Forrest Responds to Beckwith

Posted 10 May 2009 by Guest Contributor

by Barbara Forrest, http://www.creationismstrojanhorse.com/ Francis Beckwith has communicated to me via e-mail (May 3, 2009) his disagreement with my referring to him as an "ID supporter" in the abstract of my recently published paper entitled "The Non-epistemology of Intelligent Design: Its Implications for Public Policy," Synthese, April 15, 2009. (See also Tim Sandefur's post in response to Beckwith's complaints about Sandefur's classifying him as a creationist.) Here is the abstract:

Intelligent design creationism (ID) is a religious belief requiring a supernatural creator's interventions in the natural order. ID thus brings with it, as does supernatural theism by its nature, intractable epistemological difficulties. Despite these difficulties and despite ID's defeat in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), ID creationists' continuing efforts to promote the teaching of ID in public school science classrooms threaten both science education and the separation of church and state guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. I examine the ID movement's failure to provide either a methodology or a functional epistemology to support their supernaturalism, a deficiency that consequently leaves them without epistemic support for their creationist claims. My examination focuses primarily on ID supporter Francis Beckwith, whose published defenses of teaching ID, as well as his other relevant publications concerning education, law, and public policy, have been largely exempt from critical scrutiny. Beckwith's work exhibits the epistemological deficiencies of the supernaturally grounded views of his ID associates and of supernaturalists in general. I preface my examination of Beckwith's arguments with (1) philosopher of science Susan Haack's clarification of the established naturalistic methodology and epistemology of science and (2) discussions of the views of Beckwith's ID associates Phillip Johnson and William Dembski. Finally, I critique the religious exclusionism that Beckwith shares with his ID associates and the implications of his exclusionism for public policy. source

My assessment of Dr. Beckwith as an ID supporter stands with the evidence, which is substantial. His published work, both as a fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture and as a scholar, seemed to have received comparatively little scrutiny---less than that of anyone who has been prominently involved with the Discovery Institute; this was an important gap that needed to be filled in the critical scholarship concerning intelligent design creationism. Close scrutiny of his published work and his actions shows that his denials are not the least bit believable. For the better part of a decade, he has rendered logistical support to the Discovery Institute's promotion of intelligent design through his published work stating that teaching ID is constitutional. (For the record, it should be noted that Dr. Beckwith is neither a lawyer nor, properly speaking, a constitutional scholar. See Forrest, Synthese, pp. 3-4. All page references are to the online pdf edition.) In fact, as recently as 2007---after the Kitzmiller verdict---in his article, "Intelligent Design, Religious Motives, and the Constitution's Religion Clauses," he went even further when he stated that ID could constitutionally be not only permitted but required:

. . . I do not think [intelligent design] can be constitutionally prohibited from the public-school classroom. . . . . . . [I]t is incorrect to think of ID as "stealth creationism," as some, including Judge [John] Jones have labeled it. . . . [T]his word creationism is a term of art in constitutional law that refers to a belief that a literal interpretation of Genesis's first thirteen chapters is true. . . . [See note 1 below.] Because ID arguments do not contain Genesis and its tenets as propositions, and because ID advocates build their cases from inferences that rely on empirical facts and conceptual notions, ID does not run afoul of the U.S. Constitution. Of course, the cases for ID may indeed fail as arguments, but that is not a violation of the establishment clause. [See note 2 below.] As a matter of policy, I believe there are good reasons why a public school should not require the teaching of ID. Nevertheless, there are no good constitutional reasons to prohibit a teacher from teaching it or a school board from permitting or requiring it. [bold underlining added; italics in original] (Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski & Michael Ruse in Dialogue, ed. Robert Stewart, Fortress Press 2007, pp. 90, 94) [Note 1: Beckwith's narrow, legalistic definition of creationism is incorrect, as I note in Synthese, p. 18. I am indebted for this point to Prof. Steven Gey, who, unlike Beckwith, is both an attorney and a constitutional scholar.] [Note 2: Beckwith conveniently fails to mention that ID is based on the New Testament Gospel of John, which I also point out in Synthese, pp. 9--10. In addition, his description of ID as consisting of inferences based on "empirical facts and conceptual notions" differs very little from the description that Michael Behe repeatedly offered on the witness stand in the Kitzmiller trial.]

Even more recently, on February 4, 2009, Beckwith showed up in Louisiana (see below), promoting the ideas in this 2007 article. However, his position that teaching ID is constitutional is not new, as I also point out in my Synthese article (p. 15):

In Law, Darwinism, and Public Education, aimed at the mainstream audience, [Beckwith] invokes the U.S. Supreme Court's mandate of religious neutrality by the state in Epperson v. Arkansas (1968), which struck down an Arkansas law against teaching evolution, as "the strongest argument to allow (or perhaps require) . . .ID to be taught in public educational institutions" (Beckwith 2003b, p. 13). In the Christian Research Journal, an apologetics journal for the popular audience, he is totally forthright: "To require or permit the teaching of ID in public schools . . .is constitutional" (Beckwith 2003a, p. 1). [emphasis added]

All of the tendentious, incorrect points that Beckwith serves up in defense of ID have been dissected many times over both in my work and the work of other scholars and scientists, not to mention Judge John Jones, whose opinion in the Dover case Beckwith presumes to analyze in his 2007 article. (See an earlier analysis of Beckwith's claims in Brauer, Forrest, and Gey, "Is It Science Yet? Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution," Washington University Law Quarterly, Spring 2005.) As I have shown in great detail, the substance of Beckwith's substantial body of published work belies his claim that he is not an ID supporter:

In short, although Beckwith asserts that "my primary concern . . .is not with the soundness or persuasive power of the scientific and philosophical arguments of ID proponents" (Beckwith 2003b, p. xxii) but with the question of ID's constitutionality, he presents ID exactly as ID leaders do--their arguments are his arguments, restated without hedge or criticism." Synthese, p. 16

Moreover, his claim to be nothing more than a disinterested constitutional analyst of the question of whether ID can be taught in public schools is at odds not only with his words but his actions.

Beckwith was a fellow at the Discovery Institute's creationist Center for Science and Culture from 2000-2007. He had his name removed in July 2007 only after an earlier article that I wrote highlighted his involvement in the ID movement. (See Barbara Forrest, "Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals," Center for Inquiry, July 2007. Beckwith also complained about this article. See my response in the appendix, pp. 31-33.)
From 2002-2003, he served on the advisory board of Casey Luskin's IDEA [Intelligent Design & Evolution Awareness] Center, for which a requirement was then and still is that advisors must "take a pro-intelligent design perspective to their academic and professional work" and "share . . . a . . . belief in the scientific merit of intelligent design theory . . . and a commitment to promoting a better understanding of these issues to the public." (Forrest, Synthese, pp.14-15. See also the IDEA Center website.)
In July 2003, Beckwith testified before the Texas Board of Education during the much-publicized textbook selection process, into which the Discovery Institute inserted itself. Although he claimed not to be representing the Discovery Institute (see note 3 below), he was on the roster of fellows at the time, and his testimony---right down to his thinly veiled, laudatory remarks about the "scholars" who have raised "critical questions . . . about aspects of evolutionary theory in general and neo-Darwinism in particular"---was nothing more than an apologia for the Discovery Institute's effort to influence the content of state biology textbooks, as even a snippet of Beckwith's testimony shows:
According to TEKS [Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills], students should be taught how to, quote, analyze, review and critique scientific explanations including hypotheses and theories as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information, unquote. . . . I am here to make the modest suggestion that this principle be applied to the contents of textbooks that cover the subjects of biological and chemical evolution, that these textbooks appropriately convey to students some of the critical questions raised about aspects of evolutionary theory in general and neo-Darwinism in particular. These questions have been raised by scholars who have had their works published by prestigious presses, academic journals, have aired their views among critics in the corridors of major universities and other institutions and have been recognized by leading periodicals both academic and non-academic. They are affiliated with a number of institutions, including the University of Texas, Texas A&M and Baylor. Francis Beckwith to Texas Board of Education, July 2003, pp. 23-26
The academic affiliations that Beckwith mentions are references to DI fellows such as Robert Koons (UT-Austin), Walter Bradley (Texas A & M), and, of course, William Dembski, who was still at Baylor in 2003. [Note 3: For Beckwith's denial that he was representing the Discovery Institute, see the National Center for Science Education.]
Beckwith has written no fewer than five major pieces of work, one of them a book, arguing for the constitutionality of teaching ID. The most prominent feature of his arguments in these writings is that he has swallowed whole the Discovery Institute creationists' own rationale for their promotion of ID as science. See, for example, these articles:
1. Beckwith, F. J. (2003). Public education, religious establishment, and the challenge of intelligent design. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, & Public Policy, 17(2), 461-519.
2. Beckwith, F. J. (2003). Science and religion twenty years after McLean v. Arkansas: Evolution, public education, and the new challenge of intelligent design. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 26(2), 455-499.
3. The introduction of his book, Law, Darwinism, and Public Education (Rowman & Littlefield 2003), includes a virtual hagiography of the accomplishments of his Discovery Institute colleagues (pp. xiii-xvii). DI provided Beckwith with a $9,000 fellowship to work on this book. (See introduction, p. xi, and "Curriculum Vitae: Francis J. Beckwith".)
(See bibliography, Forrest, Synthese, p. 45).
Not only has Beckwith provided support to the Discovery Institute's promotion of ID for the better part of a decade, but he continues to do so even today. On February 4, 2009, in the company of Darrell White, an operative with the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF), which is an affiliate of Focus on the Family, Beckwith was at the Southern University Law Center in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to give a talk with the same title as his 2007 article, "Intelligent Design, Religious Motives, and the Constitution's Religion Clauses." The talk was sponsored by the student chapter of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal society with chapters on many university campuses. In 2008, the LFF spearheaded the push to get the Louisiana Science Education Act passed; the legislation was introduced by a state senator on the LFF's behalf. The writing and passage of this law were a joint project of the LFF and the Discovery Institute. DI is heavily invested in Louisiana as a result of its being the first, and so far the only, state to pass a version of DI's "academic freedom" legislation. Casey Luskin and Caroline Crocker (of Expelled fame) appeared at the Louisiana State Capitol on May 21, 2008, where Crocker testified in favor of the bill before the Louisiana House Education Committee. DI fellow David DeWolf helped craft the legislation. (See DI's interview of DeWolf, "David DeWolf on the Louisiana Academic Freedom Bill," June 13, 2008.) Three weeks before Beckwith's visit to Baton Rouge, Darrell White, along with LFF executive director Rev. Gene Mills, had convinced the Louisiana State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to gut the board's policy implementing the 2008 Louisiana Science Education Act by striking out a section of the policy that prohibited the teaching of creationism, ID, and the supernatural creation of humankind. (See Barbara Forrest, "Louisiana Open for Business--Creationists Welcome," Louisiana Coalition for Science, January 25, 2009.) During Beckwith's talk, in which he was essentially reading chunks of his 2007 article, interspersed with extemporaneous commentary, he offered a definition of intelligent design that he contended "differs from both factions in this debate" (recording, February 4, 2009). Whereas, he said, "intelligent design advocates want to make the argument that intelligent design theory is science," the "other side" wants to say "no, it's not science, it's religion." According to Beckwith, "it doesn't matter," since "for me, it's a question of whether arguments work or not. What you call it doesn't really matter." For Beckwith, ID is "a shorthand name for a cluster of arguments that offer a variety of cases that attempt to show by reasoning unaccompanied by religious authority or sacred scripture that intelligent agency rather than unguided matter best accounts for apparently natural phenomena or the universe as a whole." He continued: "Some of these arguments challenge aspects of neo-Darwinism. That is to say, they don't think the Darwinian account of the development and the origin of species is in fact correct. Others make the case for a universe designed at its outset, and thus do not challenge any theory of biological evolution. [He attempted at this point to include ID critic Kenneth Miller as an intelligent design supporter.] . . . Nevertheless, they all have in common the notion that the human intellect has the capacity to acquire knowledge of or at least have rational warrant to believe in the inference that mind rather than non-mind best accounts for some apparently natural phenomena or the universe as a whole." He asserted that "a good way to understand what I mean by ID" is "to contrast it with its polar opposite, the view that extra-natural agency is unnecessary in order to account for the order and nature of things." So here---in typical Beckwith-speak, in which he studiously avoids the term "supernatural" by using euphemisms such as "extra-natural"---we have his definition of ID. According to Beckwith, a good way to understand ID is to view it as the opposite of a naturalistic account of the world, i.e., a supernatural account of the world. And how is this different from the way the creationists at the Discovery Institute view it? The answer is that it isn't. The entire ID project rests on the rejection of the naturalistic explanations of modern science in favor of supernatural ("extra-natural") ones. Moreover, Beckwith's definition of ID on February 4, 2009, in Baton Rouge, LA, is essentially the same as it was in 2003, when he wrote an article for the Christian Research Journal arguing that "To require or permit the teaching of ID in public schools, nevertheless, is constitutional." In order to make this case, he then wrote, "we must first define creation, evolution, and intelligent design." Not only is his 2003 definition of ID the same one that the creationists at the Discovery Institute use, but he actually gives a nod to them, i.e., a "small, though growing, platoon of academics." Here he has defined ID in essentially the same way he defined it in Baton Rouge:
Intelligent Design. Intelligent design is a research program. A small, though growing, platoon of academics embraces this program and maintains that, rather than the blind forces of unguided matter, an intelligent agency better explains the specified, and sometimes irreducible, complexity of some physical systems. These systems include biological entities as well as the existence of the universe as a whole. Francis Beckwith, "Intelligent Design in the Schools: Is It Constitutional?" Christian Research Journal 25 (4), 2003
One of Beckwith's hallmark techniques is to use verbal sleight-of-hand to make a distinction without a difference, apparently hoping that his use of euphemisms such as "extra-natural" are not subjected to close scrutiny (or possibly assuming that his audiences/readers are not capable of picking up on this). At this point in his talk, after prefacing his remarks in this fashion, Beckwith offered the view that has been integral to his logistical support of the ID movement: "I think it's incorrect to think of intelligent design as 'stealth creationism,' as some, including Judge Jones, have labeled it." There was only one reason for him to say this in the state that had just passed legislation intended to permit the teaching of intelligent design. (See Barbara Forrest, "Analysis of SB 733: 'LA Science Education Act,'" Louisiana Coalition for Science.) The complete context of Beckwith's lecture is available in his 2007 article, but he omitted from his Baton Rouge talk the statement that concludes this section of his article: "As a matter of policy, I believe there are good reasons why a public school should not require the teaching of ID." And in the very next sentence, he writes, "Nevertheless, there are no good constitutional reasons to prohibit a teacher from teaching it or a school board from permitting or requiring it" (p. 94). (bold underlining added)

Beckwith's attempt in his Baton Rouge talk to distance himself from the ID movement, and now his protestations about being called an ID supporter, are merely an attempt to perpetuate his charade as a disinterested scholar concerning ID. It was no coincidence that, barely three weeks after the Louisiana State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education gutted its policy so as to create an opening for teaching ID, he appeared in Baton Rouge to deliver a lecture in which he argued that ID is not "stealth creationism," a statement taken verbatim from an article in which he argues that not only permitting but requiring ID in public schools is constitutional. There were only two possible beneficiaries of Beckwith's visit: the creationists at the LA Family Forum and the Discovery Institute, who are the only ones with anything invested in this piece of legislation. Beckwith wants to have his cake and eat it, too. On the one hand, over a period of almost ten years (given the February 2009 talk in Baton Rouge, it's fair to include the present), he wants to publish articles and a book and make public appearances that any reasonable person would interpret as pro-ID, while on the other hand, he wants to deny that he is an ID supporter. But he doesn't get to have it both ways. As Tim Sandefur noted in his response, at the very least, if one lies down with dogs, one gets up with fleas. Does Beckwith really think that he could do these things and no one would ever comment on them? His writings and actions are what they are, and he now must live with them.

97 Comments

Ichthyic · 10 May 2009

Beckwith offered the view that has been integral to his logistical support of the ID movement: "I think it's incorrect to think of intelligent design as 'stealth creationism,' as some, including Judge Jones, have labeled it."

seems to me that Beckwith himself is trying to exemplify the "stealth" creationist, and doing exactly as well as one might expect.

Gary Hurd · 10 May 2009

This write-up alone explains why the defense attorneys in Kitzmiller v Dover were so desperate to block the testimony from Prof. Forest.

Thanks for your contribution.

bigjohn756 · 10 May 2009

Well, I guess that Beckwith will have no problems with constipation now that he has an additional new hole to use.

Mike Elzinga · 10 May 2009

Well, here we are back to the old exegesis, hermeneutics, etymology, and endless word-gaming again.

Whenever one sees such agonizing word-gaming, one can almost always recognize the mental milieu in which the gamer was raised; namely the same cradle in which creationism is fed and nurtured. It is the same haven to which all such con artists gravitate. It is where the most gullible rubes congregate and drink from the same sewer of paranoia, persecuted martyrdom, and fear of “The Enemy”.

It is simply another identifying characteristic of pseudo-science; and it sharply contrasts with the evidence-based thinking of science.

All one has to do to see the sleaze of Beckwith’s arguments it to apply it to the existence, say, of California. One can play infinite word games and cite the philosophers and holy books to make the argument that it doesn’t exist because its existence is inconsistent with the holy book. And if you come from that cradle of thinking, actually going to California and walking around there is incomprehensible (and not allowed).

Timothy Sandefur · 10 May 2009

An excellent post. And it suggests a more fundamental point. All of ID is euphemism--so it's unsurprising that Beckwith would be so focused on words instead of the things they stand for. Of course, the connections between magic and linguistic tricks like euphemism is a very deep one. Many anthropologists have observed that magic is largely, if not entirely an effort to find a linguistic key which will unlock nature and make it obey language. The power of the word, of magic words, of logos--supernaturalism's parallel with language and finding the right terminology is a deep one. And note also how Beckwith's fellow members of the extreme religious right, who blog together at What's Wrong With The World, are so fixated on dazzling readers with their vocabulary; e.g.: http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2009/05/unseen_chasms_of_perdition.html. George Orwell very famously observed the technique of political euphemsism and intentional bureaucratic obscurity in "Politics and The English Language" (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm). But what he said there is almost equally applicable to religion and to the conflict between ID and science:

When one watches some tired hack on the platform mechanically repeating the familiar phrases...one often has a curious feeling that one is not watching a live human being but some kind of dummy: a feeling which suddenly becomes stronger at moments when the light catches the speaker's spectacles and turns them into blank discs which seem to have no eyes behind them. And this is not altogether fanciful. A speaker who uses that kind of phraseology has gone some distance toward turning himself into a machine. The appropriate noises are coming out of his larynx, but his brain is not involved as it would be if he were choosing his words for himself. If the speech he is making is one that he is accustomed to make over and over again, he may be almost unconscious of what he is saying, as one is when one utters the responses in church. And this reduced state of consciousness, if not indispensable, is at any rate favorable to [religious] conformity.

raven · 10 May 2009

George Orwell very famously observed the technique of political euphemsism and intentional bureaucratic obscurity

Orwell summarized it well. Doublespeak, doublethink, thoughtcrime. Beckwith seems to have decided that the book, 1984, is a how to manual rather than a dystopia. This is becoming more and more common. War is peace, freedom is slavery, Intelligent Design is science, science is religion.

raven · 10 May 2009

Beckwith at least in the excerpts quoted above makes a comon and typical error that is really a lie.

Creationism and its stealth version, ID, aren't xian doctrines or dogmas. Most xians worldwide don't have a problem with evolution. Creationism/ID is a cult belief of some sects of xianity.

The moderate xians, of which there are a few but getting fewer, really dropped the ball when they let guys like Beckwith and Dembski pretend to speak for all xians.

Joe McFaul · 11 May 2009

And in this comment at What's Wrong With The World, he pretty clearly sets out his thinking, which is straight unadulterated Intelligent Design and consequent rejection of the scientific method:

There are two ways one can think of this. One the one hand, one could say that "agency" cannot count as a scientific explanation. But that would mean that a better explanation for a phenomenon in some cases is a non-scientific one. Thus, so much the worse for science's prestige as the epistemological king of the hill. On the other hand, there seem to be scientific disciplines in which agency is a legitimate explanation, e.g., forensic science, archaeology, psychology, political science (e.g., rational choice theory). So, if we accept the latter, why not think that an agent sufficiently powerful to bring universes into existence did so?

For me, the question of what counts as science is a non-starter. The question is what counts as knowledge. And if it turns out that we can have a warrant to believe we know that an explanation is true, and that explanation is an agent, and science does not include agency among its explanations, then science is not the only (or even best) way we know things in all cases. The problem arises, however, when someone offers a non-agent account and claims that it is de facto superior because such an account is "science." In that case, the question is begged because the person offering this account is ignoring possible better explanations based on a metaphysical litmus test. Who would want that state of affairs?

http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2009/02/aquinas_v_intelligent_design.html#comment-48039

fnxtr · 11 May 2009

On the other hand, there seem to be scientific disciplines in which agency is a legitimate explanation, e.g., forensic science, archaeology, psychology, political science (e.g., rational choice theory). So, if we accept the latter, why not think that an agent sufficiently powerful to bring universes into existence did so?

What a fucking moron. Someone should introduce the word "evidence" into this Aristotlean mindwanker's vocabulary.

386sx · 11 May 2009

raven said: Doublespeak, doublethink, thoughtcrime.

I prefer to use the word "euphemism" as a euphemism for those.

Timothy Sandefur · 11 May 2009

Aristotelian! I must protest in defense of old Arry's reputation. Aristotle would laugh his ass off at Beckwith.

386sx · 11 May 2009

fnxtr said: Someone should introduce the word "evidence" into this Aristotlean mindwanker's vocabulary.

Or, as Mr. Beckwith would say, a "warrant to believe". I guess the word "evidence" must have escaped him for a moment when he was writing that. It looks like he chose "warrant to believe" instead.

Ichthyic · 11 May 2009

On the other hand, there seem to be scientific disciplines in which agency is a legitimate explanation, e.g., forensic science, archaeology, psychology, political science (e.g., rational choice theory). So, if we accept the latter, why not think that an agent sufficiently powerful to bring universes into existence did so?

the asshat stole my argument and inverted it.

I've been comparing ID to archeology for years, and saying that all the IDiots have to do is interview their putative designer so we can all know how it supposedly operates and interacts with he natural world. Then they can finally create a legitimate ID hypothesis.

Now, all they have to do is track down the mutha for an interview, and...

what?

you say your designer is immaterial?

oh dear.

novparl · 11 May 2009

@ fnxtr

"What a f-g moron". As usual on P's Th, the language is of a high order.

Wolfhound · 11 May 2009

And low order troll's concern over naughty words is noted.

Paul Burnett · 11 May 2009

Barbara Forrest said: Beckwith was a fellow at the Discovery Institute’s creationist Center for Science and Culture from 2000-2007.

It is even more telling to recall that when Beckwith joined, it was called the "Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture." The name wasn't changed until 2002. Beckwith and his fellows wanted to "renew" American culture by taking it back to the pre-scientific dark ages of ignorance and intolerance. In relation to Beckwith and all the other minions and dupes of the Dishonesty Institute, it is a good idea to filter everything they write (and say) through the filter of Judge Jones' Dover decision statement, "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy." These religious fanatics have lied to us before, and they will continue to lie to us. Remember that.

Chip Poirot · 11 May 2009

386sx said: Or, as Mr. Beckwith would say, a "warrant to believe". I guess the word "evidence" must have escaped him for a moment when he was writing that. It looks like he chose "warrant to believe" instead.

The term "warrant to believe" as far as I can discern originates with John Dewey. "Warrant" does indeed require evidence. Dewey goes a setp farther and argues that knowledge is not knowledge till it can be applied. So the ultimate test of "warrant to believe" a proposition lies in the success or failure of the application of a proposition over the long run. Susan Haack, whom Forrest cites approvingly, uses the term "warrant to believe" as well, which of course makes sense given the strong influence of Peirce and Dewey on Susan Haack (though I don't think Susan makes the argument that an idea must be applied to be valid knowledge). The argument that we should be more concerned with what is a valid claim to knowledge as opposed to a bogus claim to knowledge was made by Pragmatist philosopher Larry Laudan. Your critique of Beckwith would be strengthened by pointing out that he is in essence misusing Pragmatism and as is typical, putting the "silliest possible interpretation" on it, to justify his own epistemological relativism. He is also playing fast and loose with his arguments. There is a difference between a general argument that belief in a Creator in a very generic sense might ultimately be justifiable (for example the argument made by Ken Miller or Theodosius Dobzhansky)and an argument that the way to justifiy believe in a Creator is to find gaps in naturalistic accounts. Peirce's argument for the reality of God is not a God of the gaps argument. Nor is James' defense of religion an argument for God of the gaps. So, just because ID'ists and Creationists find a way to abuse Pragmatist phrases is not a reason to attack the phrase itself.

Troy · 11 May 2009

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Raging Bee · 11 May 2009

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

DS · 11 May 2009

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

RBH · 11 May 2009

Please, please DNFTT in this thread. Keep it focused on the analysis and critique of Beckwith's arguments, not a Troy-bashing festival.

Thanks!

Doc Bill · 11 May 2009

If you followed the recent Texas SBOE hearings then you heard chairman McLeroy proclaim, and I'm doing this from memory, "the strongest argument anyone can make is the argument from authority," whereupon he pulled out his Mine O' Quotes and began to read authoritative criticisms of evolution.

To the uncritical, already convinced mind of McLeroy and his ilk all he will know (but he'll know it as the TRUTH) is

Beckwith professor Baylor University teaching ID public schools constitutional.

It doesn't matter to McLeroy one whit if this is correct or not, because in the end he's not going to be accountable for any school district that crosses the line. Same as in Dover. It was the "district" that paid the fees, not the board members nor administrators who caused the problem.

My read on Beckwith is that he's more worried about the Baylor administration which has bounced ID off the campus twice, than anything else.

386sx · 11 May 2009

Chip Poirot said:
386sx said: Or, as Mr. Beckwith would say, a "warrant to believe". I guess the word "evidence" must have escaped him for a moment when he was writing that. It looks like he chose "warrant to believe" instead.
The term "warrant to believe" as far as I can discern originates with John Dewey. "Warrant" does indeed require evidence. Dewey goes a setp farther and argues that knowledge is not knowledge till it can be applied. So the ultimate test of "warrant to believe" a proposition lies in the success or failure of the application of a proposition over the long run. Susan Haack, whom Forrest cites approvingly, uses the term "warrant to believe" as well, which of course makes sense given the strong influence of Peirce and Dewey on Susan Haack (though I don't think Susan makes the argument that an idea must be applied to be valid knowledge). The argument that we should be more concerned with what is a valid claim to knowledge as opposed to a bogus claim to knowledge was made by Pragmatist philosopher Larry Laudan. Your critique of Beckwith would be strengthened by pointing out that he is in essence misusing Pragmatism and as is typical, putting the "silliest possible interpretation" on it, to justify his own epistemological relativism. He is also playing fast and loose with his arguments. There is a difference between a general argument that belief in a Creator in a very generic sense might ultimately be justifiable (for example the argument made by Ken Miller or Theodosius Dobzhansky)and an argument that the way to justifiy believe in a Creator is to find gaps in naturalistic accounts. Peirce's argument for the reality of God is not a God of the gaps argument. Nor is James' defense of religion an argument for God of the gaps. So, just because ID'ists and Creationists find a way to abuse Pragmatist phrases is not a reason to attack the phrase itself.

Thanks I'll remember that. It kinda looks like he really really wants to say "evidence", but really it isn't evidence, but rather it's what he thinks is a lack of natural evidence. So instead of saying "the evidence of the supernatural which is based upon the lack of evidence for the natural", he just said "warrant to believe", which is a lot shorter. Having more cake and eating it too. (Or having a lack of cake but pretending like he's eating it.)

John Kwok · 11 May 2009

Barbara,

Thanks for a most enlightening post. If nothing else, it demonstrates just how comfortable Beckwith is in employing Orwellian logic and rhetoric (and of course, by that I am referring to both "1984" and "Animal Farm".). Moreover, it is really the height of hypocrisy for Beckwith to have asserted more than once that he's not associated at all with the Dishonesty Institute, and especially, to have asserted that:

"As a matter of policy, I believe there are good reasons why a public school should not require the teaching of ID. Nevertheless, there are no good constitutional reasons to prohibit a teacher from teaching it or a school board from permitting or requiring it."

Needless to say his understanding of the Establishment Clause is nonexistent, especially in light of Judge Jones's ruling.

Appreciatively yours,

John

Stanton · 11 May 2009

So, did Mr Beckwith make an attempt to address why proponents of Intelligent Design still haven't made any attempt to do any science with Intelligent Design?

raven · 11 May 2009

If I read this right.

Shorter Beckwith. "I'm a long time ID creationist who is simply now lying about it."

Well OK, so what else is new? Guy could have saved his readers a few minutes, some words from being tortured, and some trees from being killed and wasted by being more succinct.

fnxtr · 11 May 2009

Stanton said: So, did Mr Beckwith make an attempt to address why proponents of Intelligent Design still haven't made any attempt to do any science with Intelligent Design?

It's probably been observed before that the ID charade-players want it both ways: ID taught as science but not cricitized or measured with the scientific yardstick of repeatability and testability -- and applicability (as the giants in "Food of the Gods" said, "what's it all for?) -- because "it's not a mechanistic theory". What the hell is non-mechanistic science, anyway? ID is to science what John Cage's 4'33" is to music.

william e emba · 11 May 2009

It is even more telling to recall that when Beckwith joined, it was called the “Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture.” The name wasn’t changed until 2002. Beckwith and his fellows wanted to “renew” American culture by taking it back to the pre-scientific dark ages of ignorance and intolerance.

The choice of name is much more revealing than you realize. "Renewal" is Christian codespeak for charismatic "born-again" evangelism. When you intend to evangelize, but must lie for the sake of mocking the first amendment, you have to lard your program with codewords. They dropped the "Renewal", and their Sistine Chapel based artwork, when they realized they were being a little too obvious.

william e emba · 11 May 2009

ID is to science what John Cage’s 4’33” is to music.

Excuse me? That work is a masterpiece! I mean, I'd rate it better than 99% of contemporary music any day. Really, if ID would imitate 4'33", it would go down a lot better. Unfortunately, ID is like music of the Dembski fart video style.

eric · 11 May 2009

Beckwith's gripe is just wierd. Legitimate impartial experts want you to know where they stand on an issue. Any honestly impartial expert on this subject should be happy to admit whether they are in support of or opposed to the notion of teaching ID in biology class, and happy to discuss their published opinions.

Given his publications, even if he objects to Prof. Forrest's analysis of his motives and loyalties, I can't see any legitimate reason why he would object to the label of "supporter"

cw · 11 May 2009

Dr. Forrest treated him like a fire hydrant.
He complained and got a well deserved re-treatment.
Would it be too much to hope that he will complain again?

Frank J · 11 May 2009

On the one hand, over a period of almost ten years (given the February 2009 talk in Baton Rouge, it’s fair to include the present), he wants to [write] articles and a book and make public appearances that any reasonable person would interpret as pro-ID, while on the other hand, he wants to deny that he is an ID supporter. But he doesn’t get to have it both ways.
— Barbara Forrest

The "have it both ways" approach alone makes him (apologies to the original author) "the very model of a modern cdesign proponensist." I often remind everyone that the "I'm not a creationist" IDers can back up their doublespeak by actually refuting arguments for a young earth or against common descent (Behe's acceptance of CD is a start, but actually refuting a formal alternative is what's needed to truly "distance" ID from other forms of creationism). Similarly all Beckwith needs to do to "defend ID's constitutional right" without being an ID promoter is to actually refute their arguments.

John Kwok · 11 May 2009

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

John Kwok · 11 May 2009

As Barbara's excellent post demonstrates, IDiots are uncommonly good at practicing "double speak":

Frank J said:
On the one hand, over a period of almost ten years (given the February 2009 talk in Baton Rouge, it’s fair to include the present), he wants to [write] articles and a book and make public appearances that any reasonable person would interpret as pro-ID, while on the other hand, he wants to deny that he is an ID supporter. But he doesn’t get to have it both ways.
— Barbara Forrest
The "have it both ways" approach alone makes him (apologies to the original author) "the very model of a modern cdesign proponensist." I often remind everyone that the "I'm not a creationist" IDers can back up their doublespeak by actually refuting arguments for a young earth or against common descent (Behe's acceptance of CD is a start, but actually refuting a formal alternative is what's needed to truly "distance" ID from other forms of creationism). Similarly all Beckwith needs to do to "defend ID's constitutional right" without being an ID promoter is to actually refute their arguments.

Thomas · 11 May 2009

As a thomist who knows fb, I think you're misreading fb. His recent article in the Santa clara law review, he explains why he doesn't defend ID (note 51). I think you can get the article via his website, http://francisbeckwith

Btw, if you read the Beckwith piece from the Stewart book, he is critical of the Dover school board.

Barb, did you know fb's appeal to intellect is a thomist idea? You seem unfamiliar with that tradition

Dan · 11 May 2009

Thomas said: I think you can get the article via his website, http://francisbeckwith

Don't bother trying the above, it links to nothing. So the post by Thomas contains grammar, usage, punctuation, and also linkage errors.

386sx · 11 May 2009

Frank J said: The "have it both ways" approach alone makes him (apologies to the original author) "the very model of a modern cdesign proponensist."

Having it both ways for the modern cdesign proponensist of course means both having the lack of natural evidence to support their theory that the lack of natural evidence is evidence for supernatural evidence, and also having the lack of supernatural evidence too. It would be more fair to say they want to have the lack of cake and the lack of eating it too. Which theologically might be quite filling indeed, but scientifically there is no "there" there.

JohnK · 11 May 2009

Reposting Beckwith's key motivation and claim:

F. Beckwith: I am not, and have never been, a proponent of ID, for reasons having to do with my philosophical opposition to the ID movement’s acquiescence to the modern idea that an Enlightenment view of science is the paradigm of knowledge. By seeming to agree with their materialist foes that the mind or intellect cannot have direct knowledge of real immaterial universals, such as natures, essences, and moral properties, many in the ID movement commit the same mistake as the one committed by the late medieval nominalists such as William of Ockham, who gave us what is often called “Ockham’s razor,” though Ockham himself did not offer this precise formulation: “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate” (translated: “entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily”). According to many scholars, the practical consequence of “Ockham’s razor” is that claims about a thing’s nature, purpose, or intrinsic dignity - universal properties it shares with other things of the same sort - are “unnecessary” for our scientific investigation of the world because they don’t add anything of explanatory importance to our direct empirical observations of the world. But if one thinks of science as the only or best way of knowing, then these claims are not “knowledge” and thus not real objects of academic inquiry. This is a death knell for dogmatic and moral theology as actual knowledge traditions. Although I continue to maintain that ID advocates raise important questions about the nature of science and whether science should presuppose naturalism (namely, the view that all that exists is the material universe and that there is no mind, such as God, behind it), I have doubts about ID’s answers and whether these answers can offer an attractive alternative to the inadequacies of the Enlightenment for the rationality of religious belief.

Paul Burnett · 11 May 2009

Thomas said: I think you can get the article via his website, http://francisbeckwith

The correct URL is http://web.me.com/francis.beckwith/FrancisBeckwith.com/Welcome.html

Stanton · 11 May 2009

JohnK said: Reposting Beckwith's key motivation and claim

In other words, Mr Beckwith is a flaming hypocrite.

John Kwok · 11 May 2009

Well said, Stanton:

Stanton said:
JohnK said: Reposting Beckwith's key motivation and claim
In other words, Mr Beckwith is a flaming hypocrite.

If he has nothing to do with ID, then why was he a member of the DI's Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture for at least seven years, until Barbara Forrest noted it in her 2007 publication? He's not only a "flaming hypocrite", but also someone who is a pathetic liar too.

raven · 11 May 2009

Beckwith: By seeming to agree with their materialist foes that the mind or intellect cannot have direct knowledge of real immaterial universals, such as natures, essences, and moral properties, many in the ID movement commit the same mistake..blah, blah, blah.

Wading through the bafflegab, Beckwith seems to be saying that the mind or intellect can have real direct knowledge of the supernatural. He thinks IDists are wrong to pretend to do experiments in the real world and gather real data. I guess we are supposed to sit around, talk to god, and discover knowledge about the world that way. I'm going to invent the flying car and faster than light starship drive by sitting in a chair at the beach. Right. As an opinion that is OK I guess. Many religions and a few guys pushing shopping carts around down at the park say the same thing. But we aren't going to be teaching that in science classes to kids. "OK kids, today we are going to ask god how to build FTL starships. Just close your eyes and ask him. Anyone who doesn't talk to god is going to flunk this quarter." The more of his rubbish I read, the more he comes across as a religious fanatic. And a dishonest one.

raven · 11 May 2009

beckwith lying: ....and whether science should presuppose naturalism (namely, the view that all that exists is the material universe and that there is no mind, such as God, behind it),

Beckwith is just lying. He is also a vicious, cold blooded, murderer. He just killed another poor, defenceless strawman. Science does not presuppose naturalism which for him is equal to atheism. Science uses methodological naturalism which is pragmatic. We only study what we can see and measure and ignore the supernatural as being beyond our reach. Even shorter Beckwith: Science=atheism. Beckwith=lying religious kook. I've seen better trolls on the internet.

jfx · 11 May 2009

william e emba said:
It is even more telling to recall that when Beckwith joined, it was called the “Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture.” The name wasn’t changed until 2002. Beckwith and his fellows wanted to “renew” American culture by taking it back to the pre-scientific dark ages of ignorance and intolerance.
The choice of name is much more revealing than you realize. "Renewal" is Christian codespeak for charismatic "born-again" evangelism. When you intend to evangelize, but must lie for the sake of mocking the first amendment, you have to lard your program with codewords. They dropped the "Renewal", and their Sistine Chapel based artwork, when they realized they were being a little too obvious.

Bill Dembski must not have got the memo. He's still hoisting the "Renewal" codespeak on his official CV, page 2, "Academic Experience". http://www.designinference.com/documents/PDF_Current_CV_Dembski.pdf

Fellow, Discovery Institute, Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture research in complexity, information, and design, 1996–present

Registered User · 11 May 2009

Of course Beckwith wants to distance himself from ID. He can see the writing on the wall. It was profitable to shill for ID and wash Casey Luskin's back in the DI sauna, but now that the party is ending and all the players are genuine laughing stocks, Beckwith wants to pretend it never happened.

Par for the course.

Chip Poirot · 11 May 2009

JohnK said: Reposting Beckwith's key motivation and claim:
F. Beckwith: I am not, and have never been, a proponent of ID, for reasons having to do with my philosophical opposition to the ID movement’s acquiescence to the modern idea that an Enlightenment view of science is the paradigm of knowledge. By seeming to agree with their materialist foes that the mind or intellect cannot have direct knowledge of real immaterial universals, such as natures, essences, and moral properties, many in the ID movement commit the same mistake as the one committed by the late medieval nominalists such as William of Ockham, who gave us what is often called “Ockham’s razor,” though Ockham himself did not offer this precise formulation: “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate” (translated: “entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily”). According to many scholars, the practical consequence of “Ockham’s razor” is that claims about a thing’s nature, purpose, or intrinsic dignity - universal properties it shares with other things of the same sort - are “unnecessary” for our scientific investigation of the world because they don’t add anything of explanatory importance to our direct empirical observations of the world. But if one thinks of science as the only or best way of knowing, then these claims are not “knowledge” and thus not real objects of academic inquiry. This is a death knell for dogmatic and moral theology as actual knowledge traditions. Although I continue to maintain that ID advocates raise important questions about the nature of science and whether science should presuppose naturalism (namely, the view that all that exists is the material universe and that there is no mind, such as God, behind it), I have doubts about ID’s answers and whether these answers can offer an attractive alternative to the inadequacies of the Enlightenment for the rationality of religious belief.

I'm not sure if you are endorsing or just providing information, but either way I find this to be a very strange argument. As far as I can puzzle it through the ID position seems to be something like this: Science, as it is generally practiced, applies the method of reason and experience to arrive at mechanistic explanation for all phenomena. This excludes any teleological argument, any form of vitalism, or any intentional, purposive agency to nature as part of the scientific argument. We're not against Science, we're just against the conventional modern definition and understanding of Science as necessarily entailing naturalistic, mechanistic and non-teleological arguments in the physical and natural sciences. We want to broaden the word science to include teleological, vitalistic, non-mechanistic and purposive design in the natural sciences. Maybe this points to a belief in a supernatural being (after all, ID is just the logos of the Gospel of John) or maybe it points to belief in a space alien or evil demon creators. So in other words, ID strikes me as an effort to go back to Natural Theology and possibly the view of Lamarck and other vitalist, pre-DNA views of biology. In other words, this really seems to be mostly an argument for a Christian Aristotelian position. So, if Beckwith is making an argument for Christian Aristotelianism, why is he distancing himself from ID? And then why is he serving on the Board, etc.? Isn't he really making the argument for some kind of a priorism of the noumena, thus in effect, trying to undo Kant? I don't have a problem with people making that argument in a philosophy of class or discussing it in a Western History class. It seems that there are probably places it would be relevant when discussing the History of Science. What secular purpose is served by interrupting a basic lesson plan in cell biology with an excursion into the views of St. Thomas?

John Kwok · 11 May 2009

Dembski has two sets of messages. One is for his fellow Xian flock, which is why he still lists his ties to the DI's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. The other message is for those who think he's a sane, rational person who does have a legitimate gripe (or two or three) with "Darwinist" thought. A perfect analogy to Dembski's schizophrenic modus operandi is to consider what Arafat said with respect to Israel's future coexistence with a PLO-dominated Palestinian state:

jfx said:
william e emba said:
It is even more telling to recall that when Beckwith joined, it was called the “Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture.” The name wasn’t changed until 2002. Beckwith and his fellows wanted to “renew” American culture by taking it back to the pre-scientific dark ages of ignorance and intolerance.
The choice of name is much more revealing than you realize. "Renewal" is Christian codespeak for charismatic "born-again" evangelism. When you intend to evangelize, but must lie for the sake of mocking the first amendment, you have to lard your program with codewords. They dropped the "Renewal", and their Sistine Chapel based artwork, when they realized they were being a little too obvious.
Bill Dembski must not have got the memo. He's still hoisting the "Renewal" codespeak on his official CV, page 2, "Academic Experience". http://www.designinference.com/documents/PDF_Current_CV_Dembski.pdf
Fellow, Discovery Institute, Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture research in complexity, information, and design, 1996–present

Stanton · 11 May 2009

Essentially, Beckwith was regurgitating the basic Intelligent Design talking points, e.g., that they want ~~GOD~~DESIGNERDIDIT to be the alpha and omega of scientific explanations, and that modern science is wrong, and therefore, unwholesome and ungodly because it necessarily rejects any appeal to supernatural intervention. That, and it's not so much as an appeal to return to the Medieval Natural Theology (like the various Christian beastiaries), but an appeal to eventually replace the totality of modern science with theology, and be done with it. Not interrupting cell biology with Thomas Aquinas' opinion, but to hold up a diagram of Euglena while telling the class "GODDIDIT," then dismissing them for the day.

Frank J · 12 May 2009

Essentially, Beckwith was regurgitating the basic Intelligent Design talking points, e.g., that they want GODDESIGNERDIDIT to be the alpha and omega of scientific explanations, and that modern science is wrong, and therefore, unwholesome and ungodly because it necessarily rejects any appeal to supernatural intervention.
— Stanton

Yes, but that's only one of the 2 messages that John referred to above, and the crux of the ID scam is to bait-and-switch them at their own convenience. What ID activists know, even if classic YEC and OEC activists might not, is that a "scientific explanation" consists of everything one can determine between the "alpha and omega." Even if there is designer intervention ("supernatural" or otherwise) one still needs to determine the whats, whens and hows if the explanation is to be of any use. ID can fool both of audiences that John referred to with (my paraphrase of Dembski) "ID don't need to connect no stinkin' dots," but even YECs know better to "connect the dots" (the wrong way, as it turns out). So even if YEC and OEC are crude attempts at doing science, ID remains nothing but a slick scheme to mislead. If anything, calling ID "creationism" is an insult to "creationism."

Ravilyn Sanders · 12 May 2009

raven said: I've seen better trolls on the internet.

Oh, yeah? How many of them managed to land a tenured sinecure in a university? When we say things like, "if a hiker approaches the den of the mother bear with new born cubs, she will do threatening displays and if they are ignored she will attack the intruder". But back in our mind we know the mamma bear is just acting out of instinct. Her world view and her mental image is not exactly same as the one we have. Beckwith, seems to me, is like that. Beckwith somehow managed to get a good decent sinecure. His actions might make sense if we see it as his despo attempt to secure his food supply. May be his tenure letter calls for him to publish so many papers in so many years. This mass of verbiage, much of it incomprehensible, and what little that is comprehensible is self contradictory, is his way of getting his papers past the review process and get into the journals.

raven · 12 May 2009

Oh, yeah? How many of them managed to land a tenured sinecure in a university?

Probably none, but what does that have to do with anything? The trolls are at least honest about their views, even if their views are lies and nonsense. And understandable and brief. All you atheistic scientists are going to hell. {Insert favorite death threats here} Darwinism is a religion that seeks to destroy society. Irriducible complexity, bloody dinosaur bones, and so on ad infinitum. Beckwith is a paid, professional liar who is supposed to take zippy one liners like the above and turn them into articles and books written in Faux Acadamese that is designed to be incomprehensible and give anyone reading it head aches. I spent a few minutes wading through the mud till I came to a familiar quote. Science=evolution=atheism=mass murder. The mantra of creationists. I want those 2 minutes of my life back and Bekwith isn't stealing any more of my life span. I have to admire people like Barbara Forrest who translate this rubbish from Faux Acadamese into English.

Eric Finn · 12 May 2009

raven said: Science does not presuppose naturalism which for him is equal to atheism. Science uses methodological naturalism which is pragmatic. We only study what we can see and measure and ignore the supernatural as being beyond our reach.

Indeed, I believe the majority of scientists would agree with this statement. Natural explanations tend to work better than supernatural explanations. On the other hand, because science does not presuppose naturalism, then, as a consequence, science does allow for other kinds of explanations as well, provided they make verifiable predictions consistently.

Frank J said: [...] Even if there is designer intervention (“supernatural” or otherwise) one still needs to determine the whats, whens and hows if the explanation is to be of any use.

I presume, Frank J is referring to the lack of predictions by the Intelligent Design movement. Without predictions any hypothesis is scientifically vacuous.

Intelligent Design. Intelligent design is a research program. A small, though growing, platoon of academics embraces this program and maintains that, rather than the blind forces of unguided matter, an intelligent agency better explains the specified, and sometimes irreducible, complexity of some physical systems. These systems include biological entities as well as the existence of the universe as a whole. (Francis Beckwith, “Intelligent Design in the Schools: Is It Constitutional?” Christian Research Journal 25 (4), 2003)

Now, if Beckwith, or anyone else, thinks that there are better ways to explain physical systems, they are welcome to do so. They must be taken seriously, once they present a coherent model, backed up with some successful predictions. Somehow I fail to understand, why religious origin should be of any importance. There is a multitude of pseudo-scientific "theories". They are not taught during science classes, even when they are non-religious. Why should ID be any different? Even in the U.S.?

386sx · 12 May 2009

Eric Finn said: Somehow I fail to understand, why religious origin should be of any importance. There is a multitude of pseudo-scientific "theories". They are not taught during science classes, even when they are non-religious. Why should ID be any different? Even in the U.S.?

There are a lot of creationists around. And a lot of gullible people, like Mr. "Intelligent design is a research program" Beckwith.

Registered User · 12 May 2009

Ravilyn Sanders said: When we say things like, "if a hiker approaches the den of the mother bear with new born cubs, she will do threatening displays and if they are ignored she will attack the intruder". But back in our mind we know the mamma bear is just acting out of instinct. Her world view and her mental image is not exactly same as the one we have. Beckwith, seems to me, is like that.

The only thing Frank Beckwith has in common with mama bears is the stench. Among the lying Christian sacks who make a living off ID and creationism, Beckwith is among the most prolific and least honest. He makes Casey Luskin look good, and I'm not talking about his work as a hairdresser.

Dean Wentworth · 12 May 2009

Eric Finn said: Somehow I fail to understand, why religious origin should be of any importance. There is a multitude of pseudo-scientific “theories”. They are not taught during science classes, even when they are non-religious. Why should ID be any different? Even in the U.S.?

Eric Finn's questions are important because creationists may eventually come up with a bogus theory sufficiently sanitized of overt religiosity to pass legal muster. Let's say they were to concoct an updated version of spontaneous generation, get a few Fred Hoyle types to endorse it, and write a textbook (from scratch this time, so as to avoid the "cdesign proponentsists" pitfall.) Some future Beckwith goes even further than the current one and argues, "I think spontaneous generation theory is totally without scientific merit, but it isn't religious, so it can't be constitutionally barred from science classes." What happens then?

Registered User · 12 May 2009

Some future Beckwith goes even further than the current one and argues, “I think spontaneous generation theory is totally without scientific merit, but it isn’t religious, so it can’t be constitutionally barred from science classes.”

What happens then?

It should be taught as an Example of the sort of meritless bullshxt that fundie diptwits come up in an effort to avoid the Establishment Clause.

Then we can watch as suddenly Frank "Pathological Liar" Beckwith complains that teaching that indisputable fact about the history of science education is unconstitutional. Religious people: truly pathetic and endlessly amusing. Wind them up and watch them go. Their fragile egos and "worldviews" continually cracking. As long as the pieces only crush the hellbound "others", then never seem to care.

raven · 12 May 2009

It's not enough to have a theory that is free from unverifiable supernatural causes and claims to be scientific.

There must also be evidence and data to support it. In fact for abiogenesis, there are two scientific theories, abiogenesis in situ on early earth and panspermia, life seeding earth from another extraterrestrial source.

We have a lot of data for abiogenesis including now replicating and evolving RNA replicators. There is no evidence for panspermia but that could change in a heartbeat if we find DNA based life on Mars or further away.

Verifiable supernatural steps are OK though. Science would consider supernatural influences if they met the criteria we use for other data, measurable, repeatable, and independently corroborated. AFAIK, there have never been any verifiable supernatural steps.

eric · 12 May 2009

Eric Finn said: Indeed, I believe the majority of scientists would agree with this statement. Natural explanations tend to work better than supernatural explanations. On the other hand, because science does not presuppose naturalism, then, as a consequence, science does allow for other kinds of explanations as well, provided they make verifiable predictions consistently.

I think you're right. If someone really could call rain with a rain dance, we'd study it. Of course there is a philosophical or theological problem with such discoveries: whatever that supernatural thing is, if it does what I want when I want and I can set down in mathematics its exact response parameters, it isn't very "super," is it? Its no longer beyond our power to explain and control - maybe not wholly, but at least in some respects. Whether one wants to keep calling a phenomena "supernatural" after that is not really a science question, but I think in most cases the answer is no.

Somehow I fail to understand, why religious origin should be of any importance.

I don't think it is. Science accepts hypotheses for testing regardless of whether they come from a dream, sitting in a bathtub, hard work, a religious text, or any other source. Where creationists (and other pseudoscientists) seem to fall afoul is in requesting that their particular hypothesis be treated differently. Typically these requests fall into two categories. One: we don't get enough grant money to test our hypotheses - you need to change the competition rules to make them more favorable to us. Two: your tests and methodologies don't support our hypothesis - so please change your methodology in a way we think will favor us.

CJColucci · 12 May 2009

What happens then?

Theoretically, Future Beckwith is right. There is no constitutional bar to teaching bad science, just to teaching religion. (Exception for academic teaching about religion, which is a whole different matter.) If, for some reason, ignorant legislators or school board administrators started pushing phlogiston chemistry, simply because they're morons, there would be no consitutional issue.
As a practical matter, however, there is no non-religious constituency for bad science, except, perhaps for the tobacco and fossil fuel industries, and even they need people who know real science well enough to lie about it. I would be astounded if we ever saw a push for Secular Bad Science.
For a real-world experiment, take a look at history or social studies curricula around the country. I suspect you'll find all sorts of bad history adopted for political reasons. But one of the things a public education systenm is deliberately designed to do is instill whatever the government thinks is Good Citizenship. Historically-suspect propaganda passing as sound history is a feature, not a bug. And as long as it's secular propaganda, no constitutional issue.

Wheels · 12 May 2009

Eric Finn said: Somehow I fail to understand, why religious origin should be of any importance. There is a multitude of pseudo-scientific "theories". They are not taught during science classes, even when they are non-religious. Why should ID be any different? Even in the U.S.?

I think you're not taking into account the subtle bigotries inherent in the anti-evolutionist religious movements. It's not just that evolutionists are atheists, more dangerous still is the fear that evolutionists will claim to be Christians, which can't be the case because no True Christian can accept evolution. If there are people saying that evolution and Christianity are compatible, then the anti-evolutionists must be wrong on their doctrinal issues, and that simply cannot be. Thus, it becomes an idea of competing religious interpretations, or different religions, or simply different "world views" (as Creationist literature is so fond of calling it). They can't let this go because it would lead people astray, away from The Right Path and into heresy, apostasy or worse.
They see it as a battle for souls, not competition for the most useful explanations. In that climate, bigotry against "other" religions or doctrines is encouraged and tolerance is seen as dangerous.

Wheels · 12 May 2009

CJColucci said: As a practical matter, however, there is no non-religious constituency for bad science, except, perhaps for the tobacco and fossil fuel industries, and even they need people who know real science well enough to lie about it. I would be astounded if we ever saw a push for Secular Bad Science.

Except when it comes to medicine and health? Homeopathy, vaccines->autism, acupuncture, cellphones and cancer, all kinds of wacky nutritional hoodoo...

eric · 12 May 2009

Dean Wentworth said: Let's say they were to concoct an updated version of spontaneous generation, get a few Fred Hoyle types to endorse it, and write a textbook (from scratch this time, so as to avoid the "cdesign proponentsists" pitfall.) Some future Beckwith goes even further than the current one and argues, "I think spontaneous generation theory is totally without scientific merit, but it isn't religious, so it can't be constitutionally barred from science classes." What happens then?

(IANAL but) Constitutionally, he's right. There's nothing in the first amendment that says a school district can't teach wrong and crappy science. This is why grassroots efforts like the Texas Citizens for Science are so important. They don't just attempt to reveal the religious roots of the creationist movement - although that's important. They also attempt to vote out elected officials that promote bad science. Which is equally, if not more important. However, Dean, I think you are forgetting that for many fundamentalists, getting religion back in schools is the point and ID is just a vehicle for doing so. Removing/diluting evolution is a means to an end, not the end itself. Such folks would *never* be satisfied with a scientific theory that was not evolution but yet not at all religious. In fact they'd probably lump all such theories in with evolution as being atheistic. For them, religion is the entire point in changing the curriculum. Also, DI already takes great pains to try and separate ID from religion, to practically no avail. Their fundamentalist base understands and communicates the religious nature of the beast whether DI wants them to or not. Any new theory would suffer from the same problem; there's simply no way for DI and the other "sneakies" to communicate to the fundamentalist base that this is a religious theory in disguise that they, the base, should support, without the cat getting out of the bag to everyone else.

Dean Wentworth · 12 May 2009

raven said: It’s not enough to have a theory that is free from unverifiable supernatural causes and claims to be scientific. There must also be evidence and data to support it. In fact for abiogenesis, there are two scientific theories, abiogenesis in situ on early earth and panspermia, life seeding earth from another extraterrestrial source. We have a lot of data for abiogenesis including now replicating and evolving RNA replicators. There is no evidence for panspermia but that could change in a heartbeat if we find DNA based life on Mars or further away. Verifiable supernatural steps are OK though. Science would consider supernatural influences if they met the criteria we use for other data, measurable, repeatable, and independently corroborated. AFAIK, there have never been any verifiable supernatural steps.

I think the international scientific community would agree with everything you wrote, raven; I certainly do. If the legal rules for dictating science curricula in American public schools were in tune with that view, however, ID would have been DOA instead of having to be relentlessly fought. Even Judge Jones's landmark decision hinged on ID's religious underpinnings; his condemnation of it as pseudoscience was merely icing on the cake.

386sx · 12 May 2009

Dean Wentworth said: Even Judge Jones's landmark decision hinged on ID's religious underpinnings; his condemnation of it as pseudoscience was merely icing on the cake.

Icing on the cake, on the cake of which in this case they could neither have, nor eat it too.

Dean Wentworth · 12 May 2009

eric said: ...for many fundamentalists, getting religion back in schools is the point and ID is just a vehicle for doing so. Removing/diluting evolution is a means to an end, not the end itself. Such folks would *never* be satisfied with a scientific theory that was not evolution but yet not at all religious. In fact they’d probably lump all such theories in with evolution as being atheistic. For them, religion is the entire point in changing the curriculum. Also, DI already takes great pains to try and separate ID from religion, to practically no avail. Their fundamentalist base understands and communicates the religious nature of the beast whether DI wants them to or not. Any new theory would suffer from the same problem; there’s simply no way for DI and the other “sneakies” to communicate to the fundamentalist base that this is a religious theory in disguise that they, the base, should support, without the cat getting out of the bag to everyone else.

eric, The tendency of the creationist base to shoot themselves in the foot as you describe is undeniable. So, I guess the best they could hope for by getting an alternative secular theory taught would be a twist on the "strengths and weaknesses" strategy.

Selfreferencing · 12 May 2009

See here: http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2009/05/stove_award_competition_heats.html for a critique of Forrest by Ed Feser.

Dean Wentworth · 12 May 2009

CJColucci said: For a real-world experiment, take a look at history or social studies curricula around the country. I suspect you’ll find all sorts of bad history adopted for political reasons. But one of the things a public education system is deliberately designed to do is instill whatever the government thinks is Good Citizenship. Historically-suspect propaganda passing as sound history is a feature, not a bug. And as long as it’s secular propaganda, no constitutional issue.

This is true, unsettling, but true.

John Kwok · 12 May 2009

Feser's "apologia" on Beckwith's behalf is mere breathtaking inanity from him. Unfortunately for Feser, Barbara Forrest has hit a home run with respect to proclaiming Beckwith's real intentions as a bona fide ID apologist, still working on behalf of the Dishonesty Institute:

Selfreferencing said: See here: http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2009/05/stove_award_competition_heats.html for a critique of Forrest by Ed Feser.

MememicBottleneck · 12 May 2009

Not much of a critique. Basically accuses Forrest of labeling Beckwith an ID supporter due to guilt by association. Then cries non sequitur, non sequitur. You really didn't think he'd address Forrest's points did you?

If Beckwith rolls around in manure, he's not going to come out smelling like roses.

Pierce R. Butler · 12 May 2009

CJColucci said: .... I would be astounded if we ever saw a push for Secular Bad Science.

Look up Trofim D. Lysenko.

CJColucci · 13 May 2009

CJColucci said:

.… I would be astounded if we ever saw a push for Secular Bad Science.

Look up Trofim D. Lysenko.

I did say we. But I should have taken the possibility of an international audience into account.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 13 May 2009

Good, it was about time someone looked at Beckwith too.

I preface my examination of Beckwith’s arguments with (1) philosopher of science Susan Haack’s clarification of the established naturalistic methodology and epistemology of science

Except that science methodology is established by empirical pragmatism. Considering the positive and negative feedbacks going into this, it is probably a NP-complete decision problem to look at a result and decide if it is science by formal criteria. So it can't be done. (Besides the problem that physics is at the power of algorithmic constructions, not the small and weak subset of axiomatic formal methods.) As regards epistemology it is clearly philosophy and not established by, or in, science. Not that I have had time to look into the recent discussion about Coyne's excellent articles, but I assume the conclusion would be that philosophy is as excluded from science as the subset of philosophic theology should be for such reasons.

He attempted at this point to include ID critic Kenneth Miller as an intelligent design supporter.

I think this means that Beckwith attempted to include Miller as an Intelligent Design supporter, which he is not, by pointing out that he is an intelligent design supporter of the evolutionist theist brand. Again demonstrating why these things are bad ideas, it detract from, weakens and fuzzify science.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 13 May 2009

Pierce R. Butler said:
CJColucci said: .... I would be astounded if we ever saw a push for Secular Bad Science.
Look up Trofim D. Lysenko.

But communism and its fundamentalist 'communist science' is as based on unfounded beliefs as the other major religions and especially 'christian science' (now ID). I can personally vouch for the later, as I have read some of Lenin's attempts at 'science'. He had some good points (about materialist philosophical "agnosticists" like Kant), but goes on and on about philosophy instead of science, and finishes with:

The sole conclusion to be drawn from the opinion of the Marxists that Marx's theory is an objective truth is that by following the path of Marxist theory we shall draw closer and closer to objective truth (without ever exhausting it); but by following any other path we shall arrive at nothing but confusion and lies.

(Btw, perhaps his provided quotes from Engels shows even better how nuts much of this attempt at 'science' was.)

Desertphile · 13 May 2009

Note to myself: never professionally piss off Ms. Forrest.

Ed Darrell · 19 May 2009

Beckwith's back? Ah, hiding in Louisiana this time. I see.

In rather lengthy series of exchanges in 2003 and shortly thereafter, I finally realized one of the key parts of Dr. Beckwith's self-deception is this: He claims to be neutral because he claims to make no judgment on the validity of the science offered by ID advocates. In short, he explained to me, his stand is purely philosophical, and therefore it's unfair to criticize him as if he were a real creationist rather than one who merely offers philosophical observations about creationism and science.

Ignoring for the moment the fatuous implicit claim that philosophy is pure and unbiased, it finally occurred to me that maybe the only way to get Beckwith to understand what he was saying was to offer an analogy as an example. Having worked years in aviation, the analogy of FAA regulation of flying pigs came to my mind.

Beckwith's hypothesis is like asking whether the FAA should regulate pig farms. Philosophically, there's a good case to be made. If pigs could fly, they could pose threats to both general and commercial aviation -- think of the danger of a pig strike in light of recent public awareness of the dangers of bird strikes. So, wouldn't it be wise to let the FAA regulate the location of pig farms, and if the farms were located in or near aviation lanes, the structures of the pig farms to prevent flying pigs from straying into the path of airplanes?

Philosophically, then, FAA should regulate pig farms to prevent flying pigs from interfering with airplane flights.

But in the real world, pigs don't fly. So, if you're a pig farmer, and the FAA shows up at the door to inspect your facility, you'd probably be well advised to get your shotgun and call your attorney.

I'm not sure if Beckwith took offense at my depiction of state school boards as pig farms, or of my depiction of him as the defender of the errant FAA pig-farm inspector, but I hear a lot less of Beckwith these days.

One of the things I admire about Dr. Forrest is her ability to deal with such claptrap in the cool and detached manner necessary for all pathology work, and I'm happy to see she's made a much better case than I ever did. The point remains, however, that Beckwith's views on intelligent design are in error, because that pig still doesn't fly.

Ed Darrell · 20 May 2009

Dr. Beckwith has responded again!
http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2009/05/constitutional_scholar_steven.html

He says that Steven Gey doesn't understand the enlightenment. I suppose he's trying to say that, since Gey doesn't understand the enlightenment, therefore, he's not a creationist.

This is pretty good, really. In response to Dr. Forrest's paper arguing that ID shouldn't be taught in public schools as science, Beckwith responds first, 'I ain't no creationist!' and then, to rebut the evidence he is indeed very much a creationist, 'Well, Steven Gey doesn't get the Enlightenment.'

Neither response offers any hint of a rebuttal to Dr. Forrest's claim. Instead, each trails off into rabbit warrens of irrelevant and inconsequential verbiage, fully of candle smoke and reverence, but signifying nothing and shedding no light.

Res ipsa loquitur.

Ed Darrell · 20 May 2009

oops. Shoulda been "full," not "fully." You get the idea.

Ben Knight Ziajka · 9 June 2009

Shit...I better never defend ID and get this treatment.

Ben Knight Ziajka · 9 June 2009

hey ed don't bother to post about his own comments further down either...

Ben K Z · 9 June 2009

Ben Knight Ziajka said: Shit...I better never defend ID and get this treatment.

No seriously....I would sue your ass off.

Stanton · 9 June 2009

Ben K Z said:
Ben Knight Ziajka said: Shit...I better never defend ID and get this treatment.
No seriously....I would sue your ass off.

Unlikely: Intelligent Design is not a science, and was never intended to be science, was never intended to be an alternative explanation to Evolutionary Biology or even intended to have any explanatory power what so ever. It is legally indefensible in any way, given as how it's used either a) as a Trojan horse to replace science curricula with religious propaganda, aka "Creationism," or b) to teach unreasonable and illogical skepticism of science instead of actual science, both of which are technically illegal in the United States. Francis Beckwith was a member of the Discovery Institute in the past, and continues to promote Intelligent Design today. Ergo, Barbara Forrest is well within her rights to describe Mr Beckwith as an Intelligent Design supporter. As such, you can not have grounds for a lawsuit to sue someone who makes an accurate description of you, no matter how unflattering you find it. If it was discovered that Ed Darrell turned into a 14 foot tall mesonychid by the light of the full moon in order to feast upon live kittens, he could not sue me if I described him as a "kitten-eating monster," as technically, that's what he is, hypothetically speaking, of course.

Stanton · 9 June 2009

Ben K Z said:
Ben Knight Ziajka said: Shit...I better never defend ID and get this treatment.
No seriously....I would sue your ass off.

And if you want to defend Intelligent Design like they do at the Discovery Institute, rather than go through legal means (which have always gone down in flames), why not simply do what the Discovery Institute did after the Dover Case and hire some rent-a-fanatics to make death threats against the judge, then make moronic attempts to humiliate the judge in a farting video?

Ben K Z · 9 June 2009

"Francis Beckwith was a member of the Discovery Institute in the past, and continues to promote Intelligent Design today"

What? Do you KNOW him? I've read every one of his books and it's blatantly clear he doesn't support ID anymore, and never claimed to understand the science of biology or statistics (like some of both sides like to pretend their experts in).

This post by Forrest just makes me see William Dembski, who I do not think has totally clean hands, in a better light.

Ben K Z · 9 June 2009

*they're. Barbara Forrest, if you read the comments in Beckwith's own posts, simply got her facts wrong without even asking. Beckwith has a point: no respectable academic runs off and posts an attack like this without e-mailing the guy. I've witnessed tons of my professors here at UCF engage in this [standard] practice. This is WORSE than the ID guys going directly to the public with their books.

Ben K Z said: "Francis Beckwith was a member of the Discovery Institute in the past, and continues to promote Intelligent Design today" What? Do you KNOW him? I've read every one of his books and it's blatantly clear he doesn't support ID anymore, and never claimed to understand the science of biology or statistics (like some of both sides like to pretend their experts in). This post by Forrest just makes me see William Dembski, who I do not think has totally clean hands, in a better light.

Stanton · 9 June 2009

Ben K Z said:
Francis Beckwith was a member of the Discovery Institute in the past, and continues to promote Intelligent Design today
What? Do you KNOW him? I've read every one of his books and it's blatantly clear he doesn't support ID anymore, and never claimed to understand the science of biology or statistics

If he doesn't support Intelligent Design anymore, then why haven't you gone through to refute each example Miss Forrest provided of Beckwith supporting Intelligent Design within the last decade, up to his February 2009 speech? Or are your threats of pretend-lawsuits and assertions without explanation or proof the best you can muster?

(like some of both sides like to pretend their experts in).

So then how come you have yet to explain why Beckwith continues to claim that he does not support Intelligent Design, yet continues to laud and support this same movement?

This post by Forrest just makes me see William Dembski, who I do not think has totally clean hands, in a better light.

Please explain how you see Mr William Dembski, a man who once fantasized about forcing "darwinists" to defend themselves against Intelligent Design in a court of law, yet refused to testify in the Dover Trial, in a "better light." Or is this just more of your passive-aggressive bullying?

Stanton · 9 June 2009

Ben K Z said: *they're. Barbara Forrest, if you read the comments in Beckwith's own posts, simply got her facts wrong without even asking. Beckwith has a point: no respectable academic runs off and posts an attack like this without e-mailing the guy. I've witnessed tons of my professors here at UCF engage in this [standard] practice. This is WORSE than the ID guys going directly to the public with their books.

Please explain, in detail, how writing about a person who is supporting an anti-science anti-education movement, without said person's permission, is actually worse than people from this same anti-science anti-education movement putting out books specifically written to deliberately deceive and mislead the public with grandiose and evidence-less claims having overturned science.

Ben Z · 9 June 2009

Beckweth does not need my help, as he addresses a lot of what she wrote in comments on his blog . It's blatantly clear you've got pre-judged conclusions.

This also isn't a post about the scientific status of ID. This is worse than the ID books bypassing scientific review because in those books they do not slander people. I see so many comments saying "you mean it's slandering now to say someone's ID?" or "but...Beckwith's worldview requires some design so you might as well call him an Intelligent Design Creationist." It's just plainly, down right wrong to an outside observer.

Ben Z · 9 June 2009

Also, it makes me see Dembski in a better light because, well, I had at least a shread of respect for Forrest and Ed Darrell before this.

Ben Z said: Beckweth does not need my help, as he addresses a lot of what she wrote in comments on his blog . It's blatantly clear you've got pre-judged conclusions. This also isn't a post about the scientific status of ID. This is worse than the ID books bypassing scientific review because in those books they do not slander people. I see so many comments saying "you mean it's slandering now to say someone's ID?" or "but...Beckwith's worldview requires some design so you might as well call him an Intelligent Design Creationist." It's just plainly, down right wrong to an outside observer.

Stanton · 9 June 2009

Ben Z said: Beckweth does not need my help, as he addresses a lot of what she wrote in comments on his blog . It's blatantly clear you've got pre-judged conclusions.

In other words, you're too lazy to repeat his rebuttals, and are trying to cover this up by accusing me of being prejudgmental simply because I came to a decision because of the evidence that's been presented.

This also isn't a post about the scientific status of ID. This is worse than the ID books bypassing scientific review because in those books they do not slander people. I see so many comments saying "you mean it's slandering now to say someone's ID?" or "but...Beckwith's worldview requires some design so you might as well call him an Intelligent Design Creationist." It's just plainly, down right wrong to an outside observer.

Of course, you also have neglected to state why it is slander to describe someone as being an Intelligent Design proponent when they demonstrate stereotypical Intelligent Design proponent behavior, and you still haven't explained why putting out books in order to deliberately mislead people is a lesser offense.

Stanton · 9 June 2009

Ben Z said: Also, it makes me see Dembski in a better light because, well, I had at least a shread of respect for Forrest and Ed Darrell before this.

Concern troll's concerns are noted.

Ben z · 9 June 2009

No, "in other words" don't be so closeminded and lazy, and go see for yourself. I won't repost them here because posting here, well, nothing good ever comes of it. It's like posting on that form /b/....of which I wouldn't be surprised if you visited.

If you weren't sharp enough to make the inference in that second quote: I used to take a lot of what Barbara and Derrell seriously, but their level of scholarship here is totally lacking. I don't NEED that level of scholarship here because I'm just posting to let you know you will look like fools to anyone who knows Beckwith...I'm not pretending, like Forrest, to write scholarly history. I wonder if she's even read the books The Creationists or Species of Origins, which explains them better than she ever could.

Stanton · 9 June 2009

Ben z said: No, "in other words" don't be so closeminded and lazy

And yet, you're the one who's demanding that we stop picking on Beckwith, even though you have made no attempt to refute Forrest beyond "'cause he said so" and an absurd, yet vague proclamation to see the charlatan William Dembski in a better light. Yeah. Concern troll's concerns are noted and irrelevant.

fnxtr · 9 June 2009

FB apparently said:

Because ID arguments do not contain Genesis and its tenets as propositions, and because ID advocates build their cases from inferences that rely on empirical facts and conceptual notions...

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA etc... Apparently the words "cowards" and "liars" aren't in Beckwith's thesaurus.

Stanton · 9 June 2009

fnxtr said: FB apparently said:
Because ID arguments do not contain Genesis and its tenets as propositions, and because ID advocates build their cases from inferences that rely on empirical facts and conceptual notions...
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA etc... Apparently the words "cowards" and "liars" aren't in Beckwith's thesaurus.

And yet, it's people like Barbara Forrest and Ed Darrell who are the incompetent scholars, apparently. And I'm actually Emperor Napoleon the 4th.

Ben Z · 9 June 2009

"an absurd, yet vague proclamation to see the charlatan William Dembski in a better light."

If you REALLY cannot figure it out, I mean that I've heard a lot of bad things from them and looked into it often (clicking their links and going where they advised, because I was not too lazy). Now I feel like things they've claimed about Dembski probably weren't AS bad as they made it out.

If you took the time to, uh, figure out who Beckwith actually is (you know, by reading at least some of his books, reading his blogs and his comments therein, etc), you'd at least be pretty sceptical of Barbara's initial post. You'd also realize he claims to have complained about some of the DI's policies so much that his wife told him to either quit or stop complaining. He's never written a pro-ID argument, aside from his belief that ID isn't unconstitutional--I know FORE SURE he wouldn't say it ought to ever be REQUIRED if pressed on his viewpoint.

I don't really feel like writing an essay on here. Beckwith has a lot of posts on comments on the issue, and he's going to offer a more detailed critique later (because, you know, he's actually going to be careful with his facts).

ERV · 11 June 2009

Ben z said: It's like posting on that form /b/....

If youre going to sue someone, Im fairly certain you have to fill out form /b/. I dunno though. You better ask your mom.

cable · 5 March 2010

Hello to all I can’t understand how to add your site in my rss reader. Help me, please