Creationist Credibility

| 68 Comments

Some of you may recall that the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, publisher of the creationist textbook, Of Pandas and People, wants to intervene in the Dover, PA lawsuit to protect its intellectual property. Their textbook is central to the case that the school board violated the separation of church and state. In fact, the plaintiffs have subpoenaed FTE’s records about the textbook to help demonstrate its religious nature.

However, the publisher believes that their sales will be hurt if their textbook is found to be a leading cause of a first amendment violation. Therefore, FTE is trying to intervene in the case to convince the court that its textbook is something other than what it is.

Yesterday, the York Dispatch reported on some developments in the case: “Textbook publisher wants to join lawsuit - Says company is not a religious organization”.

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

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

He said he had never seen the form until Rothschild pointed out that his initials were on the bottom of one page.

The organization’s Articles of Incorporation from the state of Texas also mention religion, Christianity and the Bible.

Buell blamed that on the attorney who filed the papers.

“So the accountant got it wrong and the attorney got it wrong?” Rothschild asked.

“That’s true,” Buell said.

Rothschild also brought forth several other examples of the foundation’s possible religious ties, including an early draft of the book, which in its infant stages was titled “Biology of Origins.”

The draft mentioned “creationism” frequently. But in the final copy of the book, after the title was changed, the word creationism was replaced with the phrase “intelligent design.”

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

68 Comments

“Creationism” = “placeholder term”. LOL.

Lying for Jesus. Halleluiah!

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

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

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

The words ‘perjury’ and ‘tax evasion’ come to mind…

Oh wow. Here’s a place holder- liar.

they can drop the “E” … the “T” should probably go, too

Hmm… Foundation for hought and thics. ;-) I favour a couple of substitution and insertion mutations as well as those deletion ones: Foundation for Haught and Thicks.

“Foundation for Thought and Hics”

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

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

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

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

Hey, don’t knock the hicks, I was one once. The real problem is in the suburbs anyway.

Rather, keep your eye on the ball. Remember what Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture Associate Director John G. West told us back in 2002, in “Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren’t the Same”:

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

Leaving aside whether or not Numbers was being accurately represented here (I have my doubts), if it turns out that Of Pandas and People, the very first book that used the term “intelligent design” consistently, originally said “creationism” instead, as this news article reports:

Rothschild also brought forth several other examples of the foundation’s possible religious ties, including an early draft of the book, which in its infant stages was titled “Biology of Origins.”

The draft mentioned “creationism” frequently. But in the final copy of the book, after the title was changed, the word creationism was replaced with the phrase “intelligent design.”

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

…then it means that those evil conspiratorial paranoid Darwinists were, in fact, precisely right all along, and “intelligent design” really is just creationism with a new name, in a very literal sense.

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

Oops, what Buell MEANT to say was that the courts ruled that creationism was nothing but religious doctrine and was illegal to teach, after the draft was written, so the writers changed the word in their, uh, “textbook” to avoid and evade that legal ruling.

This is the sorriest and stupidest load of cow cakes that I’ve ever heard from a fundie. And I’ve heard lots. PLEASE put this guy on the stand. PLEASE PLEASE.

The nutters certainly do seem awfully determined to lose this case, don’t they . … .

Ah, as I’ve always said … let a fundie talk long enough, and he’ll always shoot himself in the head, every single time. They are by far their own worst enemies.

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

The draft mentioned “creationism” frequently. But in the final copy of the book, after the title was changed, the word creationism was replaced with the phrase “intelligent design.”

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

lol… They are their own worst enemies.

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

Odd, isn’t it, that Buell is willing to confess to what may very well be tax evasion and fraud, in order to, uh, “help” the IDers in court …

Since FTE isn’t a charitable religious group after all, I’m quite sure that Buell wouldn’t mind, then, if the IRS were to yank his tax-exempt status and take a cut for Uncle Sam from all these “science textbooks” . … along with all those back-taxes.

Right?

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 1, column 49, byte 49 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

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

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

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

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

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

Another thing. THis is a ****ing FEDERAL ISSUE!!! It has NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY STATE. Who cares where the accountant was from. It’s irrelevant!

He could be licensed in any State or US Territory and prepare that form. Heck, he could prepare the form and not be licensed at all.

Arrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggggggg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I HATE IT when people blame the accountant for their own mendacity.

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

I’ve got my copy right here, want to see it? Now when the topic comes up, I can say “Yes, I’ve read it, and boy does it stink. It’s chock full of really really bad science, such as here and here and here, and any school board member who recommends it for use is demonstrating their incompetence”.

I will say that I am proud to have purchased it at a used book sale, so none of my funds went to the authors or publishers.

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

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

Most notable quotes:

“Buell blamed…” followed by “Buell blamed…”

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

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

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

Hick Wrote:

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

From O’Leary’s blog:

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

Hoo boy, check it out! Because the NCSE and the ACLU asked for drafts of a book they are labeled “enemies of an open society” by someone who wants to have their religious views taught in public schools and stamped as ‘official science’. I feel like I’m reading 1984 again.

BTW, having read Of Pandas amd People, I can say that it obvious that the word Creationists was ripped out and replaced with Intelligent design advocates.

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

What does she do for a job anyway?

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

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

I wouldn’t want to be Dembski et al.

Incidently, since when did Creationists EVER have any credibility?

Bill remarked

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

What does she do for a job anyway?

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

RBH

RBH,

Unemployed, I assume.

Or, perhaps, unemployable.

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

It’s a fair cop, SEF

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

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

Another good page on Darwinism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

Darwinism is a term used for various processes related to the ideas of Charles Darwin, particularly concerning evolution and natural selection. Darwinism in this sense is not synonymous with evolution, but rather with evolution by natural selection. Modern biology suggests a number of other mechanisms involved in evolution which were unknown to Darwin, such as genetic drift.

Also, Darwinism may be used to contrast it with other, discredited mechanisms of evolution that were historically thought possible, such as Lamarckism or mutationism.

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

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

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

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

Much as you may want it to be, it’s not when people like Mayr, Dawkins, and Dennett (25 page references in DDI) use it.

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

Quite so. I think we would do better not to let the creationists turn Darwinxxx into a dirty word.

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

It’s part of that massive martyr complex they all have.

Teaching Darwin splits Pennsylvania town 3/27/05 http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm[…]&ncid=15

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

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

BTW, this article rolled off Yahoo, but Creation/Evolution: The Eternal Debate still has it cached for all eternity. (3517 cached articles & growing!)

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Reed A. Cartwright published on July 16, 2005 8:11 AM.

Utah and Human Evolution was the previous entry in this blog.

Quote of the Day - 16 July 2005 is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter