The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Three Amigos or Three Stooges?

Posted 7 August 2009 by Richard B. Hoppe

We report (well really, John Lynch and John Pieret report), you decide. The Biologic Institute is the research arm of the Disco 'Tute, promising (but not yet delivering) cutting edge intelligent design research. Until now the Institute has been mainly the bailiwick of Douglas Axe and a supporting cast of American ID proponents. Now, however, three new additions from overseas have been added to the Institute's roster. What's delicious fun is that they're all Young Earth Creationists. The question at issue is whether Lynch's Three Amigos motif or Pieret's Three Stooges motif is most appropriate. Cast your vote in the comments.

52 Comments

Arthur Dent · 8 August 2009

Tough call but I've got to vote for "Three Amigos"

Sam C · 8 August 2009

Well, it's certainly not "Three Biologists"! As usual, ID attracts its nutters from outside the circle of people who actually know anything useful about biology.

Especially engineers, who don't always understand that just because everything on their drawings has been designed, that doesn't mean everything in the world has been designed.

David Robin · 8 August 2009

Stooges, without a doubt!

raven · 8 August 2009

YECS???? They aren't even pretending anymore that ID is not another name for creationism.

YECS have a much bigger hill to climb. They are opposed to all sciences and some social sciences as well.

Where do they get the money for these warm bodies? Science isn't cheap to do.

The Big Tent of creationism might be collapsing. YECS really have nothing in common with classical ID.

Michael Roberts · 8 August 2009

This came as no surprise to me. I was at the Design conference in Wisconsin in 2000 and I was convinced by what I saw (and I WAS fairly sympathetic) that because of the unwillingness of ID types to be absolutely clear on the vast age of the earth, the whole ID movement would move inexorably to a YEC position.

This is especially so in Britain as YECs usually speak of Design rather than creationism partly because they think it a better policy. This is seen clearly in the work of Truthinscience which is attempting to get creationism into schools - with some success.

MrrKAT · 8 August 2009

PhD Matti Leisola was interviewed in Young believers paper Nuotta*.
Leisola believes:
-World wide Noah's flood
-World is at most few tens thousands years old according to Bible and he refers to Martin Lubenow when asked arguments why World is young
-Dinosaurs and humans lived together, he bought bathrobe in China dragon-figure in back. So humans have seen them (dragons).Leisola refered also in Bible.

*Source (All Finnish but try google translation):
http://www.nuotta.com/nuotta/haastattelu/bilsan-maikalle-kampeen.html

Travis · 8 August 2009

Is this the collapse of the ID movement, a bringing them back into the fold of the YEC camp? The decline has been coming for a while and I figured they would become rather irrelevant even to those on the creationist side, but I am surprised by this move. I wonder if they had even thought about the fact they were hiring YEC. Are they event going to try suggesting ID is not a religiously motivated idea now?

Wes · 8 August 2009

Stooges, definitely.

Ben · 8 August 2009

Has to be the Three Amigos. I love the Three Stooges. Don't disrespect them by associating them with the Disco Tute. Unless all three of these guys are Shemp, the most stupid, hated, and unfunny stooge. Can we call them the Three Shemps?

fnxtr · 8 August 2009

First Dr. Dr. D's science envy and now this. At what point will they finally tell their flock to give up the "ID is science" canard?

Stanton · 8 August 2009

Travis said: Is this the collapse of the ID movement, a bringing them back into the fold of the YEC camp? The decline has been coming for a while and I figured they would become rather irrelevant even to those on the creationist side, but I am surprised by this move. I wonder if they had even thought about the fact they were hiring YEC. Are they event going to try suggesting ID is not a religiously motivated idea now?
I'd like to say "yes," but, absurdly stupid ideas are notorious in their persistence, especially what with the Internet and stubborn, stupid people to breath life back into them. In other words, this may well be the death knell, that the Discovery Institute is finally giving up on maintaining the ridiculous farce of Intelligent Design being an "alternative theory to "Darwinism (sic)," and is not the same as Creationism," but, we're going to still have idiots, be they hyperconservative, rabidly anti-intellectual politicians, or Internet twits, who will pipe up and say, "Intelligent Design is, too, scientific!"
Ben said: Has to be the Three Amigos. I love the Three Stooges. Don't disrespect them by associating them with the Disco Tute. Unless all three of these guys are Shemp, the most stupid, hated, and unfunny stooge. Can we call them the Three Shemps?
Only on the condition that you can prove that Shemp ate your dog and or your baby. I mean, the act of unfair equating someone with the Intelligent Design movement is blood-matzo ball level libel, after all.

Wheels · 8 August 2009

Would you say they have a plethora of YECs?

RBH · 8 August 2009

Wheels said: Would you say they have a plethora of YECs?
I'd say a Flud of YECs.

Ron Okimoto · 8 August 2009

fnxtr said: First Dr. Dr. D's science envy and now this. At what point will they finally tell their flock to give up the "ID is science" canard?
They already have. You don't run the bait and switch on your own support base unless you have given up. All ID curently is good for is the bait to run in the switch scam. That is literally all they use it for at this time. Just ask any rube that believed them if they ever got any ID science to teach in the public schools. Zero should tell anyone with a functioning brain something, and it isn't something good. Ron Okimoto

Ben · 8 August 2009

Stanton said: Only on the condition that you can prove that Shemp ate your dog and or your baby. I mean, the act of unfair equating someone with the Intelligent Design movement is blood-matzo ball level libel, after all.
I'm confused. Are you actually standing up for Shemp? He may not have eaten any dogs or babies (that I know of), but he did destroy my childhood love of the Three Stooges. And is there anything more precious than the love of a child? Also, one can draw some shocking parallels between Shemp and ID creationism: 1. Shemp was an original Stooge. ID creationism was the original/default explanation for everything. 2. Shemp was replaced by the vastly superior Curly. ID creationism was replaced by the vastly superior (read: true) theory of evolution. 3. Shemp later replaced Curly when his health failed. ID creationists are trying to destroy the theory of evolution and replace it with ID creationism.

Stanton · 8 August 2009

Ben said: I'm confused. Are you actually standing up for Shemp?
Yes: I'm saying that you should condemn Shemp for his own faults, and only his own faults, (i.e., an incompetent comedian) and not condemn and denounce him after comparing/equating him with the Intelligent Design Movement. It's unfair and downright mean to compare and or equate anyone, living or dead, to the Intelligent Design Movement, much in the same manner as sentencing a person, upon their hideous demise, to have their corpse exhumed, then drawn and quartered is unfair and downright mean.

Stanton · 8 August 2009

RBH said:
Wheels said: Would you say they have a plethora of YECs?
I'd say a Flud of YECs.
I prefer to say a plague of YECs.

Mike Elzinga · 8 August 2009

raven said: Where do they get the money for these warm bodies? Science isn't cheap to do.
It’s expensive only if one is doing real science. But just think how far the money can go if all they do is sit in their offices quote-mining and churning out screeds purporting to be research but are merely speculations based on completely erroneous understandings of scientific concepts. The only equipment they need is pens, paper, and copiers. They don’t even need erasers and wastebaskets.

Karen S. · 8 August 2009

Three Amigos or Three Stooges?

Well, certainly not the three wise men!

RBH · 8 August 2009

Nor the three wise guys.

RBH · 8 August 2009

Larry Moran weighs in on the Three Stooges side.

Ron Okimoto · 8 August 2009

RBH said: Larry Moran weighs in on the Three Stooges side.
Why fixate on "three." The guys over at the dishonesty institute are more like the KAOS crew on Get Smart.

raven · 8 August 2009

The only equipment they need is pens, paper, and copiers.
They would also need tinfoil hats, bibles, and a stick to hit their heads if they ever had a rational thought. The few Ph.D. level scientists who went creationist never did any science again. ID is the roach hotel of science, you check in but never come out.

snaxalotl · 9 August 2009

ironic how the narrow minded need to cast such broad tents so they can pretend there's a lot of agreement with their position

I think KAOS don't do nearly enough bumbling ... keystone cops seems a better fit

Frank J · 9 August 2009

What’s delicious fun is that they’re all Young Earth Creationists.

— Richard B. Hoppe
Then why on earth would they be doing "research" in biology? It's so much easier to mine the data in geology, radiochemistry, astrophysics, etc. Are you sure they're not just old-earth-young-life creationists? Or have they converted from YEC to "don't ask, don't tell what happened when"?

Frank J · 9 August 2009

Now for my vote. I say "Stooges." But in all fairness my vote should not count because I am a 50-year 3 Stooges fan and have not seen "Amigos." Lynch does deserve credit for citing this Colin Reeves comment:

The Gap Theory, which seeks to explain the fossil record by inserting geological ages between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, has no basis in Holy Scripture.

While everyone is rushing into "Aha! they're YECs!" what I notice is the singling out of "Gap" with no mention of "Day Age." So what I read into that is not so much that they "are" YECs, but that they are quietly backpedaling from it. Not unlike the inimitable Paul Nelson, who, after 1.5 years has still not answered my question about whether he is really an Omphalos creationist. I won't hold my breath of course, because others have been waiting over 5 years for him to explain "ontogenetic depth."

a lurker · 9 August 2009

Karen S. - "Well, certainly not the three wise men."
RBH - "Nor the three wise guys."

Well given that the Discovery Institute is into intimidating educators who want to teach science into teaching their brand of pseudoscience where their "intelligent design" is in controversy with a phony version of "Darwinism" I think "wise guys" might be appropriate. Wise guys being the name of those who work for the mob. Wise guy is also what Moe calls Larry and Curly before hitting them if memory serves.

¡Three Amigos! does have something going for it. In the movie the cowboys were fakes. But real guys with the fake facts and the fake quotes really have no chance of redemption.

Paul Burnett · 9 August 2009

"a lurker" said: Well given that the Discovery Institute is into intimidating educators who want to teach science into teaching their brand of pseudoscience...
The Dishonesty Institute just wants to sell as many of their bogus textbooks to as many homeschoolers and religious schools as possible. That's why they continue to beat the drum at religious conferences and in religious magazines and websites and continue to publish their pro-intelligent design creationism books (such as Signature In The Cell) using religious publishing houses. It's not about science - it's about money.

waldteufel · 9 August 2009

This is too sweet for words.

Looks like Casey and Co. left their flies open while droning on about ID being anything but creationism.

a lurker · 9 August 2009

Paul Burnett said:
"a lurker" said: Well given that the Discovery Institute is into intimidating educators who want to teach science into teaching their brand of pseudoscience...
The Dishonesty Institute just wants to sell as many of their bogus textbooks to as many homeschoolers and religious schools as possible. That's why they continue to beat the drum at religious conferences and in religious magazines and websites and continue to publish their pro-intelligent design creationism books (such as Signature In The Cell) using religious publishing houses. It's not about science - it's about money.
Obviously it is not about science. It has as much to do with science as a three-dollar bill has to do with currency. But I think it is a mistake to say that it is only about money. I have no doubt that Dembski believes his religiously-motivated pseudoscience. Of course they certainly have no problem with making some money while they are at it. But that is hardly something limited to creationists.

KP · 9 August 2009

Isn't Paul Nelson already a YEC? So these guys should feel at home. But being more than 3 of them, now, that would make neither Amigos nor Stooges appropriate...

RBH · 9 August 2009

KP said: Isn't Paul Nelson already a YEC? So these guys should feel at home. But being more than 3 of them, now, that would make neither Amigos nor Stooges appropriate...
Yup, but Nelson, a philosopher, is not part of the Biologic Institute, the Disco 'Tute's "research" arm.

John Kwok · 9 August 2009

There may be more to it than you think. By hiring these three "prominent" European YECs, the Dishonesty Institute is letting the "faithful" know that YEC is tolerated by the DI as something that could be "scientific". This is almost analogous to having Arafat preaching peaceful co-existence between the Palestinians and Israelis to sympathetic Europeans and North Americans, while urging his Palestinian "faithful" onward in trying to drive the "Zionist Entity" back into the Mediterranean Sea:
waldteufel said: This is too sweet for words. Looks like Casey and Co. left their flies open while droning on about ID being anything but creationism.

Frank J · 9 August 2009

Isn’t Paul Nelson already a YEC?

— KP
No one knows. He has said more YEC-friendly things than other DI folk, but anti-evolution activists, especially the DI variety, only care that others reject evolution, and will say or suggest anything that would achieve that goal. We never really know what they personally believe. For all we know they might privately believe that the evidence supports evolution, and not any of the mutually-contradictory creationist accounts. If Nelson truly thinks that the evidence supports a YEC account he has nothing to lose by providing a negative answer to my question whether he is an Omphalos creationist. And he would have nothing to lose by challenging OECs, as Duane Gish did way back when. The first person he might want to challenge is his DI colleague Michael Behe, who not only accepts the entire 4-billion year chronology of life (as opposed to a "day-age" or "gap" hybrid), but also common descent.

Michael J · 9 August 2009

I think that having failed miserably convincing anybody not already on their side about ID, I think that they are going wholesale for the home schoolers. People don't just home school because of evolution but because of a general fear of modern society.
That is why lately for every pseudo-science publication you see a Darwin==Hitler book or a pseudo-history publication. I think that rather than dying we are seeing the DI is involved in the creation of an enclave that satisfies the needs of this segment of society.

RBH · 9 August 2009

If Nelson truly thinks that the evidence supports a YEC account he has nothing to lose by providing a negative answer to my question whether he is an Omphalos creationist. And he would have nothing to lose by challenging OECs, as Duane Gish did way back when. The first person he might want to challenge is his DI colleague Michael Behe, who not only accepts the entire 4-billion year chronology of life (as opposed to a "day-age" or "gap" hybrid), but also common descent.
Nelson defended the young earth position in Three Views on Creation and Evolution, and Dembski identified Nelson as a YEC. That said, I don't think Nelson's YEC is evidence-based, but rather is theologically founded. Like all YECs, he has to explain away or ignore the evidence.

Albatross · 9 August 2009

SILENCE!! In no time at all they'll all be in uniform, lock step and barrel.

Albatross · 9 August 2009

Michael J said: I think that having failed miserably convincing anybody not already on their side about ID, I think that they are going wholesale for the home schoolers. People don't just home school because of evolution but because of a general fear of modern society. That is why lately for every pseudo-science publication you see a Darwin==Hitler book or a pseudo-history publication. I think that rather than dying we are seeing the DI is involved in the creation of an enclave that satisfies the needs of this segment of society.
You're painting with a broad brush. A good majority of homeschoolers might fit your bill, but certainly not all.

Ron Okimoto · 9 August 2009

Frank J said: Now for my vote. I say "Stooges." But in all fairness my vote should not count because I am a 50-year 3 Stooges fan and have not seen "Amigos."
I've seen them both, and three stooges is more apt. The three amigos were competent, they just hadn't been given the opportunity to demonstrate it. The only guys that still support the anti-evolution creationist intelligent design scam are the ignorant, incompetent, and or dishonest. If anyone knows of a counter example put them up.

Frank J · 10 August 2009

That said, I don’t think Nelson’s YEC is evidence-based, but rather is theologically founded.

— RBH
AIUI, all YEC, OEC and ID are "theologically founded" in that they omit any evidence that does not fit the conclusion they want to promote - which in ID's case is merely "some designer did something at some time, and it ain't evolution." But as you know, even YEC is a compromise, a 20th century fabrication that concedes the spherical Earth and non-geocentric universe, apparently because Flat Earthism and Geocentrism became harder to sell. There's nothing "Biblically special" about YEC. I guess the only position that is strictly "theologically founded" and admits it is Omphalos. AIUI, the particular faith-based belief associated with Omphalos is usually YEC, but there are probably OECs, Flat Earthers, etc. who also admit that their conclusions are reached in spite of the evidence, not because of it. But such people are generally the rank and file, not the activists.

DavidK · 10 August 2009

Paul Burnett said:
"a lurker" said: Well given that the Discovery Institute is into intimidating educators who want to teach science into teaching their brand of pseudoscience...
The Dishonesty Institute just wants to sell as many of their bogus textbooks to as many homeschoolers and religious schools as possible. That's why they continue to beat the drum at religious conferences and in religious magazines and websites and continue to publish their pro-intelligent design creationism books (such as Signature In The Cell) using religious publishing houses. It's not about science - it's about money.
It isn't just about money, though, for they, like the Taliban, need money to survive. They really believe in what they're promoting despite the blinders and all to real science and the world. It IS their world view, and they find a willing audience in the churchies to whom they preach, and whose congregations, unfortunately, can upset the cart with their votes, e.g., school boards, reps, senators, even presidents. This is where they get their funds and support, the choirs who check their brains at the door. So, just "watch your back, Jack," for despite their veneer of morality, they'll stab and stab and never go away.

Mike Elzinga · 10 August 2009

DavidK said: So, just "watch your back, Jack," for despite their veneer of morality, they'll stab and stab and never go away.
In over forty years I have never encountered an activist ID/creationist who was persuaded to change his mind and recognize his pseudo-science for what it is. After these cult leader wannabes prime themselves with all their contorted word games and go out to do battle with the “Darwinists”, there appears to be no going back for them. They’ve laid it on the line, and even if they ever recognized there was something wrong with what they were doing, they apparently have no other option but to plow ahead. The word-gaming continues to kick in and convince them that own their doubts as well as the evidence from real science are simply illusions generated by Satan. The ID/creationists I see writing to the editor of our local newspaper continue to make the same arguments, continue to ignore the evidence in the physical universe in which they exist, and continue to argue vehemently that scientists are wrong. When in doubt, scream loudly and often enough that you can never hear your own nagging thoughts before your apoplectic unconsciousness takes over.

Frank J · 10 August 2009

In over forty years I have never encountered an activist ID/creationist who was persuaded to change his mind and recognize his pseudo-science for what it is.

— Mike Elzinga
I too have been aware of evolution-denial for 40+ years but have only paid close attention to the activists' antics for the last 12. Since then I have noticed occasional backpedaling and a lot more "don't ask, don't tell." But not one unequivocal "I stand corrected." Thus, as you suggest, the goal should not be to get an activist, or a well-trained cheerleader (e.g. "letter to the editor" writers) to admit error - which they won't do even if they realize their error - but to show the not-entirely-hopeless evolution deniers in the audience how the activists play word games and evade simple questions about their own "theory." As you know I always start with the age of life (which they routinely try to substitute with the age of the earth) and common descent. Alerting the audience to Behe's position must be salt in the activists' wounds.

eric · 10 August 2009

DavidK said:
Paul Burnett said: The Dishonesty Institute just wants to sell as many of their bogus textbooks to as many homeschoolers and religious schools as possible...
It isn't just about money, though, for they, like the Taliban, need money to survive. They really believe in what they're promoting despite the blinders and all to real science and the world.
So, I think we need to draw a distinction here. While creationists may really believe that what they're promoting is true, it is hard to imagine that the sophisticated leaders of the movement really believe that its science. You have comments by Behe and Dembski about how the definition of science needs to be changed. You have Philip Johnson saying flat out that it isn't science yet. And you have tu quoque arguments from the entire range of creationists (laymen through experts) that evolution isn't science either, so both should be taught...which is a backhanded implication about the status of creationism. Statements like this are pretty good evidence that they know creationism isn't really, and calling it science is no more than a rhetorical strategy to get it into biology classrooms.

Richard · 11 August 2009

Then there are those who say that neither creationism nor evolution are scientific, that they're both religious, and so neither should be taught in public schools. I get the impression that there are plenty of non-creationists who think that too.

Frank J · 11 August 2009

I get the impression that there are plenty of non-creationists who think that too.

— Richard
At least half of adult Americans fall between the extremes of "will not accept evolution under any circumstances" and "accept evolution and reasonably understand it an the nature of science." Most of that group can easily fall for "evolution is religious" or "evolution is not scientific." Anti-evolution activists will throw out anything they can get away with, however inconsistent. Generally the strategy is to first pretend that creationism (or ID if they want to "distance" it from YEC/OEC) is "science just like evolution." If the audience does not buy that or is not expected to, then they try the "they're both religious" approach. Dembski even tried the "ID is scientific but 'Darwinism' is not" approach but that seems to have been quietly abandoned.

eric · 11 August 2009

Richard said: Then there are those who say that neither creationism nor evolution are scientific, that they're both religious, and so neither should be taught in public schools. I get the impression that there are plenty of non-creationists who think that too.
I'd be interested to hear what led you to those impressions, Richard. Personally I don't know any non-creationist who considers TOE to be religion.

Frank J · 11 August 2009

Personally I don’t know any non-creationist who considers TOE to be religion.

— eric
Not sure what you mean by "non-creationist," but note that in my reply to Richard I explicitly avoided the word "creationist." A person who hasn't given 5 minutes thought to evolution or Genesis might say "I heard somewhere that evolution is just another religion." Such a person might be a "creationist" in one sense of the word, but not in the sense of being an anti-evolution activist or one of their hopeless followers.

Tyrannosaurus · 11 August 2009

The Three Stooges hands down.

Susan Silberstein · 11 August 2009

Stooges. If it walks like the definition in the Oxford Concise Dictionary...

James F · 12 August 2009

I'm going to make a somewhat vague reference here, see if anyone catches it:

And all the Calormenes banged the flats of their swords on their shields and shouted, "Tash! Tash! The great god Tash! Inexorable Tash! (There was no nonsense about "Tashlan" now.)

Richard · 14 August 2009

eric said:
Richard said: Then there are those who say that neither creationism nor evolution are scientific, that they're both religious, and so neither should be taught in public schools. I get the impression that there are plenty of non-creationists who think that too.
I'd be interested to hear what led you to those impressions, Richard. Personally I don't know any non-creationist who considers TOE to be religion.
Well, there have been posters on this and similar blogs who insist that they're neither, but use many of the same arguments as creationists/IDists. Then there are post-modern relativists who adopt a similar stance. Additionally I have known non-religious people who have at least fallen for the whole "just a theory" line. But like I said, this is just my impression, and I can't claim to know their minds or guarantee their honesty. I'm afraid it's all anecdotal, so I can't supply any sources.