ID FLunked: Are all Darwin Skeptics Religious Fundamentalists?

Another example of lies by the Discovery Institute.

As much as I beleive in freedom of speech, don't you think we can make a damning case for shutting down the "Evolution News and Views" website for willful acts of FRAUD against the public? Even testimony in a court of law that is falsified can result in the witness involved being charged with PURJURY, so freedom of speech is not absolute.

Technically I see it not as a lie but rather as 'bait and switch' or equivocation where 'darwin skeptic' and 'intelligent design' are to be interpreted as analogous. While Intelligent Design proponents are likely to be Darwin Skeptics, the reverse is hardly the case. In fact, the term Darwinism itself suggests that evolutionary science has not progressed since Darwin proposed his ideas over 150 years ago.
Crowther can always state that he was merely addressing the claim that Darwin deniers skeptics are religious fundamentalists, although, I have not seen this claim, nor the terminology much outside the ID "literature".

Some skeptics are indeed misinformed, but, all of the ones I've encountered pull their (mis)information from Creationist or ID sources.

You just have to go to the Discovery Institute claptrap and see how they have been selling Berlinski's involvement as a fellow of the Discovery Institute for years. Even though he has said things along the lines that he never bought into the intelligent design scam. Just look at how the Discovery Institute's propaganda has played up the participation of Jewish participants and agnostics at the institute. Berlinski is the only fellow that I know of that fits either description even if the Discovery Institute uses them dishonestly as the Discovery Institute having a broad religious base (Jews too as well as Christians) and also agnostics signing up. The same person cannot be used for both categories, and yet that is how they sell Berlinski. If they have another Jewish participant or agnostic who are they?

Since Berlinski came out and claimed that he had never bought into the ID claptrap after Ohio the only reason that they keep him around is for his propaganda value. There have been multiple times that I've seen the Discovery Institute's propaganda mention Jewish and agnostic fellows after Ohio, so who are these guys if they aren't all Berlinski?

Remember that IDologues are not limited to misquoting evolution supporters. They can misquote anyone. Exploitation of the increasingly senile Antony Flew comes to mind. Michael Denton has expressly denied permission for the DI to quote his earlier, anti-evolutionary works, but they continue to do so.

Where did you hear that Denton didn't want the Discovery Institute using his earlier bunk that he discarded?

I think that Denton has been the only senior fellow to have been given the ax or decided to call it quits. Didn't they only demoted Kenyon to fellow after the Pandas fiasco? Denton found out that the big tent didn't extend to supernatural designers that didn't fit the profile for the Christian god. I found the basket case review of his second book pretty amusing with the other Discovery Institute fellows taking their licks at it. The only reason to use Denton's first book for anything but toilet paper after he wrote his second book would be because people are still ignorant enough to fall for it. Fooling people is the business of the Discovery Institute, so I could see if Denton had some integrity that he'd try to get them to stop using it for dishonest propaganda purposes, but I've never heard of it.

Why Evolutionists Misportray All Opposition To Their Theory To Come From Fundamentalists

If Fundamentalism is the bad element in any given good (and it is); then the same corresponds to Atheist-evolutionism as well. Like their counterparts in Protestantism, they are the bad element of science conducting the same business on the opposite side of the street. Basic psychology teaches us that we overtly condemn that which we are covertly guilty of the most. Evolutionists constantly misportray all opposition to Darwinism to come from religious Fundamentalists. The point breaks down in that the slander of opposition to Darwinism is anything but covert, but the fact of correspondence to Fundamentalism remains intact.

I think evolutionary biology is like every other science in that there are those out there who are simply cranks and deny the mainstream science for whatever reasons they have that may have nothing to do with religion. Maybe they see themselves as mavericks, bucking the system and standing up to The Man. Or maybe they have something to sell that depends on demonizing the hated mainstream 'THEM'. Once emotionally and intellectually invested in a position they will invariably hang on to it at all cost. They may even use the exact same arguments as the religious fundies. The only difference being that the fundy will tack on "and therefore God", or "and therefore Intelligent Design" on the end, and they will not.

Why Evolutionists Misportray All Opposition To Their Theory To Come From Fundamentalists

— Ray

If Fundamentalism is the bad element in any given good (and it is); then the same corresponds to Atheist-evolutionism as well. Like their counterparts in Protestantism, they are the bad element of science conducting the same business on the opposite side of the street. Basic psychology teaches us that we overtly condemn that which we are covertly guilty of the most. Evolutionists constantly misportray all opposition to Darwinism to come from religious Fundamentalists. The point breaks down in that the slander of opposition to Darwinism is anything but covert, but the fact of correspondence to Fundamentalism remains intact.

Berlinski is a strange duck, annoyed by the attention Dawkins and others seem to be getting rather effortlessly. He also seems to have an attraction to mathematics.

read this interview for a glimpse at Berlinski. I believe that a simple observation explains most of his behavior: "He loves to hear himself talk".

From talkorigins.org: Many scientists reject evolution and support creationism. Source: Morris, Henry. 1980. The ICR scientists. Impact 86 (Aug.). http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=163 Response: Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

PvM: Berlinski is a strange duck, annoyed by the attention Dawkins and others seem to be getting rather effortlessly. He also seems to have an attraction to mathematics. read this interview for a glimpse at Berlinski. I believe that a simple observation explains most of his behavior: "He loves to hear himself talk".

Wow, I keep coming here hoping to learn some decent science, but I am so often dissappointed. The original post misses Crowther's original point: as a Darwin skeptic, he is attacked by Darwinists as a religious conservative. The fact that he is against ID, as vM points out, makes these attacks MORE ridiculous not less so. Is the best response to this fact really to criticize ID proponents for not including his criticisms of ID in their article?

Let's look at the comments to see if Crowther's is warranted in feeling that those who don't believe in Darwin are the victims of silly ad hominem attacks. PvM thinks his is an "odd duck." Dale thinks Darwin critics should be silenced for fraud. Stanton is generous as characterizing Crowthers as only "misinformed," like other poor victims of those evil ID folks. From Okimoto's viewpoint, it seems all about the Jews, for some reason. According to Orlorin, Flew must be senile. To Dave S, anyone who doesn't agree with mainstream Darwinism is a crank. I am not sure what the heck Ray is saying, but in responding to him, PvM says, "How is calling the opposition Christian fundamentalist a slander? The truth can never be slander remember?" Doesn't this statement prove Crowther's point that Darwinists are mistaken in thinking that all opposition is from Christian fundamentalists?

Come on guys! What are rational people with questions about Darwin (raised by ID or elsewhere) going to think when they come to this site looking for insight? You expect this kind of stuff from IDers, but they increasingly come across as wanting to talk about the science, while every time I come here, I am disappointed in the level of discourse. Rather than call Flew "senile," address the points he makes about his conversion. Say something (other than they are cranks and misinformed) about why some respected mathematicians and physicists are not buying Darwin. Something that starts with the admission that we still have a lot to learn about the process. The science is about coming up with better explanations and theories, not defending any current theory by attacking its critics. In posting this, I realize that I am going to be attacked, but really, think about it a little.

Gary creo lying as usual: Say something (other than they are cranks and misinformed) about why some respected mathematicians and physicists are not buying Darwin.

False premise.

He also seems to have an attraction to mathematics.

Gary, I can only say if you think that the scientists and informed laymen here have just been using ad hominem attacks on ID supporters, you're mistaken. There have been many patient, point-by-point refutations of pro-ID/creationist postings.

From the other side, I have seen a great unwillingness to respond to direct, repeated requests for evidence of ID, erection of straw men and appeals to authority and ignorance. It is not surprising that some posters get angry at such evasiveness.

You expect this kind of stuff from IDers, but they increasingly come across as wanting to talk about the science, while every time I come here, I am disappointed in the level of discourse.

Berlinski Wrote: “If I thought that intelligent design, or any artful contrivance like it, explained anything in any depth, I would leap to the cannon’s mouth and say so. I do not and I did not.” For the record: I do not believe that theories of intelligent design explain those features of living systems that Darwin’s theory of evolution fails to explain. And vice-versa.

Wikipedia Berlinski: Intelligent design An outspoken critic of evolution, Berlinski is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a Seattle-based think-tank that is hub of the intelligent design movement. The scientific community, however, regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3] The ruling in the 2005 Dover case held that intelligent design is a form of creationism[4] and that the intelligent design movement is a political rather than scientific movement. Berlinski denies believing in intelligent design,[citation needed], but is a scathing critic of "Darwinism", the term used in the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns for evolution. [3] Though the Discovery Institute portrays Berlinski as a scholarly writer and "mathematician,"[5] Mark Perakh, a critic of the intelligent design movement, contends that Berlinski's writings are not scientific, but popular, and that Berlinski "has no known record of his own contribution to the development of mathematics or of any other science."[6] Berlinski, along with fellow Discovery Institute associates Michael Behe and William A. Dembski, tutored Ann Coulter on science and evolution for her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism.[7] Approximately one-third of the book is devoted to polemical attacks on evolution, which Coulter, as Berlinski often does, terms "Darwinism". Berlinski was a longtime friend of the late Marcel-Paul Schützenberger (1920-1996), with whom he collaborated on an unfinished and unpublished mathematical polemic that he described as being "devoted to the Darwinian theory of evolution."[8] Berlinski dedicated The Advent of the Algorithm to Schutzenberger. In a 2006 DVD, Berlinski made the statement:[9] The interesting argument about the whale, which is a mammal after all, is that if its origins where[sic] land-based originally…what do you have to do from an engineering point of view to change a cow into a whale?...Virtually every feature of the cow has to change, has to be adapted.

Wow, I keep coming here hoping to learn some decent science

...those who don’t believe in Darwin...Darwinists...Darwinism...

(speaking of Crowther) PvM thinks his is an “odd duck.”

Dale thinks Darwin critics should be silenced for fraud.

Stanton is generous as characterizing Crowthers as only “misinformed,” like other poor victims of those evil ID folks.

From Okimoto’s viewpoint, it seems all about the Jews, for some reason.

To Dave S, anyone who doesn’t agree with mainstream Darwinism is a crank.

I am not sure what the heck Ray is saying

Tens of thousands believe that Xenu the Galactic Overlord dumped billions of Thetan ghosts on our world and they have been haunting us ever since.

Wow, I keep coming here hoping to learn some decent science, but I am so often dissappointed. The original post misses Crowther’s original point: as a Darwin skeptic, he is attacked by Darwinists as a religious conservative. The fact that he is against ID, as vM points out, makes these attacks MORE ridiculous not less so. Is the best response to this fact really to criticize ID proponents for not including his criticisms of ID in their article? Let’s look at the comments to see if Crowther’s is warranted in feeling that those who don’t believe in Darwin are the victims of silly ad hominem attacks. PvM thinks his is an “odd duck.”

— Gary

Come on guys! What are rational people with questions about Darwin (raised by ID or elsewhere) going to think when they come to this site looking for insight? You expect this kind of stuff from IDers, but they increasingly come across as wanting to talk about the science, while every time I come here, I am disappointed in the level of discourse. Rather than call Flew “senile,” address the points he makes about his conversion.

wikipedia: Xenu. Xenu (also Xemu), pronounced ['zi.nu:], according to Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, was the dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, brought billions[1] of his people to Earth in DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs. Scientology holds that their essences remained, and that they form around people in modern times, causing them spiritual harm.[2][3] These events are known to Scientologists as "Incident II", and the traumatic memories associated with them as The Wall of Fire. The story of Xenu is part of Scientologist teachings on extraterrestrial civilizations and alien interventions in Earthly events, collectively described as space opera by Hubbard. Hubbard detailed the story in Operating Thetan level III (OT III) in 1967, warning that this material was "calculated to kill (by pneumonia etc) anyone who attempts to solve it."[sic]

Tens of thousands believe that Xenu the Galactic Overlord dumped billions of Thetan ghosts on our world and they have been haunting us ever since.

You can get rid of them for $50,000

Re Berlinski

It should be pointed out that Dr. Berlinski is not, repeat not a mathematician. His PhD is in philosophy. Somehow, the false impression that his PhD is in mathematics has gotten about. There has been discussion on this point on both Jason Rosenhouses' blog and on Larry Morans' blog. In particular, it appears that Dr. Berlinski, despite having received his PhD some 40 years ago has never had a paper published in a peer reviewed mathematics journal.

Re Ron Okimoto

I believe that a gentleman named David Klinghoffer, who is Jewish, is also a Discovery Institute fellow.

Gary : Dale thinks Darwin critics should be silenced for fraud.

Dale Husband: Another example of lies by the Discovery Institute. As much as I beleive in freedom of speech, don't you think we can make a damning case for shutting down the "Evolution News and Views" website for willful acts of FRAUD against the public? Even testimony in a court of law that is falsified can result in the witness involved being charged with PURJURY, so freedom of speech is not absolute.

SLC, I went to the DI web site and David Klinghoffer is not listed as a fellow or senior fellow. Some of the articles lists him as a senior fellow and some don't. You can bring up a lot of articles by him all except one after 2005. Berlinski and the ID propaganda has been going on about since the Discovery Institute's CRSC creationist scam outfit was founded. He does seem to be an ID advocate. In the couple articles that I scanned he writes like any other Christian fundy. He is just less direct in advocating his falsehoods and accusations. Someone like Philip Johnson on a good day. If he is or was a senior fellow he seems to have signed on just in time to get kicked in the teeth by Dover.

I can't imagine what it would be like to sign on with a bunch of totally incompetent and or dishonest creationist scam artists just in time to be publically exposed along with them.

To Dave S, anyone who doesn’t agree with mainstream Darwinism is a crank.

Gary says,
"Wow, I keep coming here hoping to learn some decent science, but I am so often dissappointed [sic]."

Uh huh. And then he goes on for three paragraphs about personalities. Now, why isn't he over on one of the more scientifically-oriented threads, discussing science?

Action speak louder than words, kiddo.

Maybe Gary should go to Uncommon Descent to view all the threads there the discuss the scientific theory of intelligent design.

Wait a sec...there aren't any.

Hey Gary, it's been 24 hours since you posted your whine. There have been 8 (by my count) responses addressed directly to you. Any response, or are you admitting that you're just a troll?

Sorry GvlGeologist FCD for not responding sooner. Now that I am here I see from the posts that I am a "creo," a "liar," a "troll," guilty of various spelling and gramatically errors, and, in trying to give you a sense of what I was reading, guilty of not quoting you all exactly and in complete context. I asked whether or not we can raise the level of discourse above name-calling and the response to this request is more name calling. Wright, in what may be the only response that isn't name-calling, says, correctly, that people do discuss ID issues on a point-by-point basis. They do--elsewhere--but my post addressed the level of discussion here and how it looks. My mistake. You don't want to hear it. I get it.

No, you don't get it. We are sick of intellectually dishonest bullshit, and the charlatens and trolls that produce it. Don't want to get treated like them? Then don't make statements like "[IDers] increasingly come across as wanting to talk about the science", which is the kind of claim that could only come from someone who is lying, or ignorant of the discussions that have gone on here.

Want to talk about some science? Fine, raise your issues. You'll be amazed how different the response is.

I'm extremely worried that the level of discourse here at PT is being dragged down by all the concern trolling.

Gary,
In my first post about your original posting:
I implied your posting was BS. I then went point by point to support that:

Of the 8 points of your post that I addressed,

I suggested ways that you could rectify your ignorance. In the same part, I gave historical reasons why the "level of discourse" can occasionally be harsh - that the points made by creationists and IDists have previously been refuted, yet continue to be made.

I pointed out that you were using incorrect, and loaded, terms.

I held you to the same standard that other scientific writers are held to - correct referents, correct quoting, and good grammar. If you think that's harsh, you should see some of the peer reviews I've received in the past. I pointed out that these problems bother me in posts made that I agree with.

I pointed out 3 places in your post where your interpretations were incorrect. I implied that it might be deliberate on your part, because these misinterpretations are consistent with typical creationist behavior.

I agreed with you twice.

------------------------------------------

When you say things that are demonstrably untrue, you have to expect to be called a liar. When you use the same classic arguments and terminology as creationists, you have to expect to be called a creationist. When you do it in typical troll-like fashion, you have have to be called a troll.

Prove us wrong. Elevate the level of discourse by educating yourself about these topics from scientific sources. Don't use arguments that have been thoroughly discredited elsewhere. Don't use loaded and incorrect terms to address the people you say you are trying to reach. Do it all in a literate and accurate fashion. And address the points that people make about your own posts, instead of complaining that people are being rude to you unnecessarily.

The closest I came to "name-calling" is when I said your post was BS. Prove it wasn't. Educate yourself, get over your hurt feelings and address the criticisms made about your posts in a mature and honest fashion, and you will find that you'll be treated better in this posting board.

Oh, and one more thing. If you think the "level of discourse" here is so bad, go over to UD and try raising theirs. See what happens if you complain to DaveScott or any other of the moderators about name calling.

Oh, that's right, you think they talk about science there. Ask about "street theater" or farts and see how far it gets you.

you have have to be called a troll

Gary the lying creo troll: They do–elsewhere–but my post addressed the level of discussion here and how it looks. My mistake. You don’t want to hear it. I get it.

wikipedia: An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum or group with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response.

Oooh, I called Gary 'kiddo.' I feel sooo guilty!!!

I've been called 'uneducated' 'moron' and a few other things on this site. And my interests, the history and sociology of science, are a little tangential to the main interests of a lot of the posters here.

But, ya know, I don't waste much time reacting every time I'm insulted or misunderstood. If Gary wants to discuss science instead of getting involved in flame wars, here's a simple tip-- DISCUSS SCIENCE, ALREADY.

In my experience, posters here who ask polite questions about evolution are inundated with helpful responses. Try it some time, Gary. (Unless, of course, you're more interested in being flamed so you can play the Christian martyr.)