the broad majority of scientifically unexposed but sensible people, but rather against those whom scientific advance has forced into rote and rigid rejection. They fight a rearguard battle, losing ground within a culture where science is valued and honored. Contrast with the Islamic world, where the very concept of the scientific method is deeply suspect, and where being primitive and backward is the only badge of honor progress has left to them.

The majority of American Christians (and Jews) accepts that the Bible was written by primitive people. Perhaps their words were inspired, but people wrote them down. And so most people can recognize that God's Creation itself is the primary source, and what some poorly informed interpreters wrote about that Creation thousands of years ago is at best a poor secondary source. And therefore, any apparent conflict between "objective reality" and what some people once wrote can ONLY result from human error in either the original writing, or our interpretation of that writing, or both.

And so what you claim for Landa really resembles a majority position, if not with respect to the meanings of Hebrew words, at least with respect to the irrationality of most Biblical literalism. There is no prospect of "converting" any appreciable number of fundamentalist creationists. There is a very good prospect of making science "real" enough to their children to break the cycle. And to do this, scientists need to do science and try to ensure that science is presented correctly. Not discuss Hebrew.

Steve and Paul,

Special relativity was indeed "in the air" in the years just prior to 1905. Lorentz and others were staring it in the face and the expression represented by gamma (one over the root of one minus v squared over c squared) which appears so often in SR was beginning to appear in the literature. But they all (except for Einstein) failed to make the intellectual leap to the point that time and length are not invariant across inertial frames of reference and that the speed of light is invariant. Why was that leap so hard to make? Why did it take Einstein's intellectual courage to make it? Because nobody had thought of it before! They couldn't fathom that all the great luminaries of physics over decades and everyone's basic assumptions about time and length could be faulty. In other words, they hesitated to go against what everyone believed!

This why my bringing up SR as an example is right on target. It is actually a perfect fit! I was told Landa cannot possibly be right because "thousands of rabbis over thousands of years" had thought differently. Besides the fact that this is not correct, it is the wrong attitude. And the story of SR demonstrates just that. And for scientists here to take that attitude just goes to show that .... (I will leave it for others to fill in the blank).

The problem actually goes deeper. Scientists are supposed to look at facts, fundamentalists tend to refer to a "higher authority". I was actually told to desist because higher authorities disagreed with me and Landa. Scientists here sound very much like fundamentalists when sensitive issues come up.

I am still waiting for a response to my five citations.

Flint,

I can agree with much of what you said. But the bottom line is that scientists have a social responsibility as educators of all people. And it is in our interest as scientists to do so. The fact that the Bible, taken on its own terms, does not conflict with science, as Landa demonstrates, is a huge point that is just too important to ignore. I am not sure who, what or how this message is to be conveyed, but conveyed it needs to be.

Carol Clouser

The fact that the Bible, taken on its own terms, does not conflict with science, as Landa demonstrates

Flint,

I need to rephrase that sentence, it didn't precisely express what I was trying to say. (This happens when I type quickly in such media.) It should have said, "The proposition that a reasonable translation of the Biblical story of creation can be made that does not conflict with any tenet of modern science, even if the Bible is interpreted literally, is a huge point that is too important to ignore."

By the way, your challenge has already been fulfilled and you can be impressed. I myself have attended conferences where Landa's ideas were presented, either by Landa or others familiar with them, and it gave "cause for pause" to more than one fundamentalist.

Don't under-estimate the human mind. Despite its shortcomings it never ceases to amaze!

Carol

"Carol," Flint's challenge, fairly construed, would require you to provide the NAME of a "noted creationist" and the OCCASION and DATE on which they gave a fair listen to Landa's reasoning. Just making the naked claim that some creationist at some conference at some date was in your mind given pause won't quite cut it, at least among this group...

And, it's again going to seem a little bit implausible that some marketing employee in this publishing enterprise would have had the time and budget to spare to attend conferences, plural, on this narrow topic involving just one of the publisher's titles.

Carol:

I certainly wish you lots of success. I'm probably the wrong person for you to talk to, since I have no realistic hope of ever grasping what might go through the mind of the Believer. But as an outsider, I see that they don't "believe in the Bible" regardless of which translation you present; rather they use the Bible (or more properly, their peculiar interpretations of selected verses) to support positions that seem to arise from less intellectual urges -- prejudices, hatreds, early training, insecurities, fears, aversion to doubt. At least these are the motivations of the pure creationists, which may be a subset of the fundamentalists.

My understanding is that the "young earth" calculations are riddled with unlikely assumptions having little to do with any of the actual statements the Bible contains, in ANY translation. Why would anyone believe such a thing in that case? My guess is, they do so in order to deny implications about their own history they don't wish to face. They fear their lives are "meaningless" (a term whose actual intent has always escaped me). To neutralize this concern, they "discover" that the Bible says what they WISH it to say. I simply can't picture Landa's interpretation alleviating these concerns anymore than assuring an agoraphobic that "there's nothing to worry about." The source of the problem isn't scripture, scripture is simply a convenient rationalization.

There is a tension in all people, I speculate, between the desire to be sure, and the desire to be correct. You can have either one, at the expense of the other. Science as a profession attracts those at the far end of the curve, who are willing to entertain vast doubts to purchase greater accuracy. But many of those we talk to here cannot seem to understand even the idea of uncertainty. To them, science is just another religion, whose set-in-stone doctrines are intolerable. The ONLY way they can grasp science's admission of possible error, is as a confession of total error. And they regard tentative conclusions as a weakness rather than as a strength. So far, none of us have found any way to communicate at that level.

So even if Landa's interpretations are a scholarly breakthrough more soundly insightful into the minds of the ancients, we make no headway in this deeper issue. Apparently "meaning" is available to some only after all possible doubt has been dispelled. Science would make no progress convincing such people that some scientifically compatible interpretation were absolute truth instead. The goal is to discard absolute truth, not rearrange it.

Steviepinhead,
The shill would have you know that she is NOT a marketing employee. SHE is the SCHOLARLY BOOK EDITOR.

Ms. Clouser a reply forthcoming, but not quickly. I compose with great difficulty, not quickly at all, and I sometimes wonder if the amyloid hasn't started building up.
Paul

the Bible, taken on its own terms, does not conflict with science

— Carol Clouser

even re-ordering the days/eras won't save the bible from being unscientific rubbish. It has fish and birds together in one (5) and land beasts in another (6) whereas land beasts have to come between fish and birds. Did you genuinely not know this? Was Landa similarly ignorant or just(!) careless and dishonest?

— SEF

Paul, you are correct, but it was so many comments ago--and with the whole slew of intervening comments about where and how to buy the book--that I had forgotten. I won't say the story keeps changing, but the relevant facts do seem to be doled out only under duress.

Still, this seems to me to be one heck of an ODD small scholarly publishing house, with enough of a budget to send anyone BUT THE AUTHOR to "conferences" at which the "scholarly book editor" would be rubbing elbows with creationists. But not enough of a budget to list the book with the usual outlets. And what kind of conferences? And why pay for an editor--who presumably ought to be busy with forthcoming offerings--to schmooze with the conferees?

Flint,

Thank you for taking the time to write thoughtful and insightful comments, especially the third paragraph of comment #36642. It sounded eerily like position and momentum in quantum mechanics applied to human behavior.

I guess it's a question of attitude. You probably are just more pessimistic and cynical than I am. I prefer not to dwell on psycoanalyzing people's motives and optimistically focus on the positive possibilities. (Which is why I will not respond to the bafoons who continue to bait me with epitephs.)The truth probably lies somewhere in between.

Carol

I do not run the company nor is marketing my responsibility. I came here to discuss a book with which I was thoroughly familiar ON THE MERITS. When people started commenting on the issues raised in the book without having read it, I recommended that they read it. That is all.

Your taking words of mine out of context and twisting some imprecisions in those words into major crimes, is not appreciated.

But I am not shaking my fist. Instead I offer my sympathy at your predicament, which is: how do I demolish the argument without reading the book?

Yes, special relativity would most likely have been developed without Einstein over time, probably in bits and pieces. But not as a package in 1905.

But they would agree that Landa's translations constitute sound and reasonable Hebrew and, if alive today, might very well reconsider (as many rabbis have indeed been doing). At least that is Landa's contention. And there is nothing wrong with this approach. Science always accomodates theory to fit the data.

William Dembski wrote: Dear Ed. I have nothing to hide in this matter. If you like, give me a call at 1-254-710-4928 (leave a message with a number where I can reach you if I'm not in). I'll be happy to answer your questions.

I take him at his word that he has nothing to hide (and that is genuine - I really don't think he has anything to hide in this regard). Thus, there is no reason to hold that conversation in private and then report back here on what he says. Best to have it in public in his own words than to work through a middle man.

Of course, you could ASK for permission to record and transcribe the conversation, but who wants to take a bet that the persons we're talking about will actually agree to THAT . . .

Well heck, let's find out . . . . Mr Dembski, do you have any objection to having the phone conversation you have issued an invitation for, recorded and transcribed?

Yes, it does seem to be an unusual/revealing choice of behaviour. I on the other hand prefer things to be out in public and despise the private messaging and emails - including when those are ones of support which people are too cowardly to put up on site (ie not just ill-founded views or misdirected attacks which the incompetent, dishonest and nasty people would rather keep secret for fear of other people being able to pass judgement).

It looks (rightly or wrongly) as though Dembski would prefer merely to be thought a fool (or coward in this instance) than open his mouth (in public) and confirm it. Of course that interpretation has to assume he doesn't regard everything else he's written as already adequately confirming the view!