Creationist Credibility

"Creationism" = "placeholder term". LOL.

Lying for Jesus. Halleluiah!

Evangelical creationists can't be blamed for their complete lack of morals -- after all, once gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, the whole moral fabric of the country fell apart, just like they warned.

So, following in the footsteps of another protean creationist organization, they can drop the "E" from their name. And given the content of their miserable texbook, the "T" should probably go, too. The remainder of their name will thus be ripe for a lawsuit by the estate of Isaac Asimov, thereby proving that great minds can wreak vengeance even from beyond the grave.

Between Car Talk and Hiero5ant I've just scored my first belly laugh of the day.

The words 'perjury' and 'tax evasion' come to mind...

Oh wow. Here's a place holder- liar.

they can drop the "E" ... the "T" should probably go, too

"Foundation for Thought and Hics"

For anyone who has seen Austin Powers, I am reminded of the Swedish-made penis enlarger pump sequence from the beginning. I can't believe this guy is serious, and I still can't stop laughing. Wow.

Well, well, well. What have we here? Someone thinks the judge is an idiot. As an officer in my own company it is I who am responsible for the name of the company, tax status and all that. Lawyers and CPA's do the heavy lifting, but it is my signature on the bottom line. I'm responsible.

And as Founder and President of FTE, Jon Buell is responsible.

So, that makes Mr. Buell a big fat liar, don't it? Of course, from the YDR report I have no indication that Jon is either big or fat.

Recent news accounts about controversies over evolution in Ohio and Georgia have contained references to the scientific theory of "intelligent design." Some advocates of Darwinian evolution try to conflate "intelligent design" (ID) with "creationism," sometimes using the term "intelligent design creationism." (1) In fact, intelligent design is quite different from "creationism," as even some of its critics have acknowledged. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to identify ID with creationism?

Rothschild also brought forth several other examples of the foundation's possible religious ties, including an early draft of the book, which in its infant stages was titled "Biology of Origins." The draft mentioned "creationism" frequently. But in the final copy of the book, after the title was changed, the word creationism was replaced with the phrase "intelligent design." Buell said the word creationism was a "placeholder term." The definition of creationism changed to include a religious context after the draft was written, so the writers changed the word, he said.

Buell said the word creationism was a "placeholder term." The definition of creationism changed to include a religious context after the draft was written, so the writers changed the word, he said.

As hilarious as this is, as long as there are creationists this friggin stupid, science still has a chance.

The draft mentioned "creationism" frequently. But in the final copy of the book, after the title was changed, the word creationism was replaced with the phrase "intelligent design." Buell said the word creationism was a "placeholder term." The definition of creationism changed to include a religious context after the draft was written, so the writers changed the word, he said.

Buell said his organization is "not at all" Christian or religious in nature. But attorney Eric Rothschild with the Philadelphia-based law firm Pepper Hamilton pointed out that the not-for-profit organization's Internal Revenue Service tax exemption form says their primary purpose is "promoting and publishing textbooks presenting a Christian perspective."

<>

Correction - no self respecting teacher or scientist would want to be caught dead with such bilge.

Liar, liar, pants on fire!

Wonder what the leading lights of IDoC are doing when one of their own is being taken apart in Court. Phil Johnson isn't to be seen around. Wells is busy spinning a yarn as usual that even he must find diffiocult to read with a straight face. And Bill D mustbe scratching his head and summoning his flunkies to go forth and battle once again. Hey Sal where are you?

One more thing. Having filled out the Form 1023 Application for Recognition of Exemption under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code for many educational and religious organizations, you (as the accountant) don't make the decisions to the nature of the organization.

In fact, what you do is fill out a form (F-1023) that POINTS TO AREAS OF THE CHARTER (Organizing Article) that are germane for the IRS to use in determining exemption status. As the accountant, you don't make anything up, nor do you make decisions. You simply refer to parts of the pre-existing charter.

There is NO WAY the "accountant" could have made a "mistake" to the nature of the organization. His answer MUST COME DIRECTLY FROM THE CHARTER AND REFER TO THE PAGE and PARAGRAPH(s) from which his answer is taken. In fact, the best way to look at the application is to realize it's just a reference form to help the IRS navigate the Charter.

There is other stuff on the form. But that's to prevent phoney charitiable organizations, like "The Church of Moses" to which I donate half my earnings to myself... And is, otherwise, not relevant to this discussion.

Buell blamed the "error" on a new accountant who was "not even from the state of Texas."

Correction - no self respecting teacher or scientist would want to be caught dead with such bilge.

So, Buell is arguing that his book isn't trying to advance religion, that it's bad just becaause his writers and editors are incompetent?

BTW, it's not necessary to be a religious group to get a 501(c)(3). But I cannot imagine why anyone would not state the real reasons they wished to be thought of as an educational organization in talking to the IRS.

Most notable quotes:

"Buell blamed..."
followed by
"Buell blamed..."

Why are these remarkable? Because Buell wants to claim his organization is not religious in nature; so first a new accountant was responsible for the IRS tax-exemption form stating their primary purpose is "promoting and publishing textbooks presenting a Christian perspective," and second, the attorney who filed papers for Articles of Incorporation mistakenly mentioned religion.

Those zany Creationists--they do seem to have difficulty handling truth and responsibility.

Looks like FTE wasn't happy about giving up a drafts of Pandas: Denyse O'Leary at Post-Darwinist has put up an angry fundraising letter from FTE: Publisher compelled to turn over manuscript of ID-friendly textbook.

Looks like FTE wasn't happy about giving up a drafts of Pandas: Denyse O'Leary at Post-Darwinist has put up an angry fundraising letter from FTE: Publisher compelled to turn over manuscript of ID-friendly textbook.

— Hick

Somehow, I don't think carpet-bombing will work. I predict a showdown instead, between the ID theorists and groups that have clearly begun to act as enemies of the open society.

I have a difficult time following Denyse O'Leary's blog because it's so poorly written.

What does she do for a job anyway?

Rememeber MP&TFC's skit "Upper Class Twit of the Year Competition"? A nice sequel could now be done, pitting the American Creationist community against those simple twits of the U.K. As in the original version, none would survive, which would be terrically funny.

I think now that the original manuscript has been handed over and ID is being exposed all over by the media, they are now in the deepest hottest water they could ever find themselves in.

I wouldn't want to be Dembski et al.

Incidently, since when did Creationists EVER have any credibility?

I have a difficult time following Denyse O'Leary's blog because it's so poorly written. What does she do for a job anyway?

RBH,

Unemployed, I assume.

Or, perhaps, unemployable.

I guess Buell couldn't figure out how to use the excuse that it was an "early fundraising proposal" ;)

Not to peddle conspiracy theories, but...

I went to the FTE website (linked to in the O'Leary post) to see if they made any mention of their religious affiliation, since that's in question here. Of course, their site is clean of any "Christian perspective" talk.

I was however annoyed by their use of JPEG images instead of normal body text. Not only do the images take forever to load, but when they flood filled the blue background color they neglected the characters with enclosed spaces, so now all their o's are white on the inside. Really unprofessional and inaccessable, and I wondered what the hell they were thinking when they did that.

Out of curiosity, I tried looking them up on Archive.org but the FTE site has robots.txt set to disallow pretty much everything.

It then occured to me: Maybe the use of images instead of text wasn't gross webdesigner incompetence. Maybe they did it intentionally to make it more difficult to find out what they said in the past (e.g. Google doesn't cache images, so the cache will show what's on the FTE server -- and searching their text is out of the question).

Even though they've apparently been online since 2001 (according to domain whois) there is no way to see if an earlier draft of their site used "creationism" as a "placeholder term" for "ID". And if ID is dropped in the future for some other politically expedient term, no way to show they made a change.

If not intentional, then still awfully convenient.

According to this entry on ARN and other sources, she's a journalist. (!)

— RBH

Following the original quotes from Buell - did the cock crow three times?

Raise your hands if you get it.

Hand up. (I was raised evangelical.)

RBH

Wonder what the leading lights of IDoC are doing when one of their own is being taken apart in Court. Phil Johnson isn't to be seen around. Wells is busy spinning a yarn as usual that even he must find diffiocult to read with a straight face. And Bill D mustbe scratching his head and summoning his flunkies to go forth and battle once again. Hey Sal where are you?

Another hand up. I, too was raised by evangelicals.

BTW, many early Christian saints chose martyrdom rather than deny their faith.

Those zany Creationists--they do seem to have difficulty handling truth and responsibility.

Teaching Darwin splits Pennsylvania town
3/27/05
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1548&ncid=1548&e=1&u=/afp/20050327/lf_afp/uspoliticsreligion

But pastor and parent Ray Mummert, 54, explained their point. "If we continue to indoctrinate our young people with non-religious principles, we're headed for an internal destruction of this society," he said. "Evolution is just a theory and there are other theories," Mummert explained, smiling through his beard.

"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture," he said, adding that the school board's declaration is just a first step.

:-)

jpf said: I went to the FTE website (linked to in the O'Leary post) to see if they made any mention of their religious affiliation, since that's in question here. Of course, their site is clean of any "Christian perspective" talk.

FTE hasn't purged it's site of everything relating to Christianity yet. They still have a link to the transcripts of the 1992 SMU conference they cosponsored with the C. S. Lewis Society (a Christian group)and Dallas Christian Leadership, which gave rise to the public relations campaign spreading "intelligent design," and, if I recall correctly, the Wedge Document, which laid out the p.r. campaign upon which the Discovery Institute relies.

FTE's pages don't load very well for me at all. However, after repeated page not found messages I did manage to get both the about and the root pages to load. "about" is pretty much condemned by having Dembski on it (unless someone has ever seen a decent site anywhere which would want Dembski on it), though the others could still just be gullible fools. However, the main page with its "Symposium on Darwinism" clinches it. No-one who isn't part of the ID/creationist reality-denying brigade (or a willing dupe of them) refers to Darwinism (other than to point out those religionists who do of course!).

Darwinism
dated 1992

Some early FTE resources:

1. A 1990 NCSE analysis. Quotes from Buell's application for 501(c)3 status in which Buell characterizes FTE as a "Christian think-tank".

2. The Proceedings of the 1992 SMU conference Ed Darrell mentioned.

3. An advertisement for a 1994 Buell co-authored book under the general heading "An Introduction to the Task of Intergrating the Christian Faith into the Academic Disciplnes".

More recent resources:

4. An entry in Focus on the Family's list of "related web sites".

5. Of Pandas and People on Creation Answers' Creationism Resources List.

RBH

The definition of creationism changed to include a religious context after the draft was written, so the writers changed the word, he said.

"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture"

As hilarious as this is, as long as there are creationists this friggin stupid, science still has a chance.

Here is the text for the recent FTE fundraising letter, for those who are curious and could not find it elsewhere. I have transcribed it from an actual fundraising letter, but edited out the name and address of the recipient. The original letter lacked a period at the end of the initial Kelly Shackelford quote. Any other typos in the copy are probably mine. It's odd that a "non-religious organization" would be so explicitly religious in their fundraising letters over the years.
______________________________________________________________________

Foundation for
Thought and Ethics
June 25, 2005

[Title, first and last name and address of recipient]

Dear [first name],

We really need your support and prayers at this time! It's been two frenzied months since the ACLU subpoenaed the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, and one month since attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund filed a motion to intervene on behalf of FTE, in a federal lawsuit which the ACLU expects to take intelligent design to the U.S. Supreme Court. They want the High Court to declare that it is "religion," thus insuring that no public school student will be allowed to learn about the subject.

The lawsuit was originally filed last December by the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State against the Dover, Pennsylvania, school district. This is the district that put copies of our intelligent design textbook, Of Pandas and People, in the school library and told its biology students of the book's availability.

On its face, the suit seeks a change in school policy and the removal of the library copies of Pandas. But more important than the censorship of Pandas to the ACLU and the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, is the plan to abort the book that will succeed Pandas, The Design of Life. Now think of it: The Design of Life isn't even published yet, and they have seized it! FTE, its Academic Editor, Dr. William Dembski, and the book's authors have been working on The Design of Life for several years. Our plans were for a 2005 or 2006 copyright date. So, we were forced to hire an attorney of our own.

The ground is shifting beneath us. In spite of a Motion for Protective Order filed for us by Jeff Mateer of Mateer & Shaffer, the Court upheld the ACLU's subpoena of this work-in-progress. To comply with the protective order, FTE had to turn over the manuscript of this forthcoming textbook to the ACLU, which, in turn, gave it to FTE's other adversaries, including the National Center for Science Education. The NCSE has kept a file on FTE for decades. It is this vigilante-style advocacy group out of Berkeley, CA that instigated the attempt to censor these books, and militantly opposes even the most basic freedoms for proponents of intelligent design.

They are, of course, too smart to try to censor The Design of Life outright. But having copies of the manuscript will give the ACLU and its allies a huge advantage as they work to intimidate science teachers who otherwise would consider using the book once it's published. Yet FTE has invested much time and drained significant resources to develop the book, and could, itself, be destroyed, if its market is carpet-bombed by hostile media across the country upon its release.

The ACLU and their allies have more than a dozen lawyers on this case. Thankfully, the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) has approved a grant for $100,000 to help finance an expanded legal team on our side through The Liberty Legal Institute in Plano, Texas. (None of these funds will come to FTE). Both sides in the lawsuit predict the case will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Why this extraordinary showdown now? Because some students radicalized in the 1960s have grown up without abandoning or moderating their goals, have organized, found extravagant funding, and now are attempting to use legal force to guarantee their agenda for America, and this is a critical, strategic piece of that agenda.

Meanwhile, it is summer, when the giving "goes South" in a big way. Normally, we would spend full time raising support in order to meet expenses. But instead we have been sorting through more than 25 years of history (several file drawers, 80 boxes and 15 feet of unfiled, unsorted documents) in order to comply with the ACLU subpoena. Last week, we had some delightful volunteers and others happy to work at a modest hourly rate. But we will continue to be tied up, using every minute of every day, straight through the weekends, sorting, meeting with our attorney, and doing scores of other things required by the subpoena. Next week, we begin preparations for a deposition, then, a hearing in the Federal District Court in Pennsylvania on our Motion to Intervene, and finally, if that motion is successful, the trial itself, starting in late September. Between now and the end of the trial, we will have little if any time to raise the funds with which to pay bills, salaries, and other expenses related to the trial.

But there is a dramatic upside in this for education in America, too. If the ACLU loses, then science education in America will be much more open, and much less doctrinaire.

Kelly Shackelford, Chief Counsel for the Liberty Legal Institute asserts, "This lawsuit is the ultimate attack at the very root of the Culture Wars, and is central to all our other battles. This is why we have taken up the cause of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics"

He adds, "This is not a time to hesitate. This is too important."

And he's right. I realize this is a wretched time to ask for extra giving! But we really need your help right now, and we need your prayers. We can't do without either.

If you agree with us, Kelly Shackelford of the Liberty Legal Institute, the ADF, and Mateer & Shaffer on the critical importance of this issue, and of protecting students' access to information about intelligent design, we urge you to help with the most generous check you can write, payable to the
Foundation for Thought and Ethics today. Thank you so much.

Sincerely, in Christ,
[signed]Jon Buell
Jon Buell

P.S. I really thank you for your prayerful consideration at this moment!

No-one who isn't part of the ID/creationist reality-denying brigade (or a willing dupe of them) refers to Darwinism (other than to point out those religionists who do of course!).

But that's not good Darwinism, because the dominance hierarchy is a group-level phenomenon.

Buell would have better luck raising money if he claimed he was a Nigerian Treasury Minister.

There is no greater feeling for a lawyer than to realize that the guy talking to you doesn't realize that he knows you're lying. You can dig him a huge pit and he will gladly leap into it. The choices are clear: admit you're a fraud or admit your books are Christian religious books. They never would have gotten themselves in this bind if they were the tiniest bit honest.

But it's OK for them to lie, Jason. They're lying for Jesus, so God will protect them....

Pierce R. Butler, that linked page is dated 2005 and has no mention of "Darwinism" or even "Dawkins" on it. Perhaps you meant something else instead.

They want the High Court to declare that it is "religion," thus insuring that no public school student will be allowed to learn about the subject.

The NCSE has kept a file on FTE for decades. It is this vigilante-style advocacy group out of Berkeley, CA that instigated the attempt to censor these books, and militantly opposes even the most basic freedoms for proponents of intelligent design.

SEF -

I don't have a link for you on-hand, but I've seen Dawkins, Gould and Mayr all speak of "Darwinism."

... that linked page is dated 2005 and has no mention of "Darwinism" or even "Dawkins" on it. Perhaps you meant something else instead.

Oops, I overlooked that this board does not display email addresses as such. The offer stands, for those who query via pbutler[at]igc.org.

Oops again: try http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_24_5.htm

Vigilante-style? How about even one example to back up that assertion. In the current situation, he is complaining about legal moves, which are the very anti-thesis of vigilantism. What are these 'most basic freedoms' Buell seeks to protect? Do they include the right to perjure oneself?

OK I see Dawkins using "Darwinian" now. It becomes more obvious further on that he's not using it to mean a religion (even contrasts all religion to Darwinism though as an object of study) but for a method/framework of thought or of posing/answering questions (and as such might be seen as analagous to Platonic ;-) or Aristotlean or Newtonian) but I do still find it ill-advised and even offensive, since Darwin wasn't really the first or only person to be thinking that way - more the most publicised. I thought Dawkins might be playing up to the ID/creationists but I suppose now that he couldn't come up with a more elegant and instantly recognisable/comprehensible alternative, eg referring to evolutionary thinking would set off wrong associations too.

I suppose now that he couldn't come up with a more elegant and instantly recognisable/comprehensible alternative, eg referring to evolutionary thinking would set off wrong associations too.

OK I see Dawkins using "Darwinian" now. It becomes more obvious further on that he's not using it to mean a religion (even contrasts all religion to Darwinism though as an object of study) ...

No-one who isn't part of the ID/creationist reality-denying brigade (or a willing dupe of them) refers to Darwinism (other than to point out those religionists who do of course!).

It's a fair cop, SEF

Here's the first google hit for "Darwinism", which should be a final nail in that plank. Denizens of PT would do well to stop claiming that only creationists use the term, when even Ernst Mayr treats "Darwinism" as a synonym for "Darwin's theory", "Darwin's conceptual framework of evolution", and "Darwin's evolutionary paradigm":

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html

Darwinism is a term used for various processes related to the ideas of Charles Darwin, particularly concerning evolution and natural selection. Darwinism in this sense is not synonymous with evolution, but rather with evolution by natural selection. Modern biology suggests a number of other mechanisms involved in evolution which were unknown to Darwin, such as genetic drift. Also, Darwinism may be used to contrast it with other, discredited mechanisms of evolution that were historically thought possible, such as Lamarckism or mutationism.

However, scientists rarely use the term "Darwinism" to refer to the science of evolution (evolutionary biology) or atheism as creationists always use the term.

The usage of the terms "Darwinism" and especially "neo-Darwinism" when the term "evolutionary biology" should be used is a hallmark of creationism.

It's usually but not always evident from context whether "Darwinism" is being used in the sense of relative reproductive success and when it is used as another "ism" ideology. Even the term "macroevolution" isn't always a giveaway; I've seen it used in entirely scientific treatments. Where the DI excels is in carefully fudging and blurring these lines, so as to manage these terms as though they were science in their proximate usage, but ideological by implication. Words having specific meanings are the DI's enemy and target.

The usage of the terms "Darwinism" and especially "neo-Darwinism" when the term "evolutionary biology" should be used is a hallmark of creationism.

Words having specific meanings are the DI's enemy and target.

You know how fundies are. They just love fantasizing about how persecuted they are.

Teaching Darwin splits Pennsylvania town 3/27/05 http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1548&ncid=15... But pastor and parent Ray Mummert, 54, explained their point. "If we continue to indoctrinate our young people with non-religious principles, we're headed for an internal destruction of this society," he said. "Evolution is just a theory and there are other theories," Mummert explained, smiling through his beard. "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture," he said, adding that the school board's declaration is just a first step.