And Yet ANOTHER Creationist Meltdown

| 55 Comments

After posting Yet Another Creationist Meltdown last July, I began to mull over testing a little hypothesis, namely that right-wing idealogues caught up in embarrassing political or sexual scandals have a better likelihood of being Creationists.

Well, we have a new Data Point. It turns out that Senator Larry Craig, R-Idaho, has been up to more than just allegedly soliciting men in adjacent bathroom stalls.

Courtesy of Jim Fisher’s January 9, 2006 article in the Lewiston Morning Tribune (original here, registration required):

Then there’s U.S. Sen. Larry Craig, who as a House member 16 years ago co-sponsored a constitutional amendment, the “Community Life Amendment,” to authorize teaching “the creation of the earth as accepted in Judeo-Christian tradition.”

And indeed, right there in the 101st Congress, 1989, there is (then Representative) Larry Craig co-sponsoring House Joint Resolution 297:

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to the right of the people to allow voluntary prayer and the teaching of the Judeo-Christian ethic in public schools. … SECTION 2. For the purpose of section 1, the term ‘teaching of the Judeo-Christian ethic’ shall include the Ten Commandments and the creation of the earth as accepted in Judeo-Christian tradition.

Discuss.

55 Comments

”…the creation of the earth as accepted in WHICH Judeo-Christian tradition?” That tradition’s been changing, whether or not Craig and his ilk have noticed. And if you teach creationism, in ANY form, it won’t be “accepted” in the Catholic or Lutheran traditions.

Creationism, homophobia, and hypocrisy go together like apple pie and ice cream. Why should we expect otherwise? And I suspect that Craig is only the tip of the iceberg. How many other politicians walk a private path wholly at odds with their public bluster? Many, many I suspect.

What’s to discuss? Fundies are simply damaged goods. Duh.

And according to his Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig) he’s been on the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association since 1983. Of course, maybe that’s all part of the disguise, like marrying a woman with kids so he can say he’s got kids (he has no biological children that we know about) (yet).

What’s amazing is that the clear language given in the Bill of Rights specifically addressing ideas like this somehow escaped the attention of the representatives who were proposing the “Community Life Amendment”. Seems like the Constitution would be a hard thing to miss if you worked in Congress.

Well, see, who other than the Designer would think to make orifices in men which can be used for Craig’s purposes? Surely mouths and anuses weren’t made simply for alimentary purposes. Craig praises the Designer for his forethought and evident purposes.

Hey, it’s as good an argument for design as I’ve ever seen.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

One can only hope that some day the folks who subscribe to a world view that encourages hypocrisy and self-loathing like that seen in Senator Craig (R., Closet) will see that this is not at all consistent with the teachings of their founders.

”…WHICH Judeo-Christian tradition…” indeed!

On Ash Wednesday of this year, several of us were in a committee hearing (New Mexico) to testify against a creationist bill. Before this bill was heard, another came before the committee which would allow the bible to be used as a history text in schools. Three of the committee members had crosses drawn with ashes on their foreheads from mass that AM. (This is predominantly a Roman Catholic state.) The question of “which version” of the bible came up, and one of the fundamentalist committee memebers moved to make it the KJV. She had no idea how hilariously stupid that motion was with all those Catholics looking at her. No one laughed out loud (bad form, you know?), but there were a few audible snarky snorts that could be heard.

Of course, the bill was tabled. So was the creation bill.

SECTION 2. For the purpose of section 1, the term ‘teaching of the Judeo-Christian ethic’ shall include the Ten Commandments and the creation of the earth as accepted in Judeo-Christian tradition.

Badly written law. Most creationists don’t have 10 commandments anyway. They always toss out the ones about killing and lying. The leaders toss the one about not coveting other people’s money. Craig tossed the one about not coveting his neighbor’s ass.

So we are down to 6 or 7 commandments already.

the creation of the earth as accepted in Judeo-Christian tradition.

Huh!!!! What judeo christian tradition? Most Xian sects are OK with evolution and reality. The fundie cults vary all over the place with their mythology and kinds and dinosaur pets of the Jews.

Even the Pope, head of the largest J-C tradition with a billion members (claimed) is OK with reality and evolution. I’m sure by Idaho standards that makes the Pope a pagan.

Want to bet the next guy the good Xians of Idaho elect will be even crazier?

I’ve been meaning to do a “senator craig creationism” search for days.

Yes, it is one aspect of a sociopolitical cult of authoritarianism, control-seeking, personal torment, and desperate hypocrisy. With overtones of sadism.

You won’t see many of them on this thread.

They’ll lie about moths all day, but this kind of thing touches too many nerves.

Did anyone see clips of his Meet the Press Interview on the censuring of Bill Clinton back in 1999? I nearly fell off my couch laughing when Leno showed the clip couple nights ago. And it was an undoctored, authentic clip, even though it could easily have been a spoof.

“Clinton is a bad, nuaghty boy,” said Craig, in an effeminate voice and a suggestive smile on his face. LOL. You can’t make stuff like that up!

It’s been interesting listening to the conservatives today. Hannity in particular has been gold tonight. Craig admitted that he was guilty, so Hannity is trying his hardest to make it sound like the Police have a chip on their shoulder or are just bullying him, but at the same time Hannity has to admit that if that is true then Craig is an idiot for confessing. The sad thing is that Hannity will never even consider the larger picture when trying to make sense of something like this.

Since my wife is bi, I’ve read a few different books with anecdotes about the issues that arise in cases like this (where the guy is going to restrooms…) In almost all the cases that I read, a lot of the pain could have been avoided if people had simply felt free to be who they were, rather than feeling like they had to mold themselves to the expectations of others.

After posting Yet Another Creationist Meltdown last July, I began to mull over testing a little hypothesis, namely that right-wing idealogues caught up in embarrassing political or sexual scandals have a better likelihood of being Creationists.

Well, there is a very high likelihood that right-wing ideologues in the US are creationists to start with. Statistically, you’d need an enormous number of scandal-hit right-wing ideologues to show that they are more likely to be scandal-hit than their hard-to-find non-Creationist right-wing ideologues counterparts. (Thankfully for you, the GOP and this Administration seem to be working hard to give you the sample power you need to test your hypothesis.)

Seriously though, the really scandalous parts of Senator Craig’s life are his hypocrisy and the environment in which he operated, which allows public figures to exploit and even promote homophobia for political gain. If it wasn’t for those, he very likely wouldn’t have been looking for sex in airport restrooms.

I don’t see the problem. There’s nothing in the Judeo-Christian bible that prohibits soliciting anonymous gay sex in a men’s room as long as the partners don’t have sex lying down. Leviticus clearly states that only “lying with a man as one would lie with a woman” is an “abomination unto the Lord.” It doesn’t note any particular abominable-ness if one of the partners is sitting down and the other kneeling in front of him.

I mean, if we’re going to talk literal interpretation, let’s be fully literal about it.

Funny, I was just commenting on all the right-wing, moralist sex scandals on my blog yesterday. My thought was that moralists are plagued by their own personal demons, and their way of dealing with it is to inflict their moralizing on us, but their preaching is aimed, first and foremost at themselves to keep their personal demons a bay. (I also have that ‘Meet the Press’ video involving Larry Craig in 1999.) http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2007/[…]t-crusaders/

The husband of a college friend dropped $500K of his own money trying to defeat him in 1996. Looks like all it really took was a bathroom stall :)

The transcript of his police interview is available

My favorite bit:

DK The Police Officer Wrote:

I’m not trying to act like I have all kinds of power or anything, but you’re sitting here lying to a police officer.

I shouldn’t take such joy in this, but Craig’s been an asshole throughout his career in the House and Senate, doing everything in his power to let timber and grazing interests dictate management of our National Forests and BLM land.

And according to his Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig) he’s been on the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association since 1983. Of course, maybe that’s all part of the disguise, like marrying a woman with kids so he can say he’s got kids (he has no biological children that we know about) (yet).

Bart Simpson: “Isn’t there something about a bunch of guys, alone in the forest, that’s kinda gay?”

He also seems unaware that among “Judeo-“ traditions, the book of Genesis isn’t usually given a literal interpretation.

Justin writes…

Hannity has to admit that if that is true then Craig is an idiot for confessing.

And now he wants a do-over because he “didn’t understand what it meant” to plead guilty. But then Why would Craig understand the complex details of criminal law, when it’s clear that the (much simpler) first amendment is beyond his grasp?

Since my wife is bi…

You lucky, lucky bastard.

Raven asked: “Want to bet the next guy the good Xians of Idaho elect will be even crazier?”

Two words: Bill Sali http://spokesmanreview.com/blogs/bo[…]?postID=5936 AND http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Sali

BTW, I’ll be driving through Idaho next week. Should I avoid drinking the water?

It seems that God judges those who seek to force everyone else to conform to their own values, by revealing their hypocrisy inherent within us all.

I have a perhaps not groundbreaking theory that creationists are, shall we say, extremely morally flexible. It’s just that the (formerly) closeted fundy gays always seem to be loud voices in condemning homosexuality. Creationists are always willing to use deception to try to convince people of the validity of their claims, and when faced with the facts attempt to redefine things rather than accepting their deserved guilt.

It seems to me that biblical literalism somehow breeds an ability to accept any arbitrary morality, along with the ability to change it to suit the situation. Followers of the “prince of peace” can justify murder, the meek might be due to inherit the Earth but the leaders of the church luxuriate in the wealth they demand from their parishioners, and people who are supposed to be worshiping a man who washed the feet of prostitutes as a sign of humility loudly trumpet their bigoted beliefs on national television.

I dunno, if they’re willing to accept all those flagrant contradictions what other barriers are left to keep them from doing anything?

I find this rush to judgement here, that Craig is guilty of some serious lapse, before all the facts are in and while he loudly proclaims that he “did nothing wrong” to be very unseemly, unscientific and unfair.

Posted by Carol Clouser on August 31, 2007 2:39 AM (e)

I find this rush to judgment here, that Craig is guilty of some serious lapse, before all the facts are in and while he loudly proclaims that he “did nothing wrong” to be very unseemly, unscientific and unfair.

Uh huh…just remind me never to use a toilet cubicle next to you. When you pass your hand suggestively under the divider I’ll have to really think hard that all you are after is toilet paper.

Still, it does make a nice change to see Carol not going on and on about barebacking and pre teen sex and how ‘Darwinism’ is responsible for a percieved breakdown in society. We all know now it’s the creationists who are responsible. *giggle*

raven Wrote:

Huh!!!! What judeo christian tradition? Most Xian sects are OK with evolution and reality.

I was going to say that. But I’d bet that Craig did not know that in ‘89 or ‘06 when he used those words. A good bet is that in ‘89 he was thinking “teach the 6-day creation” and by ‘06 he was thinking “don’t ask, don’t tell the whos, whats and whens of creation, but teach the weaknesses of evolution.”

I find this rush to judgement here, that Craig is guilty of some serious lapse, before all the facts are in and while he loudly proclaims that he “did nothing wrong” to be very unseemly, unscientific and unfair.

didn’t I see you post the same thing on a Michael Vick thread a few weeks back?

speaking of saving animals…

save any zebras lately?

Carol Clouser–

It would help convince everyone that you are concerned with justice for the accused, not snarky partisan politics, if you would post here the e-mails you sent to Mitt Romney and the remaining Republican senators, protesting their “rush to judgement.” They had Craig tried, convicted, and sent beyond the pale while the Democrats were still trying to get the facts straight.

Raging Bee Wrote:

“…the creation of the earth as accepted in WHICH Judeo-Christian tradition?” That tradition’s been changing, whether or not Craig and his ilk have noticed. And if you teach creationism, in ANY form, it won’t be “accepted” in the Catholic or Lutheran traditions.

Craig’s Wikipedia biography lists him as being Methodist, and a Bible literalism is certainly not a tenet of that denomination either. Of course, this has never been about doctrinal consistency, or even about religious faith itself.

My thought was that moralists are plagued by their own personal demons, and their way of dealing with it is to inflict their moralizing on us, but their preaching is aimed, first and foremost at themselves to keep their personal demons a bay.

I have a perhaps not groundbreaking theory that creationists are, shall we say, extremely morally flexible. It’s just that the (formerly) closeted fundy gays always seem to be loud voices in condemning homosexuality. Creationists are always willing to use deception to try to convince people of the validity of their claims, and when faced with the facts attempt to redefine things rather than accepting their deserved guilt.

Or maybe there’s just a special type of person who tends to completely lack insight, empathy, self-awareness, judgment, and what we would call a conscience. Maybe that type of person tends to con and manipulate and seek power over others. Maybe that type of person is instintively attracted to whatever rigid, ruthless, corrupt authoritarian ideology is being peddled in their particular society (be it communist, fascist, or theological).

Maybe that type of person is overwhelmingly disproportionately attracted to the “true believer” creationist/wingnut faction of the US “conservative movement”. Maybe the disproportional attraction is so strong that many of those types of people are self-identified creationist wingnuts, and most creationist wingnuts are that type of people. Maybe it’s easy to understand why such people never stop lying, long after their lies have been caught. Maybe it’s easy to see that such people wouldn’t give a damn about the long term impact of their behavior.

Maybe they don’t really care about their own rules or why peppered moth coloration frequency might be different in different environments. Maybe the rules and the truth are for suckers, and it’s all about power, manipulation, control, and exploiting the less intelligent. Maybe it’s easy to predict that that type of person would preach rigid “morality” when it suited their purposes, while secretly indulging in any sexual/substance/sadistic practices gave them a buzz, and assuming they’d never get caught.

http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~mcafee/Bin/sb.html

Let’s deal with some creationist distortions.

I find this rush to judgement here, that Craig is guilty of some serious lapse, before all the facts are in and while he loudly proclaims that he “did nothing wrong” to be very unseemly, unscientific and unfair.

For the record, the only direct way in which I perceive Craig’s specific action to be wrong, is that I consider it rude to propose sex to strangers in airport bathrooms, except under highly unusual circumstances.

I agree with reasonable laws against minor public nuisances, and that does include, in my view, activities that force others to observe private sexual interactions, whether they want to or not. Call me a prude, but I say “get a room”, and I say, if somebody wants to watch, invite them or make a video for them, but let me decide, don’t force it on me when I’m trying to relieve my bladder between connecting flights. Having said that, I think that Craig’s behavior may have been below the level that I perceive as justifying arrest.

But the point is not that making a pass a guy in an airport bathroom is morally wrong. The point is that living as a wingnut creationist homophobe for personal gain, while secretly indulging in gay sex, is dishonest and morally wrong.

I realize that you may be literally unable to understand what I am talking about. See my post above.

So if Barney Franks room “mate” ran a prostitution ring out of their apartment, was that because they were evolutionists.

Barney Frank is honest about his sexuality, and although there was an early period of his career during which he merely kept quiet about it, has never denied it, to my knowledge. Neither has he ever indulged in authoritarian homophobic “moralizing”.

But if Frank were caught doing something serious that Frank actually condemns, say stealing or violence, so what? You’re argument is the babyish logic “he did it too, so I can do it”. Use of this lowest-common-denominator-rules reasoning is abandoned by normal people in early childhood (and even normal small children apply it to trivial misbehaviors, not serious crimes). No-one said anyone who isn’t a creationist is perfect.

Furthermore, I’ve often stated that there are many people who hold traditional beliefs that happen to overlap with YEC, but who are perfectly normal, decent people in most other ways. I don’t give a damn how old somebody thinks the earth is. I don’t give a damn what they teach their kids in private. I care what science is taught in the tax payer funded public schools and what science guides general public policy.

But I would say that, yes, the type of politically active “conservative movement” creationist we dispute here is, in my personal view, overwhelmingly likely to suffer from problems that make them less honest, less responsible, less empathetic, and more manipulative than the average person.

Craig, Haggard, Foley, and their ilk are caught, on a regular basis, indulging in behavior which they claim to condemn. I don’t think it’s a coincidence.

I find this rush to judgement here, that Craig is guilty of some serious lapse, before all the facts are in and while he loudly proclaims that he “did nothing wrong” to be very unseemly, unscientific and unfair.

I agree completely. Innocent until proven guilty. Until he’s found guilty, or has pleaded guilty, why should he be assumed to have done what he’s accused of do…

Uh, never mind.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 3, column 2, byte 274 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

GOP Officials Say Craig May Resign By DAVID ESPO and MATTHEW DALY,AP

WASHINGTON (Aug. 31) - Idaho Sen. Larry Craig is considering resigning, Republican officials said Friday, after days of public and private pressure stemming from his arrest in June in a police undercover operation at an airport men’s room.

Looks like Craig is a victim of his own ideology.

Barney Frank had a better way of dealing with the issue. Honesty. “Hey I’m gay, so what. Go pick on someone else.”

Chances are Idaho will replace him with someone even more extreme.

Saber Wrote:

What’s amazing is that the clear language given in the Bill of Rights specifically addressing ideas like this somehow escaped the attention of the representatives who were proposing the “Community Life Amendment”. Seems like the Constitution would be a hard thing to miss if you worked in Congress.

The idea behind a constitutional amendment is to change the Constitution. Your point would have made sense if the proposal was to pass a congressional law. The fact that an amendment was proposed illustrates that the proponents knew that any such law would violate the Bill of Rights, so it did not escape the attention of the representatives as you claim.

Barney Frank had a better way of dealing with the issue. Honesty. “Hey I’m gay, so what. Go pick on someone else.”

Not to defend Senator Craig or hypocrisy, but it is somewhat understandable that one might not wish to change parties and move to Massachusetts.

Not to defend Senator Craig or hypocrisy, but it is somewhat understandable that one might not wish to change parties and move to Massachusetts.

However, he could have been honest about science and honest about himself without doing either of those things.

Or he could have done those things, and he’d be far better off than he is now.

Hmm. Of course we would expect many creationists to be less well functioning in other circumstances involving reasoning and also having the bigot mind that underlies the cryptic or anti-social behavior which gives rise to scandals.

But personally I don’t see any reason to vent over a specific case. And they are tragic for the participants.

[Note: That is no criticism on the series exposing creationist meltdowns. It is highly amusing and informative, the later making it exposure for a good cause.]

FWIW I would need statistics to start feeling vindicated. Okay, so that is 2 cases… :-P

harold Wrote:

But I would say that, yes, the type of politically active “conservative movement” creationist we dispute here is, in my personal view, overwhelmingly likely to suffer from problems that make them less honest, less responsible, less empathetic, and more manipulative than the average person.

You’re basing this on, what, as sample size of 3? I don’t like creationists any more than you do, but making such absurd extrapolations based on such limited data strikes me as little better than the sort of analysis that typically comes out of the Disco Institute, AIG, and the like.

I shouldn’t take such joy in this, but Craig’s been an asshole throughout his career in the House and Senate, doing everything in his power to let timber and grazing interests dictate management of our National Forests and BLM land.

He’s no friend to salmon management, either, and Mr. thalarctos was in class last night with a fisheries biologist—she was job retraining, as a direct result of budget slashing Craig was involved in—who could barely contain her Schadenfreude over his fall.

Let’s hope his replacement isn’t anywhere near as environment-hostile as Craig was.

I might be snickering about the whole ordeal this hypocrit has been caught up in if it weren’t for the fact that there is this peristent, nagging little voice in my head that says “what he did wasn’t that big a deal. What Larry Craig does in his private life is his own goddamned business. And why are the cops trying to crack down on this kind of thing? Unless these men are actually performing sexual acts right there in the bathroom stalls, I fail to see where a law has been broken.”

That said, the guy is a grade-A fuck-wit and deserves any public rebuke he gets. The irony is absolutely delicious.

As far as that resolution regarding the 10 commandments, were they talking about these 10 commandments?

1. Worship no other god than the Lord: Make no covenant with the inhabitants of other lands to which you go, do not intermarry with them, and destroy their places of worship. 2. Do not cast idols. 3. Observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread for seven days in the month of Abib. 4. Sacrifice firstborn male animals to Yahweh. The firstborn of a donkey may be redeemed; redeem firstborn sons. 5. Do no work or even kindle a fire on the seventh day. Anyone who does so will be put to death. 6. Observe the Feast of First Fruits and the Feast of Ingathering: All males are therefore to appear before the Lord three times each year. 7. Do not mix sacrificial blood with leavened bread. 8. Do not let the fat of offerings remain until the morning. 9. Bring the choicest first fruits of the harvest to the Temple of the Lord. 10. Do not cook a kid in its mother’s milk.

This is known as the “ritual decalogue” and is the only 10 commandments in the Bible that were actually called “commandments” by God. These were the ones written by “the finger of God” on those stone tablets.

Some how I don’t think this is what they had in mind.

Well, I think you’re right, just for different reasons than you might suppose.

But I would say that, yes, the type of politically active “conservative movement” creationist we dispute here is, in my personal view, overwhelmingly likely to suffer from problems that make them less honest, less responsible, less empathetic, and more manipulative than the average person.

You’re basing this on, what, as sample size of 3? I don’t like creationists any more than you do, but making such absurd extrapolations based on such limited data strikes me as little better than the sort of analysis that typically comes out of the Disco Institute, AIG, and the like.

Your distortion almost appears deliberate.

My quote clearly refers to “the type of politically active “conservative movement” creationist we dispute here”, either directly when they post here (like you), or when their public statements from other forums are addressed. There are dozens to hundreds of examples of such that I can think of off the top of my head. The sample is quite large. For more than three - Behe, Dembski, Well, Johnson, O’Leary, Cordova…

All of them (not just the ones listed but all the ones that have been disputed in this forum) almost inevitably show the following tendencies -

1) Distortion and misrepresentation of the views and arguments of others, sometimes even when the original argument is in plain sight. 2) Inability or unwillingness to absorb feeback (such as correction of logical errors, introduction of factual observations claimed not to exist, etc). 3) Use of an exaggeratedly “scornful” tone when presenting their own distortions of the views of others. 4) Constant attempts to present already discredited arguments to new, naive audiences. 5) Efforts to claim that opponents hold repugnant views that are at direct odds with the obvious values and identities of said opponents - suggesting that secular humanists and liberal Christians who accept mainstream evolutionarly biology should be perceived as supporters of “nazism” or “eugenics”, for example.

Now let’s look at the context. All of the above tendencies clearly indicate a lack of judgment, insight, curiousity, empathy, or the usual standards of honesty, in any context. But the context here is some sort of motivation to deny scientific reality, often in the context of personal gain and notoriety for doing so. My conclusions are highly reasonable.

I’m glad you don’t like creationists. It’s clear why you distorted my original point. It’s not “creationists”, but the “conservative movement”, that you rush to rescue.

To clarify - I didn’t comment on non-creationist right wingers at all, and won’t, in this forum, if I can help it. Nor did I comment on people who mind their own business but happen to have traditional beliefs that overlap with creationism; I’ve repeatedly stated that I have no problem with them, and that my problem is with efforts to compromise science education, to use pseudoscience or sectarian morality to influence public policy, or to repeatedly mis-educate the ignorant about science through the use of popular denialism books, ID/creationism and otherwise.

Having said all that, it’s a trivial observation that political creationism has attached itself to the polical right and the Republican party - virtually “creationism in schools” bills have been introduced by Republicans (see Craig as an example), all creationist school boards to date have been Republican, Republican but not Democrat presidential candidates were asked about “evolution” (and three denied it), etc.

I’m not a Republican, nor a “conservative” in the current sense. If you are, and you don’t like the fact that creationists and certain other science-deniers have attached themselves to your party, well, it’s up to you to figure out a solution.

Misrepresenting the arguments of others is not a good place to start.

I’ve just heard on the news this evening that he’s resigned (yep, it’s even made the headlines of BBC Radio Ulster, U105, Belfast Citybeat etc.)

The whole thing reminds me of a certain skit by the “Little Britain” team.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/littlebritain/

Did anyone see clips of his Meet the Press Interview on the censuring of Bill Clinton back in 1999? I nearly fell off my couch laughing when Leno showed the clip couple nights ago. And it was an undoctored, authentic clip, even though it could easily have been a spoof.

http://mefeedia.com/entry/3400339/

I find this rush to judgement here, that Craig is guilty of some serious lapse, before all the facts are in and while he loudly proclaims that he “did nothing wrong” to be very unseemly, unscientific and unfair.

He pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct – that is, legally, a proclamation that he did something wrong. Also, I’ve read the police report, and either Craig is guilty as charged or the police officer told a pack of lies. There are many reasons to infer the former vs. the latter. So, once again Clouser is full of it.

DK The Police Officer wrote:

I’m not trying to act like I have all kinds of power or anything, but you’re sitting here lying to a police officer.

But more to the point:

I’m just disappointed in you sir. I’m just really am. I expect this from the guy that we get out of the hood. I mean, people vote for you.… Embarrassing, embarrassing. No wonder why we’re going down the tubes.

It looks like this woke DK up.

So if Barney Franks room “mate” ran a prostitution ring out of their apartment, was that because they were evolutionists.

There are many stupid things about that question, not the least of which is that you don’t know Stephen Gobie’s views on evolution.

You’re argument is the babyish logic “he did it too, so I can do it”.

Actually, that’s not Grady’s argument, not even close. Rather, he’s addressing the claim that Craig’s behavior flowed from being a creationist, and offering a parallel inference that we would presumably reject. There are many ways to refute him, without radically mischaracterizing what he wrote.

You’re argument is the babyish logic “he did it too, so I can do it”.

Actually, that’s not Grady’s argument, not even close. Rather, he’s addressing the claim that Craig’s behavior flowed from being a creationist, and offering a parallel inference that we would presumably reject. There are many ways to refute him, without mischaracterizing what he wrote.

Carol writes: “I find this rush to judgement here, that Craig is guilty of some serious lapse, before all the facts are in and while he loudly proclaims that he “did nothing wrong” to be very unseemly, unscientific and unfair.”

I take it John McCain and several other GOP Senators are also guilty of rush to judgement then?

Of course Vitter who got busted for prostitution doesn’t have to resign. His state has a democrat for Gov., while Idaho has a GOP Gov.

You have to love the situational ethics of repukicans.

Course CLinton has consexual sex with a young woman (at least dems don’t have to pay for it) and the GOP screams impeachment. Is there a bigger collection of jerks on the planet?

Stuart

Harold Wrote:

My quote clearly refers to “the type of politically active “conservative movement” creationist we dispute here”, either directly when they post here (like you), or when their public statements from other forums are addressed. There are dozens to hundreds of examples of such that I can think of off the top of my head. The sample is quite large. For more than three - Behe, Dembski, Well, Johnson, O’Leary, Cordova…

Well, when you said “conservative movement creationists,” I thought you meant prominent people in the conservative movement who also happen to be creationists. The people you cite at the end of the above paragraph are not prominent figures in the conservative movement. I was thinking you were referring to people people like Santorum, Craig, Huckabee, Tancredo, etc.

If you meant creationists and ID hucksters in general, then I do not dispute your point.

On the other hand, the conservative activists I mentioned, while I’m no fan of theirs, with the exception of Craig I don’t see them engaging in the moral failings you list. At least not to any degree that’s greater than your average politician’s.

I’m glad you don’t like creationists. It’s clear why you distorted my original point. It’s not “creationists”, but the “conservative movement”, that you rush to rescue.

I’m not rushing to rescue anyone, even though I admit I’m a conservative who fully accepts modern evolutionary biology. I just did not think your comment was fair, even though it was directed to a group I would like to see discredited.

To clarify - I didn’t comment on non-creationist right wingers at all, and won’t, in this forum, if I can help it. Nor did I comment on people who mind their own business but happen to have traditional beliefs that overlap with creationism; I’ve repeatedly stated that I have no problem with them, and that my problem is with efforts to compromise science education, to use pseudoscience or sectarian morality to influence public policy, or to repeatedly mis-educate the ignorant about science through the use of popular denialism books, ID/creationism and otherwise.

I’ve got no beef with you on this. I just think we need to be to be fair to our common opponents.

To repeat, I think the comments you mnade were fair if applied to most full-time ID/creationsit activists. I don’t think they were fair if applied to conservative activists who also happen to be creationists.

Having said all that, it’s a trivial observation that politi>cal creationism has attached itself to the polical right and the Republican party - virtually “creationism in schools” bills have been introduced by Republicans (see Craig as an example), all creationist school boards to date have been Republican, Republican but not Democrat presidential candidates were asked about “evolution” (and three denied it), etc.

I know. It’s a disgrace to the movement. Even though though there’s no intrinsic connection between the two, there is a very strong overlap at the present moment in history. I assure you that there are plenty of people like me working to fix this situation.

One thing I take some solace in is that none of the candidates who have any chance at all of winning the GOP nomination denied evolution.

I’m not a Republican, nor a “conservative” in the current sense. If you are, and you don’t like the fact that creationists and certain other science-deniers have attached themselves to your party, well, it’s up to you to figure out a solution.

I’m working on it, believe you me.

Misrepresenting the arguments of others is not a good place to start.

No, I didn’t misrepresent you; I misunderstood you. Chill, dude.

Interesting that Ben Stein is now misrepresenting the facts in order to defend Craig and call shame on the people involved in calling attention to his behavior. On CBS Sunday morning. Apparently Stein is increasing his notariety in advance of his dishonest movie. At least he’s consistant.

Interesting that Ben Stein is now misrepresenting the facts in order to defend Craig and call shame on the people involved in calling attention to his behavior.

PZ has an entry on Ben Stein. Between his incomprehensible defense of Craig and his bogus movie, he seems to be running hard for the office of Lord of the Liars. It is a tough job but someone has to do it.

I’d never heard of him a year ago until I read a personal finance article. It was so dumb that the name stuck with me for future reference as someone to never waste a second reading again.

Since this blog is still open and the one I wrote on previously appears to now be closed to new comments, I hope Dave Thomas will allow me to announce that some of the comments from the blog “Yet Another Creationist Meltdown” July 26, 2007 have been posted to a blog that I began at myfoxla (fox being channel 11): http://community.myfoxla.com/blogs/Brendatucker You are certainly invited to review what is written there and make any comments you might wish to make. Thanks to the members here for their assistance.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Dave Thomas published on August 30, 2007 2:57 PM.

Tangled Bank #87 was the previous entry in this blog.

Wells on Moths: A Case Study In Misrepresentation 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 4.361

Site Meter