“Shocking” revelations

| 109 Comments

The NCSE reports on some “shocking” developments in Texas

McLeroy accused of hostility to science education and religious tolerance

In a press release dated August 7, 2007, the Texas Freedom Network accused Don McLeroy, who recently was appointed as the new chair of the Texas state Board of Education, of harboring “a shocking hostility to both sound science education and religious tolerance.” TFN’s charge was based on the transcript of a 2005 talk McLeroy gave at Grace Bible Church in Bryan, Texas, on the debate over teaching evolution and “intelligent design.” “This recording makes clear the very real danger that Texas schoolchildren may soon be learning more about the religious beliefs of politicians than about sound science in their biology classes,” TFN President Kathy Miller said. “Even worse, it appears that Don McLeroy believes anyone who disagrees with him can’t be a true Christian.”

I wonder how the many Christians who disagree with McLeroy feel about this?

And for those who were wondering about the nature of Intelligent Design, they need not worry any further:

Following Phillip Johnson, in his talk McLeroy portrayed “intelligent design” as a “big tent,” explaining, “It’s because we’re all lined up against the fact that naturalism, that nature is all there is. Whether you’re a progressive creationist, recent creationist, young earth, old earth, it’s all in the tent of intelligent design.” He urged his listeners, biblical inerrantists like himself, “to remember, though, that the entire intelligent design movement as a whole is a bigger tent. … just don’t waste our time arguing with each other about some of the, all of the side issues.” Yet he described theistic evolution – which is opposed to naturalism – as “a very poor option,” continuing, “no one in our group represents theistic evolution, and the big tent of intelligent design does not include theistic evolutionists. Because intelligent design is opposed to evolution. Theistic evolutionists embrace it.”

Nuff said… Fascinating how honest and straightforward ID proponents are when they speak to a ‘friendly’ audience. I wonder how they will behave when deposed in court proceedings :-)

109 Comments

It’s moments like these that I’m glad to now be living in the great state of Massachusetts where, while we can’t afford to let our guard down, I can’t foresee someone like McElroy occupying any position not involving a pulpit. With all the bad news about people of McElroy’s ilk out there these days, it really was nice to find a good story about my new home state. I’m feeling all warm and fuzzy and ready to support independence for Texas whenever it wants it.

I just read the transcript of McLeroy’s talk. If he is successful in getting Explore Evolution selected as a biology textbook in Texas, I expect this transcript will be the ACLU’s Exhibit One. Thank goodness these people tell the truth about their beliefs when they are amongst friends!

Nuff said… Fascinating how honest and straightforward ID proponents are when they speak to a ‘friendly’ audience. I wonder how they will behave when deposed in court proceedings

Yes, it’s fortunate that ID proponents tend to be so stupid. Obviously, this moron has never even bothered to read Judge Jones’s decision, and doesn’t know that public statements of this sort were one of the things that destroyed the ID case in Dover.

Logan Gage has a post up on DI’s website whining that ID could in no way be linked to creationism.

DI reminds me of the output of Joseph Goebbels and the Nazi propaganda machine during WWII: “When you tell a lie, don’t tell a little white lie. Tell a big red lie, and tell it over and over and. …”

this moron has never even bothered to read Judge Jones’s decision

The talk was given, according to TFN, in “2005”. It doesn’t say it was given in the final 11 days of 2005 that followed the KvD decision being handed down.

Now, it seems quite likely that McLeroy has not read the decision since Dec. 20th, 2005, either, but it’s an open question concerning whether he gave the talk that was transcribed by TFN before or after the decision became available.

Given the content of EE, it doesn’t look like even those antievolutionists who have at least had the opportunity to have the text open in Microsoft Word (to get a word count of a section) managed to get a clue from it.

The taxonomy of creationists is about as confused as the “baraminology” is.

And it’s for roughly the same reason, there is nothing that can decide what the “truth” is in their schemata. The only thing they can all rally around is their hatred of science, at least when it goes against their holy beliefs. The latter can cause either splitting or joining, depending on how much they recognize the need to unite for political power.

I mean, you have hyper-evolution coming out of the YECs, and God reduced to an evolutionary mechanism for Behe. They don’t know anything about science (I suppose Behe knows biochemistry, but not enough about evolution even to know what data to address), they don’t know much about theology, they just know that they hate “materialism” and anything that agrees with science’s verdict on the origins of organisms.

The good thing is that sectarianism would immediately destroy the big tent if science were destroyed, as they have nothing of substance to back up either their “science” or their theology. The bad thing is that if science were destroyed there would be nothing other than sectarian fights.

Science exists to transcend mere belief by according with the evidence, and that is the only thing that all of these pathetic science haters have to unite them.

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

A certain bad astronomer has blogged about this …

His verdict? Texas: Doomed!

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/[…]ally-doomed/

This is a very important document - good for whoever took the time to make the complete transcript. We had some similar episodes in Kansas where we got audio or video of creationist leaders speaking frankly in friendly audiences and saying things antithetical to their public stance that “it’s just about science, not religion.”

I wonder how they will behave when deposed in court proceedings :-)

If history is any guide, they’ll perjure themselves and blame it on oxycontin.

There’s a covert shell game going on here. Christians like Leroy put their emphasis on the Old Testament mainly so that they can’t be held to the standards of the New. In other words, they don’t want you to know that they are bad Christians when it comes to issues such as wealth. So they jump up and down on their Bibles to divert your attention from their extravagant, materialist lifestyles and barbarism.

The price that we pay is lousy science education, for one thing.

Don’t worry. We are ready for any antics he might pull now that he is chairman of the state board of education in Texas. It will be interesting to see what tact the creationists take after Dover. I am sure it will sound reasonable to the scientifically challenged.

The way to respond to this is to get working to get this a$$hole off the school board, along with any other creationists who promote their pseudoscience publicly.

When is the next election? What is the structure of school board elections? Do they have primaries? A primary challenge by a science-respecting citizen would be a cheap and easy way to deal with this.

Wow, listening to that thing was a real jump through the looking glass. Amazing.

Interesting that the press release uses the phrase “sound science education”. My impression is that “sound science” is a code-word frequently used by the anti-science proponents. Look how the term has been used for example by global warming deniers.

I read as much of McLeroy as my head could stand from the links, not much.

He is a babbling idiot and a Kook. QED.

In a deposition or courtroom he isn’t going to come across any better than in his transcripts and writings.

Looks like this is headed to federal court. McLeroy was appointed by the governor who was elected by the people of Texas. Seems to be a race to the bottom among some states. Kansas and Texas are in the lead with a second tier close behind.

In Texas, the state board of education members are elected. There are 15 districts in Texas. McElroy is from College Station, the folks in that area like him, he would be tough to beat in an election. This talk was made before Dover. Our state science standards are coming up for revision. His initial comments were that he did not see the need to change how evolution is addressed. We will see if that really happens on his part.

If you live in Texas make sure you write Rick Perry about it (don’t know if it’ll do any good but maybe). I grew up there and I’m not there now but I certainly plan on sending him a little note.

WOW this is terrible for the students in Texas.

I’m a Christian. Mostly I’m a liberal one, and a theistic evolutionist. So I’ve heard the “you’re not a true Christian” line before. I’ve never been quite impressed with it. Christian salvation is not based on works or beliefs. Once you get into that category you end up asking what specific denomination will be saved. I also found this specific quote interesting:

We can tolerate a lot, but they can’t tolerate anything.

Apparently everything but the evidence.

Bad Astronomy Blog:

When I posted about Don McLeroy, a creationist who the Texas governor just appointed to head the State Board of Education,…

From the link in a post above, McLeroy was elected to the Texas board and then appointed the head of it by the governor.

So Perry must have approved of him. By all means write Perry and point out that not everyone in Texas is a raving lunatic anti-science cultist. But don’t expect too much.

The republican party platform in Texas is pure Xian dominionist/reconstructionist. Obviously someone votes people like bush and Perry in. Who knows, maybe Texas will be the first functioning theocratic state in the USA?

Perry was Bush’s choice to succeed him as governor. In the last election, Perry only received 40 % of the votes. It would not do much good to write Perry. The people we have to watch out for on the state board are the other far right members. They will do things covertly when the science standards revision occurs. I will watch out for the phrase “sound science education” that probably is one of their code words.

Election to the Texas State Board of Education is consistently the least paid attention to of all election races. Those who would not agree with McLeroy’s brand of extremism never vote against him because they don’t pay attention to the race.

I am not arguing that we could defeat him anyhow given the political climate in Texas. You really should internet search the platform of the Republican Party in Texas. It is unbelievable, and I suspect an embarrassment to republicans who are not social right idealogues - if there are any.

McElroy is from College Station, the folks in that area like him…

Whoa whoa.

Not all of us like him!

Dude’s just giving my hometown a bad rap..

Fascinating how honest and straightforward ID proponents are when they speak to a ‘friendly’ audience.

Exactly. Anytime someone stupidly attempts to explain how ID isn’t creationism (FL), just remind them how ID alters its message to suit the audience. Because remember, ID has nothing to do with creationism at all (wink wink, nudge nudge).

I am honestly shocked by the idea that a state like Texas, a diverse state with some of the very top research universities in the country, is somehow implicitly a write-off to creationists. It’s nuts.

This site exists because we FIGHT BACK.

Election to the Texas State Board of Education is consistently the least paid attention to of all election races. Those who would not agree with McLeroy’s brand of extremism never vote against him because they don’t pay attention to the race.

Of course this is true. And of course, the answer is to look at what happened in Kansas and Dover. Once people paid attention, they kicked the creationists out.

Creationism has also been defeated in the courts in Alabama and Arkansas.

I am not arguing that we could defeat him anyhow given the political climate in Texas. You really should internet search the platform of the Republican Party in Texas. It is unbelievable, and I suspect an embarrassment to republicans who are not social right idealogues - if there are any.

I am focusing on one single issue here - public school science curriculum. I am not looking for arguments on other issues. It is important to note, though, that the Republican party has undergone substantial change over the last 15 years, and a rather predictable ideological platform is characteristic of any branch of it at this time.

The simple short term answer is, if there is a primary, let a science-supporting Republican run against him in the primary. Since creationist politicians are 95%-100% Republican (trolls - do not contradict this unless you provide an exhaustive statistical analysis of political candidates who endorse creationism, and their party affiliation, and starty by noticing that it’s 100% Republican among current political presidential candidates), this will end the problem - there will be no creationist in the race at all. This technique worked in Kansas.

That was at a time when Republicans were considerably stronger nationally, and should not be considered the only technique.

This technique should be used in parallel with - court challenges, locally-appropriate progressive candidates running for school board, locally-appropriate progressives running for state and federal office with a platform that included respect for science.

So, I repeat my question - when is McDembski up for re-election? Dates, please. Is there a primary? How much time do you Texans (with plenty of help) have to get cracking on contacting news outlets, setting up web sites, contacting legal counsel, and finding candidates to run?

What a comedian:

This is the book of the Bible to develop your mental skills.

But what is truly scary: admits that from his point of view this is a worldview clash, that the Bible is something they’ll bring in later, and compares religious skepticism and the scientific method to a alien conspiracy theory movie plot. Wow.

Quoth the raven, in comment #194750

“The republican party platform in Texas is pure Xian dominionist/reconstructionist.”

The latest version is at http://www.texasgop.org/site/DocSer[…]f?docID=2001. Here are a few excerpts:

“America is a Christian nation, founded on Judeo-Christian principles.”

“We affirm that the public acknowledgement of God is undeniable in our history and is vital to our freedom, prosperity and strength as a nation. We pledge to exert our influence toward a return to the original intent of the First Amendment and dispel the myth of the separation of church and state. … The church is a God-ordained institution with authority separate from government.”

“We oppose any restrictions by the IRS or any other government rules on taxpayer contributions to faith-based charities.” - but on the other hand: “We urge that the IRS be abolished and the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution be repealed.”

“We understand that the Ten Commandments are the basis of our basic freedoms and the cornerstone of our Western legal tradition. We therefore oppose any governmental action to restrict, prohibit, or remove public display of the Decalogue or other religious symbols.”

“We support the immediate adoption of American English as the official language of Texas and of the United States of America.”

“We urge Congress to evict the United Nations from the United States and eliminate any further participation.”

No specific mention of evolution or biology.

But see also http://www.theocracywatch.org/texas_gop.htm and http://www.tfn.org/religiousright/gop2004/.

I feel I must remind evolutionists of the certainty of belief in the knowledge of the facts that were once held without doubt by the world’s leading scientists.

no such thing as little critters that can’t be seen that cause disease and death

the human body can’t withstand an acceleration greater than 15 miles per hour

all existence consists of 4 elements : earth, wind, water, and fire

it was either the humming bird or the bumble bee that science proved can’t fly - however the critter is too dumb to know that it can’t fly so it just continues to fly.

I am a creationist and from the above ravings of main stream science you may get an idea of why I distain your current ravings. I have two recent items to contribute for your edification:

1) a recent science article summed up in my local newspaper which stated that evidence has been found which shows dino-type critters walking arround the same time as their supposed ancestors and descendants.

2) when particle creation occurs there are times when both the particle and its anti-particle are created. According to a discussion by Feyman (sp?) an anti-particle can be viewed as a normal particle traveling back in time. The big three characterists Charge, Parity, and Time are unbroken by this observation and in fact are the idea behind it.

Based on item 2 above perhaps you may forgive me if I remain open to the possibility that at creation time both matter and anti-matter were created, whereas some of the anti-matter was actually normal matter traveling back in time - I can see an imbalance in the presently observed matter and anti-matter quantity resulting and I can also see that since some matter such as neutrinos which oscillate between electron, mu, and tau on their journey from the sun to the earth other type or similar reactions may occur during the back travel in time, especially since time began with creation and some particles are traveling back beyond the time of creation. Briefly, what is claimed to be 12 billion years old may just be the result of anti-particles which traveled back in time and through yet as unknown processes or decays collapsed into or formed standard matter.

You see I am opened to new discoveries in science but you guys are forever locked into your claims of the universe being 12 billion years old regardless of what future since discovers. You are repeating the rants of those world class mainstream scientists that we kind a laugh about these days.

Bill

McLeroy quoting Johnson said:

“Eventually the answer to our prime question becomes too obvious to be in doubt. When philosophy conflicts with evidence, real scientists will follow the evidence.”

I couldn’t agree more. It’s just to bad that those in the ID camp don’t really believe this.

“First thing, you point out the dependency of evolution on naturalism. The only proper way to address the naturalist is to challenge the elements of their naturalism.”

Of course, Johnson is conflating philosophical and methodological naturalism when only the latter applies to science. Apparently, it is Johnson who wants to place philosophy before evidence. Hence, one reason people like Johnson and McLeroy are not real scientists.

Bill Cavico wrote:

I feel I must remind evolutionists of the certainty of belief in the knowledge of the facts that were once held without doubt by the world’s leading scientists.

no such thing as little critters that can’t be seen that cause disease and death

the human body can’t withstand an acceleration greater than 15 miles per hour

all existence consists of 4 elements : earth, wind, water, and fire

it was either the humming bird or the bumble bee that science proved can’t fly - however the critter is too dumb to know that it can’t fly so it just continues to fly.

First of all, it would be nice for you to note specifically which great scientific minds espoused each of these ideas and when each of these ideas fell out of favor. Secondly, it was scientists that discovered all of these views to be false. All scientific explanations are tentative and subject to revision if a better explanation comes along. Can you say the same about the Bible?

harold:

I am honestly shocked by the idea that a state like Texas, a diverse state with some of the very top research universities in the country, is somehow implicitly a write-off to creationists. It’s nuts.

This site exists because we FIGHT BACK.

What is absurd about McLeroy and Texas et al., is: This is a war against science. It is not just evolution, it is astronomy, geology, paleontology, nuclear physics. Naturalistic materialism. Anything that contradicts a few pages of creation myth.

Science is why 2007 looks a lot different from 1807. Why the average life span has gone from 47 to 77 in 100 years. Why the USA is the world leader rather than a third world banana public. The benefits are great and obvious to anyone.

It makes as much sense as a war against medicine. A war against electricity. A war against climatology. A war against philosophy and logic.

If the anti-science forces do win, the rest of the world would quietly cheer and keep on moving. The US would fall behind while heading back to the Dark Ages.

Eventually our descendants would sneak across the borders into Canada, Mexico, China, etc.. in search of jobs and a better life. Those governments would complain about all the United Banana Republic illegal immigrants taking all the low wage, unskilled jobs away from the natives. A few defenders would point out that the pale skins accept jobs that Mexicans and Chinese just won’t do.

Not that I am saying non-Christians can’t be saved, of course.

It seems that the definition of Xianity is as elusive as the theory of intelligent design.

What happened to the the teachings of Jesus?

“No man cometh unto the Father but by me.” - John 14:6

That sounds to me like Jesus is saying that non-Xians are pretty much SOL.

Evolution = Creation and Creation = Evolution These two concepts are not in anyway contradictory. To me(as a Christian) this seems so obvious i can hardly believe the amount of energy people put into furthering the divide between both camps. It would be so much better to spend this energy on more scientific research.

peerke Wrote:

Evolution = Creation and Creation = Evolution These two concepts are not in anyway contradictory.

If you mean that belief in Creation in the general sense is not mutually exclusive with accepting evolution, of course. In fact one cannot believe in Creation and “thou shalt not bear false witness” without accepting evolution (provided one understands it and has not been scammed). But the creationISM we speak of here is that scam, and not necessarily any particular belief.

The point I make in the link in comment 196076 above is that ID is the form of creationism whereby the promoters know that they are indirectly promoting accounts of “creation” that are demonstrably false. Hence the “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach.”

Peerke,

One camp spends all of its paid time and energy on scientific research, and a small amout of its own time and money fighting misrepresentation. The other camps (representing several diverse anti-evolution strategies) spend nearly all of their time and money on peddling pseudoscience. The few members that do conduct legitimate research have not even tried, let alone succeeded, in supporting the alternative science they peddle elsewhere.

PvM Wrote:

That ID attempts to hide the trails is understandable given the goals of ID.

What’s the point in trying to hide the trails after Dover? The rank and file made it clear that they don’t care if ID is “descended with modification” from classic creationism or not. And critics have known of the connection at least since 1999 (“Tower of Babel”).

I think that, by now, if not before, the object is to play word games. Bait the critics with “ID is not creationism”, then quote mine the reply to pretend that the critics are ignorant or closed-minded.

Scott Hatfield:

Thanks for the accolade!

harold:

harold, I missed it at first read too. (But you didn’t leave me much else to bitch about, now did you? :-P) We become habituated to see the correct statement, I think.

harold Wrote:

Situations of relative acceleration can, in fact, be dangerous to human health. I don’t think the mechanisms are all that well understood,

Personally I suspect uneven acceleration and stretching/crushing of tissue from that. IIRC a fetus is able to survive accelerations of 100’s of g’s at mishaps, at least early on.

[Or is that another urban myth? But this article puts most fetal injuries (90 %) as indirect from damages on the mother, while this report shows maximal fetal acceleration at 3 times maternal acceleration.]

Meanwhile divers and animals in waters are sensitive to explosions and loud noises, perhaps because the body to shock wave size is different.

Clearly we would wish to know more.

Wouldn’t the most compelling bit of evidence against evolution be the creationists inability to come up with any new thoughts in several hundred years??? I thought the far right was anti-environment, and wouldn’t recycle.

Peerke wrote: “Evolution = Creation and Creation = Evolution These two concepts are not in anyway contradictory.”

What you’re describing is a philosophical position called ‘theistic evolution,’ or the belief that God created the living world as we know it through the mechanism of evolution. Some scientists have philosophical differences with this view. Most scientists, however, probably are theistic evolutionists, although they may not have thought deeply about it, one way or the other.

No scientist that I have ever read or heard about has ever argued that atheism should be taught in American public schools. They are only asking that they be allowed to teach scientific facts in science classes, without censorship from fundamentalists, who want science censored whenever it conflicts with a literal interpretation of the bible.

In trying to undermine the teaching of modern biology, the fundamentalists have repeatedly resorted to underhanded techniques including slander of legitimate scientists and outright lies. Many of us have reached the conclusion that these so-called ‘scientific’ creationists are really only interested in undermining public education in America (and collecting money from church members to line their own pockets.)

If you find yourself in agreement with theistic evolution, then you are on the side of the scientists, not the so-called ‘scientific’ creationists.

hoary puccoon

hoary puccoon Wrote:

Most scientists, however, probably are theistic evolutionists, although they may not have thought deeply about it, one way or the other.

Since according to polls many, perhaps all, groups of scientists even in US have majorities of atheists of some form, I don’t think the above is correct. And AFAIK the highest frequency of atheists observed are among this science experts themselves, the biologists.

hoary puccoon Wrote:

If you find yourself in agreement with theistic evolution, then you are on the side of the scientists,

This is dubious, since ascribing teleology for a non-teleological science is confusing for students of the later. Compare with the “ladder of progress” which still very much exist in the newspapers.

A better statement would perhaps be that society finds TE an acceptable solution along separation of state and religion, compared to creationists outright trying to sabotage science classes by pushing religion into them. And then you don’t have to go into the problem that some scientists attack TE.

kevin Wrote:

Wouldn’t the most compelling bit of evidence against evolution be the creationists inability to come up with any new thoughts in several hundred years???

Their strategies have evolved, and speciated, considerably. Just google “cdesign proponentsists” for a magnificent “transitional fossil.”

Note that the “branch” now called “ID” has in fact “lost” many features (e.g. testable hypotheses of what the designer did and when) that persist in other branches (e.g. YEC, OEC) but are disadvantageous in the new environment. But it has gained “new thoughts” in the form of better rhetorical tricks (e.g. IC, CSI, “critically analyze” evolution).

T. Larsson wrote in response to me, “… society finds TE [theistic evolution] an acceptable solution along separation of state and religion, compared to creationists outright trying to sabotage science classes by pushing religion into them. And then you don’t have to go into the problem that some scientists attack TE.”

Agreed. That was my basic point. Whether TE is the position of a majority or minority of scientists, it’s still a perfectly respectable position to take in contemporary America. In fact, regardless of their personal beliefs, I think I’m on safe ground saying only a minority of scientists actively oppose TE. Most of them just don’t see it as an important issue. So, someone like Peerke, above, is much closer to the scientific mainstream than to the so-called ‘scientific’ creationists.

Whether TE is the position of a majority or minority of scientists, it’s still a perfectly respectable position to take in contemporary America.

You have to pick your issues and battles well. The TEs aren’t trying to push their views in kid’s science classes and send the USA into the dark ages. In fact, most would oppose either outcome.

I don’t spend any time attacking the Amish for rejecting modern technology or the Hindus for believing the Universe is eternal and humans have been here for billions of years. Or even the Druids for believing trees have spirits and UFOers for believing aliens live underground in the mountains. People will always believe stuff, it is their business most of the time, and why should I care?

It isn’t the beliefs that are at issue, it is trying to force them on other people.

raven Wrote:

It isn’t the beliefs that are at issue, it is trying to force them on other people.

Exactly.

Unfortunately the great majority of people still see it as about belief, and most of them think that “diverse beliefs” deserve “equal time” in science class. Unless a criticism of anti-evolution pseudoscience makes it crystal clear that it is criticizing a strategy to mislead and not a belief, most people will react with “what’s the harm?” In fact even a crystal clear criticism is no guarantee that many people will read it hastily and infer that it’s about belief. Or that it won’t be quote-mined by anti-evolution activists.

Another thing that rarely gets mentioned (by anyone but me) is at least the possibility, if not likelihood, that anti-evolution activists promote beliefs that they do not necessarily hold themselves.

I can’t even imagine even a minority of the general public saying, in regards to the “critical analysis” of evolution approach: “Why don’t IDers want to critically analyze (classic) creationism too? Are they afraid that it will come out weaker than evolution?” Yet that’s exactly how they ought to be reacting. And would be if word finally got around that it’s not about beliefs.

Make that “..won’t read it hastily..”

hoary puccoon:

hoary puccoon Wrote:

So, someone like Peerke, above, is much closer to the scientific mainstream than to the so-called ‘scientific’ creationists.

Unfortunately the argument slided over from the society to the scientists in the last sentence. But “closer … than … creationists” is much more accurate than “on the side of the scientists”.

I find it interesting when some anti-science type brings up this particular canard, in that it shows that science must change to fit reality. It is the anti-science folks who insist that reality must change to fit their ideas about it. This would be like the scientist insisting that the analysis was correct and that the bumblebee’s flight is in fact an illusion.

raven says, You have to pick your issues and battles well. The TEs aren’t trying to push their views in kid’s science classes and send the USA into the dark ages.

For me, that’s the whole issue. I really don’t care what scientists do on Sunday morning (or non-Xtian equivalent.) If they can work effectively in the lab and don’t undercut public schools, more power to them.

Wire,

I’ve seen myself quoted without attribution before, but never in the same thread.

Frank J

Another thing that rarely gets mentioned (by anyone but me) is at least the possibility, if not likelihood, that anti-evolution activists promote beliefs that they do not necessarily hold themselves.

For the record, I have also occasionally suggested that this may be the case.

Actually, it’s somewhat complex, given the power of denial and delusion. A good con man sometimes believes his own lines, at some level.

On a slightly seperate but related note, I have often pointed out that authoritarian social and political goals animate creationists. They aren’t withdrawing to monasteries to contemplate; if they were, I’d have no problem with them.

I think it’s probable that they choose a self-identified religious attitude that fits their personalities and ambitions. It’s still a complex situation with feedback, of course. In some cases the religious posture shows every sign of being a hypocritical display adopted for the purpose of achieving political ambitions and justifying harsh attitudes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Tancredo, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_delay).

In other cases, there may be people whose strong cultural belief in Biblical literalism pushes them to political activity. However, it should be noted that many groups people hold cultural beliefs that overlap with YEC, WITHOUT feeling compelled to violate the rights of Americans.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on August 10, 2007 2:03 PM.

New Fossils and Our Understanding of Human Evolution was the previous entry in this blog.

Farewell San Francisco 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