Santorum shines spotlight on ID's "Wink Wink Nudge Nudge"

I like the untrained spokesmen, since they read the IDist writings as the latter are intended to be read by believers, then they just go ahead and speak their minds without the careful DI censorship. Of course we can do the same, but we're automatically disregarded by those who swallowed the lies of DI whole because we're committed to "naturalism".

Bush was great in that regard as well, frankly comparing ID to creationism when recounting how he dealt with creationism while a governor.

BTW, I don't think it has been adequately appreciated how Bush's science advisor has denied that Bush intended ID to be treated as science. Not to say that it's all right now (Bush appears to be trying to have it both ways), but we do have the ammunition to undercut his earlier nod toward ID(C)ism.

http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2

One quibble with the piece is describing Santorum as "a fundamentalist Christian." This is wrong. He is a very devout Catholic, and would probably call himself as such. No Catholic I know of or have heard of describes himself as "a fundamentalist Christian," as that denotes a type of Protestantism.

And people who don't believe in God --- or who don't believe in the Judeo-Christian God Sen. Santorum worships --- are perfectly capable of advocating behavior that all of us would recognize as moral, for example by practicing charity, kindness, tolerance and honesty.

— Jac Wilder VerSteeg

And another one [post] bites the dust.

Note to Bayesian Bouffant: if he's Catholic, it's the eighth commandment. Catholics and Prods have different numbering schemes.

Gerard -

never heard that before. do you know why that particular difference exists? just curious.

Thanks to whichever intelligent designer fixed my quote tags.

This is the age-old dilemma of the ID'ers -- they have to say one thing for fundraising, and a totally different thing for the courts. Small wonder they can't stay 'on message'.

Finally, a use for Santorum outside of the Dan Savage definition

This Versteeg person dosn't seem to have a very good grasp of his topic, does he.

"Evolution explains life as we know it pretty well."

But not quite well enough. For example, evolution fails to explain the origin of life, which would seem to be an integral part of any explanation of "life as we know it". I'm certainly aware of no competent biologist who would make this claim, or support Versteeg in making it.

"Sen. Santorum effectively pulls the rug out from under all the intelligent design proponents who deny that they are peddling a form of creationism."

A rug can be pulled out from under only those who are standing on it. Many of those sympathetic to ID are not standing on Santorum's rug; hence, despite Versteeg's gloating, they feel no loss of equilibrium. In fact, they don't know what Versteeg is talking about. (They are apparently in good company, for neither, apparently, does Versteeg.)

"Sen. Santorum's central claim is that if humans were created by "a mistake of nature," they can't be obligated to behave according to "moral demands." But that's just an echo of the non-proof for intelligent design: Humans couldn't possibly invent morals on their own, so God must do it. That's an assertion, not proof."

I'm not aware of anybody seriously offering this as a "proof" of ID. In any case, human invention (or calculation) of morals would be insufficient to maintain or improve the condition of mankind. That would require the inculcation, dissemination, and enforcement of morals.

"And people who don't believe in God --- or who don't believe in the Judeo-Christian God Sen. Santorum worships --- are perfectly capable of advocating behavior that all of us would recognize as moral, for example by practicing charity, kindness, tolerance and honesty."

Advocating morals is one thing; upholding them in one's personal behavior is quite another. For example, crooked politicians and other hypocrites are notorious for their (oftimes passionate) advocacy of moral behavior. A bit closer to home, it is far from uncommon to see ID critics sanctimoniously bemoaning the immorality of ID supporters while engaging in deliberate prevarication, vicious and disgusting ad hominem attacks, and outright character assassination against people with whom they disagree. For example, what kind of malignant freakazoid is attracted to the above-linked filth regarding Senator Santorum, and how can this be characterized as an instance of "charity, kindness, tolerance and honesty"?

I'm not saying that ID people are perfect; far from it. What I'm saying is that when one hears a person complain or express trepidation about being victimized in his or her secular life due to his or her position on the ID-evolution controversy, one can be reasonably certain that he or she is an ID proponent. This alone suggests that the frequency of immoral behavior is skewed around the controversy in question.

what kind of malignant freakazoid is attracted to the above-linked filth regarding Senator Santorum, and how can this be characterized as an instance of "charity, kindness, tolerance and honesty"?

Linked material is the responsibility of the party who created it. Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org.

What I'm saying is that when one hears a person complain or express trepidation about being victimized in his or her secular life due to his or her position on the ID-evolution controversy, one can be reasonably certain that he or she is an ID proponent. This alone suggests that the frequency of immoral behavior is skewed around the controversy in question.

History warns us that when large religious groups start imagining themselves to be oppressed by a pernicious and cunning minority, bad things can happen. So it was with a growing sourness in my stomach that I watched the luminaries of the Christian right take the stage at a Tennessee "megachurch" Sunday evening for "Justice Sunday II."

This alone suggests that the frequency of immoral behavior is skewed around the controversy in question.

You're saying that, not knowing anything else about persons A and B, other than their positions on ID, you believe that one is more likely to be involved in more immoral behavior than the other?

OK then, Dave T. Kindly direct our attention to a single "reverse Sternberg" situation in which the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, or comparable body of secular authorities, has deplored the treatment of an ID critic by those vicious, bloodthirsty ID proponents.

I know the con, Dave. I've been reading these boards for a long time now, and I know exactly where one is likely to find the nastiest brand of commentary. Hypocrisy notwithstanding, so does everybody else, and it sure isn't at "Uncommon Descent". So kindly give us all, and me in particular, a break.

(No, Russell. That bears no resemblance to what I actually said. However, it is true that a randomly chosen ID critic is more likely to be engaged in immoral activity toward somebody on the opposite side of the controversy, and that's a fact known to everybody with a browser.)

(No, Russell. That bears no resemblance to what I actually said.

However, it is true that a randomly chosen ID critic is more likely to be engaged in immoral activity toward somebody on the opposite side of the controversy, and that's a fact known to everybody with a browser.)

Boy, neurode, where to begin.

One is certainly unlikely to find "nasty" commentary at Uncommon Descent, if by that you mean actual disputation, give and take, rough and tumble, disagreement, and debate, since ch*ckensh*t Dembski, the Fig Newton of Information Suppression, regularly deletes any comments critical of his position.

While your comments are tolerated here.

Too tough for you to figure which "side" of the "debate" is more integritous?

Perakh deals with a specific situation relating to one of the most prominent ID spokesmen, and Neurode simply attacks ID critics with a broad brush and in a completely general manner. I expect it is such lack of honesty in dealing with the issues that does wear on us, and also make us suspect that very few IDers on these boards are concerned about honest discussion (that, and their typical lack of scientific knowledge--or regard for the latter).

@neurode:

Hey, i'll choose honest vitriol over deceitful backstabbing any day. The ID side of this "debate" has been shown over and over again to be duplicitous in almost everything it does, and every debate participated in. This is not hard to track, you can check the archives on this very site if you will but open your eyes.

Oops, I guess it's not the Perakh thread, but it's all the same, no more regard for the specifics of a given situation than of the specifics of the evidence.

hell, for that matter, check the discovery institute site as well... look at their archives and see how clearly thier "spin" has changed over the last year, even.

your eyes are so closed i wonder if you need a braile keyboard in order to type?

Since all "ah-ha's" related to IDer duplicity are only mildly interesting (you know, the communists might have lied too), I'll just post a link to something I alluded to previously:

http://www.physorg.com/news5618.html

I think there may be some "wink, wink" regarding the "clarification" as well, but I'll take it.

"However, it is true that a randomly chosen ID critic is more likely to be engaged in immoral activity toward somebody on the opposite side of the controversy, and that's a fact known to everybody with a browser."

In today's York (PA) Daily Record, a Letter complains that Santorum's "flip-flop" on teaching ID was just a ploy to win votes from moderates. I guess this guy doesn't follow the Discovery Institute's guidelines. He does, however, note the contradiction of this statement versus the Senator's statement of March 14, 2002 in the Washington Times.

CA001:Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview CA110:Evolution is a theory in crisis; it will soon be widely rejected. CC301. Cambrian explosion contradicts evolutionary "tree" pattern CB300. Complex organs couldn't have evolved CC201. We should see smooth change through the fossil record, not gaps. CF011. Evolutionary algorithms smuggle in design in the fitness function and thousands more!

President Bush is therefore completely on target in wanting intelligent design taught in the public school science curriculum.

Discovery Institute opposes any effort to mandate the teaching of design. All it is asking for is the teaching of scientific criticisms of modern Darwinian theory as well as the best evidence for the theory.

Sir Toejam: do you know why that particular difference exists?

"Theology just doesn't have any simple answers"

lol. too true, that.

hmm. intersting. so how much of the vitriol between american protestants and catholics is due to this difference? funny, i can't reacall any mention being made of it. for those that consider it worthwhile to take a fight all the way to the supreme court in order to maintain a copy of the "ten commandments" in front of their courthouse... one has to wonder just how important of an issue this would be. should catholics complain when protestant versions of the ten commandments are placed outside of courthouses...

curioser and curioser.

A bit closer to home, it is far from uncommon to see ID critics sanctimoniously bemoaning the immorality of ID supporters while engaging in deliberate prevarication, vicious and disgusting ad hominem attacks, and outright character assassination against people with whom they disagree. For example, what kind of malignant freakazoid is attracted to the above-linked filth regarding Senator Santorum, and how can this be characterized as an instance of "charity, kindness, tolerance and honesty"?

— neurode

when one hears a person complain or express trepidation about being victimized in his or her secular life due to his or her position on the ID-evolution controversy, one can be reasonably certain that he or she is an ID proponent.

Someone should wise Santorum up to this Vatican document, paragraph 69 of which contains this:

A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God's providential plan for creation.

Bayesian Bouffant wrote:

"Santorum is another Christian willing to obliterate the 9th commandment in defense of its author."

Assuming you mean the "bear false witness" Commandment, I am still giving Santorum the benefit of the doubt that he is being scammed, and not one of the scammers. But my doubt is fading fast. Either way, the scammers are not defending the author(s) of the Commandments, but Leo Strauss:

http://reason.com/9707/fe.bailey.shtml

I am still giving Santorum the benefit of the doubt that he is being scammed, and not one of the scammers. But my doubt is fading fast

The trouble with morals is that they break the rule of the twin magisteria. The Judaic religions are hot on the idea that God gave us morals, is very keen that we follow them and is liberal with both carrot and stick to keep us in line. Evolution says that humans are part of a continuum of biological development, that the morals we exhibit are part of our nature, and that they confer survival advantages. Morality - or if you prefer, social behaviour - is most definitely within the remit of primate biology, anthropology and so on.

The origins, purpose and nature of morals is going to be a battleground between science and religion, while they remain distinct fields. Theology is a subset of anthropology, and eventually that'll be universally agreed, but until then the defenders of the gods will be forced to make remarkable (and prima face false) statements such as "without religion, we'd have no morals" and "atheists are less moral than believers".

I might be an old hippy - scratch that: I am an old hippy - but I feel all morality flows from compassion, and compassion comes from smarts and mirror neurons.

Peace, love and neurotransmitters, man!

R

there's no meaningful distinction between the two

Note to Bayesian Bouffant: if he's Catholic, it's the eighth commandment. Catholics and Prods have different numbering schemes.

never heard that before. do you know why that particular difference exists? just curious

— Gerard Harbison

Pierce R. Butler wrote "[T]he short answer is that Catholics don't have much use for that "no graven images" stuff (imo a Good Thing, on balance, or we wouldn't have Michelangelo's statuary). So they dropped that rule, and split what the Protestants count as # 10 in two so as to Enron the final count.

LOL. Actually, the Catholics were here first, so you have your chronology exactly backwards...

It's not that the Catholics have no use for the "no graven images" stuff, but they see it as simply a specific application of the Commandment against worshipping false gods. The protestants see the "no graven images" as being separate from the first commandment. So they chose to make them two separate Commandments, but they then had to combine the 9th & 10th Commandments into one so as to avoid having "The Eleven Commandments."

So, if anyone here had to "Enron" the final count, it was the protestants.

Actually, the Catholics were here first

I've always wondered about the Jesus pics. Whenever I see someone with one of those little bronze crucifix statues in their home, or a picture of Jesus anywhere, I have to control the impulse to ask how they know he looked like that. I mean, if heaven exists, and most of these Christians go to it, they might be in for a surprise regarding their savior's appearance.

Greep: ...the Catholics were here first, so you have your chronology exactly backwards...

SEF & Pierce R. Butler:

My point was simply that Pierce's post read to me as if the Catholics took what the Protestants already had and edited it. But that is impossible, seeing as how the Protestants came after the Catholics. Nothing more.

Pragmatically, it doesn't make much difference. It's his responsibility to check he isn't being scammed. He's either too incompetent to do that, too lazy to do that or too dishonest to do that (because he's a willing accomplice to the scam). None of these possibilities make him a person whose opinion is worth having. Especially when more competent, more thorough and more honest people are available, eg scientists (on this particular matter anyway).

— SEF

In any case, human invention (or calculation) of morals would be insufficient to maintain or improve the condition of mankind. That would require the inculcation, dissemination, and enforcement of morals.

...

Advocating morals is one thing; upholding them in one's personal behavior is quite another.

— neurode

Comment #43964 Posted by NDT on August 19, 2005 12:53 PM (e) (s) neurode wrote: In any case, human invention (or calculation) of morals would be insufficient to maintain or improve the condition of mankind. That would require the inculcation, dissemination, and enforcement of morals. Advocating morals is one thing; upholding them in one's personal behavior is quite another.

ID Theorist Timmy said:

"I would also like to point out that not only are we ID supporters more ethical, we are better looking than you atheists. That's a fact, Jack."

I appreciate this was intended to be humorous. If it had been intended to be taken seriously, however, a maligned evolutionary science supporter might respond as follows: "better looking" is a largely subjective measure, but even if it were not, and even if some valid comparison of representative samples had been appropriately performed, and some "representative" ID figurehead (for example, the fairhaired and immodest Mr. Bill D.) had indeed been determined to be superficially more attractive than some champion of science (our cute and cuddly panda friend, for instance--you see how very unlikely and unrealistic this thought experiment has already become)...

...then I would still say that the surface appeal would not withstand any extended acquaintance: it's like the villain played by the good-looking young star of Wes Craven's new movie thriller Red Eye, any attraction rapidly palls as soon as one took character and behavior into account.

ID Theorist Timmy said:

"I would also like to point out that not only are we ID supporters more ethical, we are better looking than you atheists. That's a fact, Jack."

I appreciate this was intended to be humorous. If it had been intended to be taken seriously," however, a maligned evolutionary science supporter might respond as follows: better looking" is a largely subjective measure, but even if it were not, and even if some valid comparison of representative samples had been appropriately performed, and some "representative" ID figurehead (for example, the fairhaired and immodest Mr. Bill D.) had indeed been determined to be superficially more attractive than some champion of science (our cute and cuddly panda friend, for instance--you see how very unlikely and unrealistic this thought experiment has already become)...

...then I would still say that the surface appeal would not withstand any extended acquaintance: it's like the villain played by the good-looking young star of Wes Craven's new movie thriller Red Eye, any atrraction rapidly palls as soon as you take his character and behavior into account.

Very sorry for the double post, but the comment frame is behaving strangely--each time it in fact posted, I was taken to the "Page Cannot Be Found" negative zone...

david - i couldn't get to that link. is the site down?

To Russell and SEF:

No argument here that it is Santorum's responsibility to avoid being scammed. And he's had over 4 years of opportunity to figure it out. The fact that science-literate mainstream Christians and conservatives overwhelmingly oppose all anti-evolution strategies, including the designer-free phony "critical analysis," should have been the first clue.

david - i couldn't get to that link. is the site down?

Santorum is a conservative Catholic. The Pope has okayed evolution. All is well with it in Santorum's world.

sure about that? the previous pope ok'd evo too; didn't stop 'ol Santy from trying to ram through changes to the education act to encourage the teaching of creationism.

This Versteeg person dosn't seem to have a very good grasp of his topic, does he. "Evolution explains life as we know it pretty well." But not quite well enough.

For example, evolution fails to explain the origin of life, which would seem to be an integral part of any explanation of "life as we know it".

I'm certainly aware of no competent biologist who would make this claim, or support Versteeg in making it.

"Sen. Santorum effectively pulls the rug out from under all the intelligent design proponents who deny that they are peddling a form of creationism." A rug can be pulled out from under only those who are standing on it. Many of those sympathetic to ID are not standing on Santorum's rug; hence, despite Versteeg's gloating, they feel no loss of equilibrium. In fact, they don't know what Versteeg is talking about. (They are apparently in good company, for neither, apparently, does Versteeg.)

{snipped} In any case, human invention (or calculation) of morals would be insufficient to maintain or improve the condition of mankind. That would require the inculcation, dissemination, and enforcement of morals.

Advocating morals is one thing; upholding them in one's personal behavior is quite another.

For example, crooked politicians and other hypocrites are notorious for their (oftimes passionate) advocacy of moral behavior.

A bit closer to home, it is far from uncommon to see ID critics sanctimoniously bemoaning the immorality of ID supporters while engaging in deliberate prevarication, vicious and disgusting ad hominem attacks, and outright character assassination against people with whom they disagree.

For example, what kind of malignant freakazoid is attracted to the above-linked filth regarding Senator Santorum, and how can this be characterized as an instance of "charity, kindness, tolerance and honesty"?

I'm not saying that ID people are perfect; far from it.

What I'm saying is that when one hears a person complain or express trepidation about being victimized in his or her secular life due to his or her position on the ID-evolution controversy, one can be reasonably certain that he or she is an ID proponent. This alone suggests that the frequency of immoral behavior is skewed around the controversy in question.

OK then, Dave T. Kindly direct our attention to a single "reverse Sternberg" situation in which the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, or comparable body of secular authorities, has deplored the treatment of an ID critic by those vicious, bloodthirsty ID proponents.

I know the con, Dave. I've been reading these boards for a long time now, and I know exactly where one is likely to find the nastiest brand of commentary. Hypocrisy notwithstanding, so does everybody else, and it sure isn't at "Uncommon Descent".

(No, Russell. That bears no resemblance to what I actually said. However, it is true that a randomly chosen ID critic is more likely to be engaged in immoral activity toward somebody on the opposite side of the controversy, and that's a fact known to everybody with a browser.)

I think Santorum is a conservative catholic. He certainly is wacky - and it's good to call him out on this stuff.

Re "but they then had to combine the 9th & 10th Commandments into one so as to avoid having "The Eleven Commandments.""

Besides, the eleventh commandment is "thou shalt not get caught".

Re "For a person in a position of power, being exceedingly gullible is just as bad as lying."

If not more so.

Henry

Santorum is a conservative Catholic. The Pope has okayed evolution. All is well with it in Santorum's world.

I've seen postings of Mel's pop, indicating his thoughts on the holocaust, among other things... is there actually a site that documents the musings of the younger gibson?

I've seen postings of Mel's pop, indicating his thoughts on the holocaust, among other things... is there actually a site that documents the musings of the younger gibson?