Last week I wrote three posts listing the reasons I believe that critics of Intelligent Design (ID) are losing the rhetorical battle and helping to promote the theory. Since then at least three rebuttals have popped up claiming to show that my claim is in error. Because I’m growing bored with writing about this subject, my initial response was to ask you to read each of the rebuttals and then merely say, “I rest my case.”
But at the risk of wearing out this topic, I’ve decided to respond to the criticism of PZ Myers. Not only does he have the most well-read blog among the critics, he also makes my case better than I ever could. It is therefore worth responding to in detail.
Before reading my rebuttal to his rebuttal, I recommend reading his entire post, “Joe Carter strings together some noise” (catchy title). I’ve included his comments in blockquotes with my response following each entry.
Joe Carter is making a curiously convoluted argument. He's trying to get at why the majority of the American public does not accept the theory of evolution, and he's made a ten part list of reasons, which boils down to placing the blame on the critics of intelligent design creationism. We're all bad, bad people who are doing a bad, bad job of informing the public and doing a good job of antagonizing them.
Hmm. I don’t recall saying that they critics of ID are “all bad, bad people.” Richard Dawkins, yes. He’s an idiot. And a bad man. But the rest are simply guilty of doing a bad job of informing the public. Whether they are right or wrong, I think it is clear that they are doing a poor job in this regard…as PZ admits in the next line.
There is a germ of truth there—I do think we all have to do a better job of educating American citizens—but what makes it a curious and ultimately dishonest argument is that Joe Carter is a creationist. It's one thing for an evolutionist to complain that the facts are on our side and we're doing a piss-poor job of communicating them, but it is a weird thing for a creationist to complain that we do a poor job of communicating the facts, while neglecting to mention that the facts are all against his personal view of life's origins. The impression it leaves is that Joe Carter doesn't like evolution because those dang 'Darwinists' are all poopy-heads.
For those who aren’t familiar with PZ, being a “creationist” (i.e., believing that God had any role in the development of creation) automatically makes you dishonest. Think I’m kidding? Ask him to name a proponent of ID who he thinks is not dishonest.
I know that the majority of us working out of the Panda's Thumb have actually read a significant number of the source documents for the ID movement. I've read Johnson, Behe, Wells, Dembski, and of course, the Wedge document. We've read this stuff in painful detail. If it's not vacuous, please do tell us what the "theory" actually means, because all we see is uninformed people sniping at deficiencies in modern evolutionary theory, not well-intentioned contributors to science who are making productive additions to our body of knowledge.
I suspect that he is correct on at least one point. Unlike Dawkins, Dennett, E.O. Wilson, and Francis Collins, I suspect the gang at Panda's Thumb have actually read a few books by the major proponents of ID. But since he doesn't seem to have a grasp on what the theory is, I'll provide a basic definition:
"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. In essence, ID is simply a theory about how design detection can be applied to various scientific enterprises to attempt to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a teleological end."
Look ahead to his argument #7, where Joe is going to argue that evolution is stealth atheism. If this is a bad argument against ID, why does he think it is a good argument against evolution? Consistency is not one of his valued attributes.
Because I refuse to believe that PZ would lie about what I said in order to poison the well, I must assume that he simply isn’t a very careful reader. I never said that evolution is “stealth atheism.” Although I think the theory is often stretched beyond what is justifiable, I am a strong proponent of evolutionary theory. PZ knows that so I’ll assume that he simply forgot.
But having read my statement he should see that it is not that I think that “evolution is stealth atheism” but that this is the impression people get because, as I said, “prominent ID critics...spend an inordinate amount of time railing about the ignorance of religious beliefs.”
Take, for example, PZ’s dismissal of Francis Collins who happens to be the head of the Human Genome Project, a critic of ID, and a Christian “Collins the theist is no scientist,” says PZ. “When he puts on the silly hat of a Christian, he also abandons the mindset of an honest scientist.” So you can be a Christian or a scientist but not both. At least not at the same time.
I’m not saying that I think that evolutionary theory is stealth atheism. But I think that is the impression given by people get when anti-religious bigots like PZ attempt to claim that you can’t be an “honest scientist” when you put on “the silly hat of a Christian.” I also think that PZ has made it clear on his blog that he thinks that a scientist should be an atheist. (See here for an example.)
There is nothing about PZ's advocacy of atheism that could be considered "stealth." But other anti-ID critics are a bit more subtle.
He also complains that labeling ID as creationism ignores the fact that the "vast majority of people throughout history have believed in at least a basic form of creationism". This is a silly reason to demand respect for an idea; humans for most of their history have probably been animists, and even now Christianity is a minority belief, so if we're going to go with some kind of majority vote here, Joe's ideas are defunct, too.
As usual, PZ misunderstands (or misrepresents) the point I was making. I was not developing an argumentum ad populum, claiming that “creationism” is true because many people believe it. My point was merely that in order to convince people that a long held belief (i.e., an intelligent being had an active role in the development of the universe) is wrong, you will need a considerable amount of evidence showing that your interpretation of the data is the correct one.
It also doesn't hurt to be a bit more respectful of other people's beliefs. Personally, I find atheism to be an absurd and childish idea and can hardly understand how intelligent people can hold such a belief. But if I let my own personal incredulity and disdain interfere with my respect for another person’s deeply held belief, than I would likely never be able to convince an atheist that they may be wrong about God.
However, I don’t think PZ truly has any interest at all in changing people’s minds about “creationism." I think he is satisfied with playing the role of ID-slaying champion for his sycophantic cadre of internet groupies. There’s nothing wrong with that. But he should recognize that the methods he uses to feed his ego are hurting the anti-ID cause.
Finally, ID is stealth creationism—the Dover decision settled that by looking into the history of the idea. Truth is a pretty good reason to make an argument, I think.
Has PZ even read the Dover decision? It is a legal and philosophical embarrassment. Judge Jones' conclusion was that we must not judge science based on facts or evidence but on the motives of the people who propose or challenge ideas. Because the advocates of ID are religious and may have a religious motive, their ideas must be kept out of the classroom. (By this standard we should reject the theory of gravity because it was proposed by the “creationist” Sir Issac Newton.)
Like the Discovery Institute, I oppose requiring that ID be taught in public schools. But the twisted logic of the Dover decision was harmful not just to ID, but to science and critical thinking in general.
Unfortunately, Joe gets it wrong again. We don't claim of every mystery that "science will find it," and I know for sure that our ignorance will outweigh our knowledge throughout my lifetime and long beyond. I am also sure that there are many things we can't know, because the information is simply lost. Science is not an answer, it's a tool and a process, and it's the only one we've got. When we see a gap in our knowledge, what scientists do is try to come up with practical, natural procedures to fill it in and get the best answers we can. So, yes, when I see something I don't understand, I say we should try to develop a solid, evidence-based answer, and the way to do that is through the scientific method. Does Joe have a better alternative?
I have to commend PZ for his refreshing honesty, though I think his view is in the minority. Most neo-Darwinists do rely on a “science will find it” justification for almost every flaw in the theory. And I’m not talking about minor quibbles like transitional fossils. When asked how life forms sprang from inorganic matter, the answer is always that scientists will someday find the answer. When asked how specified information arises from non-specified, non-intelligent processes, the answer is always that scientists will someday find the answer. When asked how they are able to determine with certainty that “designoids” (things that have the appearance of design) are not actually the result of an intelligent design, the answer is always that scientists will someday find the answer.
Do I have a better alternative? I think so. Why not an inference to the best explanation? Why exclude a priori inferences to an intelligent designer? Doing so is antithetical to science, so why should we retain this bias?
Science has standards. Rise to them or forget about being accepted.
Science has standards? You mean the standards that allowed a Korean stem-cell researcher to publish science fiction in the most prestigious science journal in the world? If the peer-review process hadn’t become a joke this criticism might have more validity.
What Joe doesn't understand is that there are a set of general principles proposed, such as natural selection, sexual selection, or common descent, and that then because evolution is in part a historical science, there are also a set of particulars that have to be explained. Sometimes those particulars are not clear from the evidence we have at hand, and he's right, the explanations are unconvincing. That doesn't mean the general principles are wrong.
Finally, I find a point of agreement. I completely agree that this does not mean that the general principles are wrong. But when the general principles become inadequate for providing a reasonable inference, why not consider the possibility that there are other general principles that have yet to be found or considered? I would give up advocating for intelligent design if anyone can explain how it can be sufficiently ruled out. If it cannot be ruled out, then why not at least consider that is might be a legitimate hypothesis?
The semantic argument is complete nonsense. We are human beings, using language that evolved in a human context, and that is rich in a vocabulary and grammar that assumes intent and intelligent, human actors.
Hold up. Since humans evolved in a context that excludes an intelligent designer, why would our language evolve any differently? Once we accept the conclusion that humans have evolved for no specific purpose, we cannot then turn around and claim that they can create purpose out of thin air. If purpose cannot be found in living forms or non-living entities then where did purposeful language come from?
This is nothing more than special pleading. If vocabulary and grammar were developed by a brain that was itself created without a teleological end, then it cannot have a purpose either.
The principles of evolutionary biology are abstract, complex, and driven by complex stochastic process that are rather poorly represented in colloquial language. We have to get very technical or mathematical or assemble very convoluted grammatical constructions to reduce the biases of human language in our discussions. When, in order to explain things to a non-technical audience, or in general introductions to a subject, we use metaphors or casual language, it does not imply that the protein or pathway or organism we're discussing was literally designed—it says we are using English (or whatever language you want). You know, a language that arose because people wanted to talk to other people about things that interest people.
In other words, discussions of evolutionary biology require using the language of design because otherwise we would not be able to understand it. This, of course, is nonsense. If evolution is non-teleological then it will have more in common with other non-teleological processes than it will with purpose-driven design. Metaphors and analogies could be easily constructed without reference to design. PZ may be fooling himself, but I doubt many other people are falling for this silly claim.
This is actually an argument against Intelligent Design creationism, not evolution. It's the IDists who are always making this shallow conflation of language describing something with the actuality: "Oooh, he said 'design'! Therefore, God exists." It's one of the dumbest arguments in the creationist arsenal.
Does anyone know what he is talking about? He seems to be saying that since ID theorists believe that language has some connection with reality, that it hurts ID. Huh?
Personally, I think scientists ought to speak out more against the silliness of religion, and I'm a bit tired of the appeasers on my side who want to pretend that religion and science are fully compatible. I'd reverse his complaint a little: it's hypocritical that we keep trotting out god-worshippers as spokespeople for evolution. They just aren't at all representative. A lot of the ID debunkers are godless, but we're actually under-represented relative to the proportion of atheist scientists he cites.
Since he makes my case for me, I won’t get in his way.
Could it be that training in critical thinking and having the importance of logic and evidence hammered into you day after day is exactly the kind of discipline that religion fails to meet?
This is the kind of statement that makes you want to smile with bemusement and pat PZ on the head, all the while chucklin at his naiveté. I’m sure he really does think that biologists are known for their critical thinking and logic. No doubt philosophy professors often trek down to PZ's lab to get help clearing up their muddled thinking and sloppy reasoning.
I wrote three lengthy posts on how critics of ID hurt their own cause and yet I could not have done a better job of making my case than PZ has done. He truly believes that religious people are dumb, dangerous, dishonest, and possibly evil. Atheists like him, however, are the epitome of critical thinking, logic, and evidence based reasoning. Whenever most reasonable people read such claims they cringe and wonder if he can be so absolutely wrong about this, why should we trust him to be right about evolutionary biology?
1
Wouldn't all the energy being expended on these sort of pointless arguments between people who already have entrenched ideas be better spent living out the Gospel?
How much better would the world be if we said "Heck with the IDvsEvolution/Abortion/Gay Marriage/insert-hotbutton-issue-here debate, let's go help some widows and orphans!" ?
Sheesh.
posted on 08.14.2006 12:42 AM2
Zack,
Your comment reminded me of a recent Breakpoint commentary by Charles Colson:
The New York Times quotes Pastor Boyd attacking “the ‘hypocrisy and pettiness’ of Christians who focus on ‘sexual issues’ like homosexuality, abortion, or Janet Jackson’s breast-revealing performance at the Super Bowl” two years ago. “These are buttons,” he said, “you push if you want to get Christians to act.”
Sadly, a lot of evangelicals believe this kind of propaganda. And since we are acquiring this negative image, we ought to abandon moral issues and adopt Boyd’s position. Particularly some younger evangelicals are suggesting that we stay away from divisive issues like abortion and homosexuality altogether and just go back and be like the first-century Church—stay out of politics, tend to our spiritual knitting.
I wonder what early Church they are talking about. Take just the issue of abortion. The early Church was outspokenly pro-life right from the beginning just as the Jews had been. In the second chapter of the Didache, one of the first discipleship books for young Christians written in the first century, was this stern injunction: “Thou shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born.” Justin Martyr wrote about this in his first apology. And in the second century, Athenagoras wrote a plea to Emperor Marcus Aurelius: “We say that women that use drugs to bring abortion commit murder and will have to give an account to God for the abortion.” And you can be sure that that was not a hot-button issue then.
While Christians have a duty to take care of orphans and widows, we also have a duty to defend Truth and to be the salt that preserves culture from rot and decay.
By presenting a false dilemma ("We can help orphans or we can talk about abortion...") you unnesesarily limit the Gospel. The "good news" is for all of creation and therefore all of culture.
Sure, some Christians neglect some duties by focusing too much on issues like the ID/evo debate. But that doesn't give us an excuse to abandon cultural issues altogether.
posted on 08.14.2006 1:16 AM3
Joe, you are making a valiant effort at reasoned argument, but like you, I am also tired of arguing with the evolutionary faithful. I think we should ignore all but those who show some sign of reason and respect, and continue to promote good science in leiu of evolutionary nonsense.
Let's continue to take our cause to the people, and continue to raise up intellectuals who can supplant the evolutionary die hards, and ignore those who refuse to differentiate between macro-evolution and the myriad other change processes we all agree exist (mutation, adaptation, natural selection, etc.), who refuse to admit that you can have theistic assumptions and still do real empirical science, and who refuse to accept that macro-evolution is poorly supported by the facts, and not incontrovertable.
Let them scoff, they are merely wasting the time of those who are interested in finding truth. They are more comitted to their world view, and often to an anti-Christ/Christian world view than to scientific truth. Let them keep their religion, their fanciful story of origins, while we move on to better things without them.
posted on 08.14.2006 2:14 AM4
Joe: "I would give up advocating for intelligent design if anyone can explain how it can be sufficiently ruled out. If it cannot be ruled out, then why not at least consider that is might be a legitimate hypothesis?"
You've nailed the most important point here, Joe, albeit unintentionally.
The problem with ID theory is that it cannot be ruled out.
When I first checked ID out a year and a half ago, I was hopeful that it would have some provocative and useful things to say about evolution -- and above all, it would suggest some program of research by positing some testable or falsifiable hypotheses.
After doing some research, I found that ID does not seem to have any testable hypotheses at all. In all the time since then, I still have not seen one testable ID hypothesis. And if you can't test it, it ain't science.
"If it cannot be ruled out", you might want to believe ID as a best inference, but what you're believing is not science.
5
Good article Joe and i'm glad you havn't abandoned it yet. I posted in one of your other threads about how Wikipedia and the opponents of Intelligent Design have hurt their case there as well. Here are some highlights of what the Darwin zealots have etched in stone over at Wikipedia.
leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[2]
How long have you been affiliated with the Discovery Institute, Joe?
An overwhelming majority[4] of the scientific community views intelligent design as pseudoscience[5][6] or junk science.[7] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[8]
Remember as I give these quotes that this article is supposed to be about Intelligent Design.
United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.
Yikes, a judge told is it isn't science. Wow.
The earliest known modern version of intelligent design began, according to Dr Barbara Forrest, "in the early 1980s with the publication of The Mystery of Life's Origin (MoLO 1984) by creationist chemist Charles B. Thaxton with Walter L. Bradley and Roger L. Olsen. Thaxton worked for Jon A. Buell at the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE) in Texas, a religious organization that published MoLO."[16]
I don't suppose PZ Meyers wrote that, I mean, you can't be both a creationist AND a Chemist, can you?
Intelligent design deliberately does not try to identify or name the specific agent of creation – it merely states that one (or more) must exist. While intelligent design itself does not name the designer, the personal view of many proponents is that the designer is the Christian god.[17][10][18] Whether this was a genuine feature of the concept or just a posture taken to avoid alienating those who would separate religion from science-teaching has been a matter of great debate between supporters and critics of intelligent design. The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court ruling held the latter to be the case.
There's that Dover ruling again. Who are you going to believe, the proponents of Intelligent Design, or a United States Judge! Really folks, i'm not making this stuff up. This is all seriously written over at Wikipedia and is supposed to be about Intelligent Design.
Intelligent design arguments are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid identifying the intelligent agent they posit. Although they do not state that God is the designer, the designer is often implicitly hypothesized to have intervened in a way that only a god could intervene. Though Dembski in The Design Inference speculates that an alien culture could fulfill these requirements, the authoritative description of intelligent design[34] explicitly states that the universe displays features of having been designed. Acknowledging the paradox, Dembski concludes "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life."[35] The leading proponents have made statements to their supporters that they believe the designer to be the Christian God, to the exclusion of all other religions.[17]
I'm not sure how anyone can read this article as anything other than an argument against Intelligent Design by Darwinists.
The intelligent design movement arose out of an organized neocreationist campaign directed by the Discovery Institute to promote a religious agenda[40] calling for broad social, academic and political changes employing intelligent design arguments in the public sphere, primarily in the United States.
We're not telling you what to think, we're not telling you what to think....
All leading intelligent design proponents are fellows or staff of the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture.
There it is again. I honestly don't even know if this is true or not but common sense tells me it cannot be true. The author apparantly believes that as long as you put the word "Leading" in there, it makes it accurate enough to include the article.
Phillip E. Johnson has stated that cultivating ambiguity by employing secular language in arguments which are carefully crafted to avoid overtones of theistic creationism is a necessary first step for ultimately reintroducing the Christian concept of God as the designer.
You really have to wonder if the author believes people will believe this nonesense, but sadly, they must.
The conflicting claims made by leading intelligent design advocates as to whether or not intelligent design is rooted in religious conviction are the result of their strategy.
Here again we see evidence of those sneaky Intelligent Design folks.
A key strategy of the intelligent design movement...
There it is again, we're exposed!
The fewer criteria that are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a couple or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency,[70] violates the principle of parsimony,[71] is not falsifiable,[72] is not empirically testable,[73] and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.[74]
In light of its apparent failure to adhere to scientific standards, in September 2005 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."[75] And in October 2005 a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and called on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory."[76]
Do you get it yet? How many times must we hit you over the head with this hammer before you STOP. READING. THIS. PAGE. ABOUT. INTELLIGENT. DESIGN. STOP. GO AWAY!
The "article" in wikipedia goes on and on and on like this. Beating you over a head with a club repeating the same things over and over again about Intelligent Design, in case you don't get it the first time.
Intelligent design critics also say that the intelligent design doctrine does not meet the criteria for scientific evidence
Judge John E. Jones III agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling that "we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."
Intelligent design, by appealing to a supernatural agent, directly conflicts with the principles of science
I just wanted to point out that last line which made me laugh out loud when I read it. Apparantly the authors believe that they have sufficiently established in the readers mind that Intelligent Design is an appeal to a supernatural agent so they can make that claim, because who wouldn't be convinced of that by now?
So, like Joe states, Darwinists actually do themselves more harm than good. Any middle of the road reader who goes through that article will see right away (And have repeated to them over and over and over again in the article) that it isn't an article about Intelligent Design, it's an argument against Intelligent Design by it's opponents.
They don't even see direct contradictions in the article that are pointed out to them
To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.[77]
The only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that made a case for intelligent design...
If you don't believe me, you should go and read the article for yourself. It is so over the top anti-intelligent design it makes you want to copy and paste it and disseminate it to the world in order to get more people to reject Darwinism for its poor propoganda efforts.
posted on 08.14.2006 2:39 AM6
Matthew,
Some are certainly giving it their all, aren't they?
http://www.chp.edu/pressroom/newsrelease295.php
These folks specifically think that if they've found Junk DNA then that rules out an intelligent designer.
So what are the choices? ID is not science until we can falsify it and then it is bad science?
posted on 08.14.2006 2:45 AM7
Joe,
What set of creationism arguments does not quickly stray into disinformation? It seems harsh to say all forms of creationism lead to dishonesty -- but I can't think of one that does not.
And each of the IDists mentioned -- Johnson, Wells, Behe and Dembski -- have rather famously been caught in what might most politely be called self-delusion, if one really struggles to avoid calling a shovel a shovel.
You offer an interesting definition of what intelligent design is, but it is not a consensus defintion that would be agreed to by Johnson, and Wells, and Behe, and Dembski, and it is not a definition that has been put forward anywhere in any scientific literature as a hypothesis backed by any sort of data.
So, in calling it "theory," you've committed a bit of scientific dissembling right there.
You might argue that these are small, petty crossings with the truth. Without such false claims, no brand of creationism stands logically, let alone scientifically. We don't have to look to the fruits of that tree to see the roots are rotten.
And then there's the definition you offer, that suggests we have some method of detecting design that defies natural processes. That's simply not so. Consequently, to offer ID as a hypothesis that posits some intelligent behind design that is detected in the universe requires that real observations of nature be ignored, which is itself a form of dishonesty. Science looks for proximate causes, not ultimate causes. There is no occasion yet known where there is any compelling evidence or reason to claim intelligent ultimate causes over natural proximate causes.
The facts are that there are only two possible scientific assertions out of ID: Dembski's explanatory filter, which has been shown not to work, and which assumes that certain forms of mutation cannot occur, which forms have been demonstrated to occur; and Behe's "irreducible complexity" test, which has been absolutely and totally unsuccessful in practice and has been abandoned by its author, Behe, by all appearances (he's doing no research on it).
Were someone to argue that cold fusion is amply demonstrated and that, therefore, national governments should invest billions in developing it to commercial application, they would be relegated to the fringe of crank science. Alas for intelligent design, cold fusion offers much more supporting data published in scientific journals than does intelligent design. Until ID can produce at least the quantity and quality of research that cold fusion has already produced, ID doesn't deserve to be given the credence in biology that cold fusion is given in physics.
And, under such circumstances, one has to wonder about the ethics of anyone who would advise their grandmother or anyone else to invest in cold fusion stock. Absent a certificate of insanity, ethical lapse appears the best alternative.
Joe, evolution is key to crop research, livestock research, and medicine. These are not debates with no stakes. It's not just philosophy. It's cancer cures, diabetes treatment and cures, boll weevil eradication, grapefruit farming, wheat breeding, rice enrichment. Every dime spent to advocate ID over evolution is a dime spent against a cure for cancer. Every minute spent advocating ID over evolution before a state school board is a minute spent advocating ignorance.
Under the circumstances, an ethical person of any religious persuasion is being kind in calling ID merely "misguided." Claiming that ID has the imprimatur of Christianity behind it raises it to the level of abomination. Christianity has no book calling for a triumph of dogma over truth in any enterprise.
You can dismiss Dr. Myers well-formed and accurate criticisms for no legitimate reason. Yes, he's atheist. It's a sad day for the church when atheists are leading the way to ethical behavior, and Christians resist. We have a duty to other people to stick to the truth. We have a duty to the integrity of the church not to advocate untruth in the church's name. We have a duty to God to get the facts right. Pay attention when Myers' calls the pursuit dishonest -- he's right, and we need to fix it.
posted on 08.14.2006 2:48 AM8
"Has PZ even read the Dover decision? It is a legal and philosophical embarrassment. Judge Jones' conclusion was that we must not judge science based on facts or evidence but on the motives of the people who propose or challenge ideas. Because the advocates of ID are religious and may have a religious motive, their ideas must be kept out of the classroom."
Obviously, you have either not read the decision or not comprehended it. That is not the judge's ruling at all.
The judge held that ID proponents had presented no valid scientific arguments, as they themselves admitted. The Judge further found that many proponents had lied--repeatedly. The judge then determined the reason they lied--to conceal their religious motivation.
There is a difference between the judical holding in a case and a judicial finding of fact.
posted on 08.14.2006 2:49 AM9
Joe Mc Faul wrote;
The Judge further found that many proponents had lied--repeatedly.
I remember reading this in the ruling, specifically about one of the school board members. I also remember reading in the ruling when the Judge made this statement he didn't back it up, he said something along the lines of, "This will become clear later in the ruling." or something like that.
But it never comes back up in the ruling. Ive always wondered what happened there. Maybe there was a page omitted or redacted or something? Please help me with this Joe Mc Faul, since ive been unable to find the lies that were told in the judges ruling, only that he says they lied and would point out where later but never seems to.
Appreciated.
posted on 08.14.2006 3:22 AM10
Great articles, Joe. I appreciate all the work you put into this.
posted on 08.14.2006 8:04 AM11
THE RITUAL OF SAKU RADO IS A BLESSING TO ALL THE PEOPLES OF EARTH
THE FRAUDULENT GURUS PERFORM SAKU RADO ONCE EVERY TEN YEARS IN SERENE CELEBRATION OF JOYOUS BEING THROUGH INFINITE SUSTAIN.
posted on 08.14.2006 8:25 AM12
Joe:
In other words, discussions of evolutionary biology require using the language of design because otherwise we would not be able to understand it. This, of course, is nonsense. If evolution is non-teleological then it will have more in common with other non-teleological processes than it will with purpose-driven design. Metaphors and analogies could be easily constructed without reference to design. PZ may be fooling himself, but I doubt many other people are falling for this silly claim.
Indeed. If Myers' explanation held any water, the problem of not being able to understand things without intentional language would extend to all the sciences. However, we're able to do physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, etc, without it just fine. This is a "problem" that seems unique to biology. Myers cannot account for this difference unless he admits that the subject matter that biology is trying to explain is in some way distinct in evoking teleological language, but then he'd be making your point.
If he wants to say that evolutionary biology does not invoke teleology, but that teleological concepts are required to understand it, well that makes no sense. If something is non-teleological, but can't be understood in non-teleological terms, then it can't be understood at all.
13
Ed Darrell said:
“Joe, evolution is key to crop research, livestock research, and medicine. These are not debates with no stakes. It's not just philosophy. It's cancer cures, diabetes treatment and cures, boll weevil eradication, grapefruit farming, wheat breeding, rice enrichment. Every dime spent to advocate ID over evolution is a dime spent against a cure for cancer.”
This argument represents the reddest of herrings in the anti-ID arsenal. I’m not a YECer, but neither do I ascribe to the view that all life as we see it today arrived PURELY as the result of processes that can (or will, ultimately) be described completely in naturalistic terms. My graduate school advisors and postdoctoral fellowship mentor were all atheistic evolutionists. Many of the scientists that I collaborate with today are atheistic evolutionists. Ed suggests that I must be constantly butting heads with these folks over the design and/or interpretation of our experiments, which deal with the neurobiological basis of schizophrenia and age-related cognitive dysfunction. Well, as with any group of people working together on a project, we have our disagreements. But how many arguments on how we DO science originate from our differing views on the origins of life and/or species?
None. Nada. Nichts.
Why? Because, contrary to Mr. Darrell’s assertion, evolutionary theory is absolutely NOT a prerequisite to the proper understanding of how biological systems work.
I might also point out that this view point is widely accepted among the vast majority of both theists (of all stripes) and atheists who actually DO science. It tends to be evolutionary apologists/popularizers who spend the majority of their time outside the lab who are hung up on the idea that any merit contained in the idea of ID will have dramatic negative consequences for the pursuit of scientific solutions to our most pressing physical concerns. PZ Myers is a prime example of this. I have no doubt that Dr. Myers is an engaging and lively teacher. Surely, he is well-read in the field of evolutionary theory and is skilled in the art of condensing this literature into something that is digestible and understandable to interested members of the lay public. But he is not an eminent DOER of science by any definition. A PubMED search on “PZ Myers” reveals NO peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals since 1998, and only one since 1993. This is not a track record that would get him hired, let alone tenure, at any research-based institution. I bring this up not as an ad-hominen attack on Dr. Myers, but simply as an illustration of my point that the most vehement, bombastic ridiculers of holders of religious faith are not cutting-edge scientists themselves, but scientific “thinkers” and “communicators” (to use the terms loosely). Francis Collins (for whom Myers expresses utter disdain) , on the other hand, would be a clear example of a theistic evolutionist whose beliefs in a personal God do not in any way detract from his ability to produce large amounts of ground-breaking, publishable science that holds great promise for aiding the search for cures and better treatments for a variety of diseases and disorders.
14
Given that you're in the group of people that equates zygotes, blastulae, and brain dead people with born people, why should we trust you on anything?
posted on 08.14.2006 9:49 AM15
Joe,
My point was restricted to "pointless arguments between people who already have entrenched ideas".
Talking about these sorts of things with people who are receptive and interested is worthwhile, talking to brick walls is not (obviously).
It was not an intended as an "either/or" proposition, but a "pick your battles" proposition. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
- Zack
posted on 08.14.2006 10:00 AM17
As it interesting as it is to see Joe Carter and P.Z. Myers go at each other, I'd be more interested in getting Joe's take on Francis Collins. You mention Collins in this post, Joe, and reveal that Myers has little regard for him as a scientist. You also imply that Collins doesn't know anything about ID. I certainly don't know Collins or that much about him, but I would suspect that you are being a bit unfair. Have you read his book? Are you sure he is unfamiliar with ID "theory"?
Please respond, either now or in a future column, to the following quote (or others if you prefer) from Collins:
"I see no conflict in what the Bible tells me about God and what science tells me about nature. Like St. Augustine in A.D. 400, I do not find the wording of Genesis 1 and 2 to suggest a scientific textbook but a powerful and poetic description of God's intentions in creating the universe. The mechanism of creation is left unspecified. If God, who is all powerful and who is not limited by space and time, chose to use the mechanism of evolution to create you and me, who are we to say that wasn't an absolutely elegant plan? And if God has now given us the intelligence and the opportunity to discover his methods, that is something to celebrate.
"I lead the Human Genome Project, which has now revealed all of the 3 billion letters of our own DNA instruction book. I am also a Christian. For me scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.
"Nearly all working biologists accept that the principles of variation and natural selection explain how multiple species evolved from a common ancestor over very long periods of time. I find no compelling examples that this process is insufficient to explain the rich variety of life forms present on this planet. While no one could claim yet to have ferreted out every detail of how evolution works, I do not see any significant "gaps" in the progressive development of life's complex structures that would require divine intervention. In any case, efforts to insert God into the gaps of contemporary human understanding of nature have not fared well in the past, and we should be careful not to do that now."
18
And in the second century, Athenagoras wrote a plea to Emperor Marcus Aurelius: “We say that women that use drugs to bring abortion commit murder and will have to give an account to God for the abortion.” And you can be sure that that was not a hot-button issue then.
While Christians have a duty to take care of orphans and widows, we also have a duty to defend Truth and to be the salt that preserves culture from rot and decay.
It's funny Joe should mention that. Today many Christians would write that women who commit abortion are somehow innocent victims themselves exploited by some all powerful abortion 'industry' (one of the most consistent biases in the human mind is against capitalism, no matter what the political orientation people are all too willing to believe bad behavior is caused not by people choosing to behave badly but by those who make a living by selling goods or services. Hence the 30 year old stock broker who buys coke every day is a 'victim' of the 16 year old 'drug pusher' anyway that's another issue for another day)...
Anyway, don't you find it a bit ironic Joe that you're chomping about your duty to defend truth while the massive 3 part series you just finished wasn't so much about truth but about why people may or may not believe in evolution? In other words you didn't really analyze evolution or creationism from the perspective of which is more true but only from the spin doctors perspective of which is doing a better job selling itself.
seeker
Joe, you are making a valiant effort at reasoned argument, but like you, I am also tired of arguing with the evolutionary faithful. I think we should ignore all but those who show some sign of reason and respect, and continue to promote good science in leiu of evolutionary nonsense.
I suggest you don't take me for granted.
Eric & Lisa
These folks specifically think that if they've found Junk DNA then that rules out an intelligent designer.
Those folks are being generous to ID. Unfortunately ID would just respond "it was designed with junk DNA" just like Windows is designed to be bundled with a lot of useless extra programs that no one ever has any real use for.
So what are the choices? ID is not science until we can falsify it and then it is bad science?
That would at least be a start. In part III jhudson came pretty close when he actually ventured to make some predictions about front-loading. Then when he saw that his statements could actually be turned into something that could be actually tested in the real world he pulled back.
Deuce
Indeed. If Myers' explanation held any water, the problem of not being able to understand things without intentional language would extend to all the sciences.
Hmmmm, "water always seeks its level". Or since I'm currently trying to water proof my mom's basement I've been told by my father-in-law once water finds a path into your basement it never forgets it unless you destroy it.
This useful metaphor does imply that water is thinking, plotting against me. It helps me to understand water's behavior in this case but that doesn't mean there is any truth to the claim that water has a mind of its own or is behaving in any manner that is not explained by chemistry and gravity.
19
This argument represents the reddest of herrings in the anti-ID arsenal. I’m not a YECer, but neither do I ascribe to the view that all life as we see it today arrived PURELY as the result of processes that can (or will, ultimately) be described completely in naturalistic terms. My graduate school advisors and postdoctoral fellowship mentor were all atheistic evolutionists.
The constant coupling of a scientific theory (evolution) to a philsophy (atheism or naturalism) is not only the reddest of herrings among the ID crowd but it is also one of the lamest. It makes about as much sense as calling your advisors 'gravitational atheists'. After all they did believe in the theory of gravity, didn't they?
Why? Because, contrary to Mr. Darrell’s assertion, evolutionary theory is absolutely NOT a prerequisite to the proper understanding of how biological systems work.
Nor is Einstein's theory of relativity. I understand that Newton's equations are just fine for the space crafts, probes and satellites that we put up. The NASA engineer who forgot that class could probably still do a pretty decent job however if you're measuring not whether he can get along until payday but if he really understands what he is workign with then yes Einstein is necessary.
Indeed Joe began tis series by basically distorting the results of a survy which showed that a minority of doctors rejected evolutionary theory (Joe lied and asserted a majority had). Leaving aside the issue of the poll what is the point of it and the whole series? Most people have no personal stake in making the right call between evolution and ID. To most people this is like asking whether you should really always castle as quickly as you can when play chess or not. If professional chess players say no but most people act as if they think yes does that mean there's a problem with the professional chess establishment?
posted on 08.14.2006 10:57 AM20
Slight correction, Boonton. Joe is not defending "truth," he says he's defending "Truth." Does that send chills up anyone else's spine?
posted on 08.14.2006 10:59 AM21
More on Joe:
Science has standards? You mean the standards that allowed a Korean stem-cell researcher to publish science fiction in the most prestigious science journal in the world? If the peer-review process hadn’t become a joke this criticism might have more validity.
I caught Jimmy Swaggart on tv a few days ago, he's back in the tv evangelist business! At what point can we invalidate Christianity on the basis of some bad apples? Does the discovery that some athlets use steroids or blood dopping and manage to get away with it invalidate all sports records?
I have to commend PZ for his refreshing honesty, though I think his view is in the minority. Most neo-Darwinists do rely on a “science will find it” justification for almost every flaw in the theory. And I’m not talking about minor quibbles like transitional fossils. When asked how life forms sprang from inorganic matter, the answer is always that scientists will someday find the answer. When asked how specified information arises from non-specified, non-intelligent processes, the answer is always that scientists will someday find the answer. When asked how they are able to determine with certainty that “designoids” (things that have the appearance of design) are not actually the result of an intelligent design, the answer is always that scientists will someday find the answer.
Actually they respond "what the hell is specified information". I know because I asked what that is and its cousin "functionally specified information" and ID supporters refuse to answer. Ask an 'evolutionist' what 'selection' is, or 'common descent' and they will be more than happy to give you pages and pages of info, as much as you can digest.
Do I have a better alternative? I think so. Why not an inference to the best explanation? Why exclude a priori inferences to an intelligent designer? Doing so is antithetical to science, so why should we retain this bias?
An intelligent designer was never excluded a priori. No test exists for such a thing and what IDers have proposed for a test is nothing more than a dressed up argument from ignorance (if you can't explain it to a nearly infinite level of detail then it must be an intelligent designer, if you can explain some of the detail but need to speculate on some of the details then you're making up 'just so' stories).
If IDers said "we don't even have the beginnings of a sensible test but dammit we think there's something here and we will work on it until we get it" then at least you could credit them with being honest and wish them well in their research but quite frankly they insist they have everything right now and it is perfect. It's not only like the kid who copies an article verbotem out of the encyclepedia for a school report, it's like a kid who does that and then demands that the encyclepedia publish the article with him as the author!
posted on 08.14.2006 11:30 AM22
BTW, when I wrote:
If IDers said "we don't even have the beginnings of a sensible test but dammit we think there's something here and we will work on it until we get it" then at least you could credit them with being honest and wish them well in their research
This can probably accurately describe the state of string theory in physics today.
posted on 08.14.2006 12:22 PM23
Boonton,
Indeed Joe began tis series by basically distorting the results of a survy which showed that a minority of doctors rejected evolutionary theory (Joe lied and asserted a majority had).
You have lost the last remaining bit of respect that I had for you. Even after I corrected you on this point and showed that I said nothing of the sort, you continue to lie about what I wrote. Do you not think that people can go back and read that post to see that I wrote:
“Even doctors, who are more informed about biology than the general public, overwhelmingly (60%) reject the claim that humans evolved through natural processes alone.”
Now is that an assertion that the majority of doctors reject evolutionary theory? No, it isn't. So please, please, please, stop lying about what I said.
posted on 08.14.2006 12:33 PM24
Joe,
Slightly off topic, but your response to Zach in quoting Chuck Colson regarding Boyd, etc. is completely off track.
As someone who attends WHC, has listened to every sermon about the subject and read the "Myth" book, the conclusion you have read is a conclusion that can only be reached by someone who hasn't read or even tried to understand the material.
Boyd etc. does not once suggest to abandan cultural issues, He (they) only suggest that they way we approach cultural issues is not consistent with being Christ-like. This a a big difference.
I find that Boyd is largely right. I disagree with some conclusions that he makes because of the principles expressed in his series and books, but I think disagreement is expected.
But part of your response stated "We also have a duty to defend Truth and to be the salt that preserves culture from rot and decay".
Where is this duty stated by Christ? Where is his example? How much did he try to change Roman culture from rot and decay? It seems that his example was to only love those who were considered the rot and decay of society. Christ was perfect, no sin yet does he rail against these people? Not once. In fact, he tells you to consider the tree trunk in your eye before worrying about dust in those that you criticize.
A change in priorities is needed, a change to that of the 1st century church. This change is about being apolitical not amoral. Again, another huge difference that some people (not suggesting you) just seem incapable of understanding.
posted on 08.14.2006 12:46 PM25
You have lost the last remaining bit of respect that I had for you. Even after I corrected you on this point and showed that I said nothing of the sort, you continue to lie about what I wrote. Do you not think that people can go back and read that post to see that I wrote:
Actually both times you quoted surveys you made it clear you depend upon people to trust your view of them and not follow up on the links you provide. I replied to your correction and explained in great detail why it wasn't acceptable.
Now is that an assertion that the majority of doctors reject evolutionary theory? No, it isn't. So please, please, please, stop lying about what I said.
Hmmm, let's imagine I put a car on a car lot with sign saying "runs great, $200". Some customer without a lot of time buys the car and discovers it has no engine. "ohhh my, I never said it did! Just push it to the top of a hill and it will run great going down. Better than any go cart will run!" Guess what, a court will find me guilty of fraud and not be amused by my little attempt to dance around the technicality.
In a post purporting to explain how the public had rejected evolutionary theory you cited doctors as having more scientific education than the average member of the public. You then cited that post adding the little weasal words "overwhelmingly (60%) reject the claim that humans evolved through natural processes alone".
Now either your citation was totally irrelevant to the essay you were writing since as I pointed out the doctors really overwhelmingly rejected creationism and overwhelmingly supported statements that were perfectly consistent with any textbook on evolutionary theory or you intended your readers to skip over the fine print and believe that not only does the public reject evolution but even the sainted doctors have as well (and if you don't trust your doctor then whom can you trust?).
So Joe, take your pick, were you being brillantly deceptive or just stupidly sloppy?
posted on 08.14.2006 1:04 PM26
And for the record I'm not saying this to be trollish or unnecessarily mean. I sincerely do believe Joe was deceptive in his use of both the doctor poll and to a lesser degree the 'great scientists are atheists' poll. I'm willing to grant that maybe he was unintentionally so but I think he should take an honest moment to really examine what he wrote.
posted on 08.14.2006 1:31 PM27
I see now Joe's got some competition: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a blog. From what I've read on Wikipedia, Ahmadinejad shares Joe's suspicion of scientists. And Joe Stalin shared Joe's suspicion of doctors...
posted on 08.14.2006 3:08 PM28
Ed Darrel: Science looks for proximate causes, not ultimate causes. There is no occasion yet known where there is any compelling evidence or reason to claim intelligent ultimate causes over natural proximate causes.
This idea, when applied to history, is the root of the atheistic and evolutionary error. It is true that when investigating how things work now, you look at proximate causes. But no intelligent person will be satisfied with that. Anyone with normal curiosity will also be interested in more remote causes, and the more so in history - and the science of origins is history. When investigating a death, no one will be satisfied to know merely that a bullet passed through a victim's heart because it was propelled at high speed from a gun. They will want to know how the gun came to be aimed at the victim and how the trigger came to be pulled. Similarly, no biologist ought to be satisfied with proximate causes; it is the more remote causes that are actually more interesting.
The kind of distinction being made here by Darrel is designed for obfuscation and to direct attention away from our Creator. Historical enquiry is ultimately for the purpose of finding out what happened and why. If science admits that it cannot enquire into why and is content to leave the question open, well and good. But atheistic science is not content with that. It wants to exclude God from the picture altogether and therefore claims not just that his actions cannot be investigated but that they must be assumed never to have happened. All too many in the church go along with this, and in doing so they depart from the truth. There is no way to determine, from investigating what we see now, at what point God intervened in the past; therefore the historical speculations of atheists are valueless in establishing what happened. But we have a record given us by the source of all truth and it does not disagree with any scientific observations. (It certainly disagrees with atheistic interpretations!)
I am a bit puzzled from reading the comments on this blog as to who its audience are. Although it is called Evangelical Outpost, it doesn't seem to harbour many Evangelical Christians, unless the definition of Evangelical has been changed without my noticing! Atheists are blind to the truth any way, but too many others show alarming evidence of the deception and apostasy prophesied for the end of the age. Those who do claim allegiance to Jesus need to realise that in denying the truth of the plain reading of Genesis they are contradicting him who said "the scripture cannot be broken". The gospel (to evangelion) is the good news about what God has done for us. If there was not a first Adam, created directly by God, there cannot be a second Adam either. If there was no fall, neither can there be any redemption. If the world described by evolution - death, bloodshed and extinction - was "very good", how can I believe the promise of a new creation where "they shall not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain". If the world is indeed 4.5 billion years old, am I not wasting my time looking eagerly for the return of Jesus for his Bride?
In other words, Genesis is as crucial to faith in God as the cross and resurrection of Jesus, and denying it makes God a liar. Denying it may mean you get less abuse from the atheists and apostate, but if it destroys your trust in Jesus, it may send you to hell. Is respectability worth that?
29
It appears, Oliver, that you are starting with the conclusion (everything in the Bible is Truth, doubting this will send me to hell) and then deciding that any evidence we discover to the contrary cannot be trusted. Some of us prefer to start with the evidence and see what conclusions that leads us to.
posted on 08.14.2006 4:01 PM30
Ed Darrel:
Science looks for proximate causes, not ultimate causes.
If this were true, then science must stay out of historical inference business altogether. Furthermore, the word "random" could only be used in the subjective sense, and never as an objective statement about a cause, because that would be to make a statement about the ultimate nature of the cause. Following this rule would render Darwinism a subjectivist theory, rather than objective historical explanation about how life came to be how it is.
There is no occasion yet known where there is any compelling evidence or reason to claim intelligent ultimate causes over natural proximate causes.This is incoherent. A proximate explanation cannot contradict an ultimate explanation. If it does, then it's really an ultimate explanation itself. If invoking a natural cause contradicts an intelligent ultimate cause, as you appear to claim here, then the proposed natural cause isn't proximate after all, but ultimate.
What you're really trying to say, in your weasely way, is that ultimate blind causes are always to be preferred over ultimate intelligent causes, and that science can consider one but not the other. That's nothing more than 3rd-rate philosophy - special pleading for your own metaphysic.
posted on 08.14.2006 4:27 PM31
Joe: "Personally, I find atheism to be an absurd and childish idea and can hardly understand how intelligent people can hold such a belief."
You've mentioned this before, but it is still pretty annoying. I feel the same way about religions, especially yours. I once mentioned my belief that atheists were in general more intelligent, better-educated people than theists, and how nice it would be for someone to do a study on it. You expressed confidence that the reverse was true. You'll probably dismiss these results, coming as they do from a scientific publication, but what the heck. Enjoy.
http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm
posted on 08.14.2006 4:29 PM32
ex-preacher: It appears, Oliver, that you are starting with the conclusion (everything in the Bible is Truth, doubting this will send me to hell) and then deciding that any evidence we discover to the contrary cannot be trusted.
Correct. (Doubt is not sin, but unbelief - an act of the will - is sin.)
The word "evidence" is tendentious. There are observations. They are interpreted according to the presuppositions of the interpreter. My presupposition is that God is faithful and that his word is true. Yours is that human reason is supreme. This results in diametrically opposed world views.
The evidence cannot prove one or the other, because neither side will give up its presuppositions. However, the total picture from the creationist world view is more consistent with all the observations than is the picture given by the humanistic world view.
Some of us prefer to start with the evidence and see what conclusions that leads us to.
The proper description of this attitude is pride and it is quite futile. How could you discover anything about God, or what he has done, by such an approach? How can created beings investigate their creator? Of such people God says, "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the philosopher of this world? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?"
You cannot operate without presuppositions. If you really think you do, you are deluded. You are responsible before God for your choice of presuppositions.
posted on 08.14.2006 4:47 PM33
My presupposition is that God is faithful and that his word is true. Yours is that human reason is supreme. This results in diametrically opposed world views.
We may then reasonably categorize your views as unreasonable, and illogical then, no?
posted on 08.14.2006 5:54 PM34
Ah, a presuppositionalist. As you imply, for you there is no point in looking at the evidence since you take the conclusion as your premise. This is also known as circular reasoning. Your view carries little weight with me, though, since I lived 35 years of my life presupposing god until the evidence, much of it from the Bible itself, forced me to conclude otherwise.
posted on 08.14.2006 5:55 PM35
Eric and Lisa ask:
Maybe there was a page omitted or redacted or something? Please help me with this Joe Mc Faul, since Ive been unable to find the lies that were told in the judges ruling, only that he says they lied and would point out where later but never seems to.
Appreciated."
Certainly:
The 139 page opinion sets out several examples of playing fast and lose with the truth. the Judge found deception in the following areas:
1. The change in wording from "creationism to Intelligent design in Of Pandas and People--with no other changes in text. "Astonishing" says the judge. ("Astonishing" is a polite courtroom form of saying "liar, liar , pants on fire".)
2. The Discovery Instituter's Wedge documents and wedge strategy is religious documents despite defendants "protestations to the contrary" (another judicial euphemism for "lying.")
3. The disclaimer:Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. is "misleading" and is "misrepresenting the scientific claims."
4. ID proponents are coy about the identity of the designer and are also "guilty of "misrepresenting well- established scientific propositions" The misrepresentations are discussed at length in the opinion.
5. Of Pandas and People "systematically distorts and misrepresents established, important evolutionary principles" and is "inaccurate and downright false." Court describes three particular ways this is so. The court correctly notes Bebe concedes the inaccuracies.
6. "ID's backers have sought to a void the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard."
In short ID proponents lie when they say they just want to teach the controversy.
7. Board members were not truthful: "Although Baksa claims he does not recall Bonsell identifying "creationism" as the subject with which he wanted to share equal time with evolution, nor that Bonsell mentioned "creationism" at any time up until April 1, 2003, we do not find his testimony on this point to be credible."
8. And again: "It is notable, and in fact incredible that Bonsell disclaimed any interest in creationism during his testimony, despite the admission by his counsel in Defendants' opening statement that Bonsell had such an interest.. Simply put, Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner about this and other subjects."
9. and again:"Finally, although Buckingham, Bonsell, and other defense witnesses denied the reports in the news media and contradicted the great weight of the evidence about what transpired at the June 2004 Board meetings, the record reflects that these witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions, and are accordingly not credible on these points. The paragraphs in the opinion that precede the quotes detail the inaccuracies.
10 and again:
"The testimony at trial stunningly revealed that Buckingham and Bonsell tried to hide the source of the donations because it showed, at the very least, the extraordinary measures taken to ensure that students received a creationist alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution. To illustrate, we note that at January 3, 2005 depositions taken pursuant to an order of this Court so Plaintiffs could decide whether to seek a temporary restraining order, upon repeated questioning by Plaintiffs' counsel on this point, neither Buckingham nor Bonsell provided any information about Buckingham's involvement in the donation or about a collection he took at his church. (30:50-56 (Buckingham); 33:31-35 (Bonsell) (emphasis added)). Buckingham actually made a plea for donations to purchase Pandas at his church, the Harmony Grove Community Church, on a Sunday before services and a total of $850 was collected as a result. (30:38-40 (Buckingham)). As proof of such donation amount, Plaintiffs introduced into evidence a check in the amount of $850 indorsed to Donald Bonsell, Alan Bonsell's father, drawn on Buckingham's account jointly held with his wife, with the notation "Of Pandas and People" appearing on the check. (P-80; 30:46-47 (Buckingham)). Alan Bonsell gave the money to his father who purchased the books. (33:131-32 (Bonsell)). When Spahr received the shipment of books and began to unpack them, she discovered a catalogue from the company that sold the books listing Pandas under "Creation Science." (13:94-5 (Spahr); P-144 at 29).
When we were moved to question Bonsell regarding this sequence of events at trial, he testified that his father served as the conduit for the funds from Buckingham's church because: "He agreed to – he said that he would take it, I guess, off the table or whatever, because of seeing what was going on, and with Mrs. Callahan complaining at the Board meetings not using funds or whatever." (33:129 (Bonsell)).
As we will discuss in more detail below, the inescapable truth is that both Bonsell and Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions about their knowledge of the source of the donation for Pandas"
The judge's decision docuemtns dishonesty at the national level, regional leval and the local level.
36
If science admits that it cannot enquire into why and is content to leave the question open, well and good. But atheistic science is not content with that. It wants to exclude God from the picture altogether and therefore claims not just that his actions cannot be investigated but that they must be assumed never to have happened.
There is no such thing as atheistic science. There is not a single scientific theory that is atheistic.
posted on 08.14.2006 6:25 PM37
Joe,
I'm going to insert myself into this little argument you're having with Booton about how he lies about what you say.
First off, you say:
“Even doctors, who are more informed about biology than the general public, overwhelmingly (60%) reject the claim that humans evolved through natural processes alone.”
And then:
Now is that an assertion that the majority of doctors reject evolutionary theory?
Well of course it is! If someone does not believe that natural processes, i.e. evolution, are responsible for the apearance of humans, then he/she is rejecting evolutionary theory!
You seem to be arguing some point of semantics that I don't get. Are you trying to say that these doctors believe in evolution but also believe in something else, i.e. God, and that the two somehow coexist to explain humans? If that's the case, it means that all these docs don't really believe evolution, and are still willing to resort to the supernatural to some degreee to explain our existence. So I dont' see where Boonton is lying.
Second, please expain your link at this quote. When I click on it, I'm taken to some slide that has nothing to do with doctors. It's just a bunch of stuff about what people of different faiths believe about evolution. Before I'll accept your quote about doctors' beliefs I need to see a source that actually addresses the question. And I do mean a source. Who did the poll, when did they do it, and what were the questions they asked? Some random slide without any mention of where it came from ain't gonna' do it.
posted on 08.14.2006 6:38 PM38
Sorry I just realized that last question was unclear. I'm speaking of the link contained in the first quote at 'overwhelmingly (60%) reject'.
posted on 08.14.2006 6:44 PM39
There is no such thing as atheistic science. There is not a single scientific theory that is atheistic.
Strictly speaking you are correct. The atheistic speculations of evolution cannot properly be described as science. However, they claim to be science so I use that label. Atheistic "science", then, is distinct from the true science of Boyle, Newton, Pasteur and many others in that it goes beyond what can now be observed to speculate about the past, with the particular aim of denying the existence of God. It goes beyond what can be observed by its illegitimate extrapolation from limited current observations to an all-encompassing theory. The object of this is a futile effort to escape from the demands that God makes of all men, whom he has created.
By calling it atheistic science I refer to the motivation of its proponents (or at least of its originators). A theory is not proposed in a philosophical vacuum; theories about origins are derived from an atheistic world view and are intended to support it.
You should not find this idea surprising. Evolutionists are quick to ascribe ulterior motives to those who oppose them as is evident from the Dover trial record referred to above. People need to realise that evolutionists do exactly the same thing that they acccuse others of.
posted on 08.14.2006 6:50 PM40
carpus,
Well of course it is! If someone does not believe that natural processes, i.e. evolution, are responsible for the apearance of humans, then he/she is rejecting evolutionary theory!
When I click on the link I get a slide that says:
38% agree with "Humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement - no divinity played any role."
42% agree with "God initiated and guided an evolutionary process that has led to current human beings."
18% agree with "God created humans exactly as they appear now."
2% agree with "I don't like to think about such matters"
I assume this a survey of doctors as Joe claimed. Clearly Joe adds together the 42% and the 18% to get his magical 60% of doctors. Yet the fact is clearly a supermajority of doctors here reject creationism. The second statement is perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory therefore the fact is 80% of doctors' belief is perfectly consistent with anything written in any standard text on biology or evolution.
Now Joe is presenting this as 'evidence' to refute the charge that the public may not accept evolution as a scientific theory because it is poorly informed about science in general.
Eighty years after the Scopes “Monkey” Trial, the public still refuses to accept the idea that Darwin’s theory of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for complex biological phenomena. In fact, opinion polls show that fewer people are willing to accept the idea that human beings developed from earlier species than they were just ten years ago.
In Britain—a country that is not exactly known for fundamentalist Christianity—fewer than half accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life. (And more than 40% of those polled believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.) Even doctors, who are more informed about biology than the general public, overwhelmingly (60%) reject the claim that humans evolved through natural processes alone.
Why do so many people have such difficulty accepting the theory?....
Now either this little side track into 60% of doctors who express disagreement not with the theory of evolution but the PHILOSOPHY of naturalism is either irrelevant, as sloppy and pointless as inserting a survey showing 3 out of 4 dentists like Colgate toothpaste, or meant to deceive the casual reader into thinking there huge numbers of doctors are rejecting what they read in their biology textbooks in college.
41
The atheistic speculations of evolution cannot properly be described as science. However, they claim to be science so I use that label. Atheistic "science", then, is distinct from the true science of Boyle, Newton, Pasteur and many others in that it goes beyond what can now be observed to speculate about the past, with the particular aim of denying the existence of God. ...
Oliver, you are confusing scientists (or those who write a lot about science) who are atheists with the science itself. This would be as absurd as calling the theory of relativity 'Jewish science' because Einstein was Jewish. No well known advocate of evolution, and this includes the likes of Dawkins, Dennett and others, has ever argued that science had proven their atheism. Never. If they have produce the evidence and I'll agree with you that they are wrong.
42
Today, I began a series entitled "The Grace Series: Romans 5:1 - 'The Grace of Salvation'" Part I. Here is an excerpt from the middle of the post:
"Today, I want to focus on the first verse in Romans 5. "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God." Now this word justification is not the first time we see in the book of Romans. We see it a variety of times certainly in chapter 3, "By the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight. Being justified is a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus." Romans 3:28, "We maintain that man is justified by faith apart from the works of the Law." But when we examine this term, justification, we find that it means literally "to declare innocent or free from any or all guilt." It is the language of the lawcourt. It's like a lawyer is talking. In salvation terms, it's God declaring, "You're righteous, holy, free, and forgiven." Now this term does not mean to make righteous because that is what God does in sanctification as His grace is dispensed in our lives. Sanctification is the growing in Christ's likeness. But his term (justification) means to declare righteous and holy. It's not a pardon, but rather and acquittal. "Not guilty! Free from punishment from penalty." Justification is that gracious act of God whereby he declares a sinner righteous and free from any guilt or punishment upon there putting faith or trust in Jesus Christ. That is what justification means. Christ has paid for our sins; we are free at last!"
I thought you might be interested in reading the article. Let me know what you think about it.
posted on 08.14.2006 7:04 PM43
I said:
My presupposition is that God is faithful and that his word is true. Yours is that human reason is supreme.
Humon: We may then reasonably categorize your views as unreasonable, and illogical then, no?
No. A presupposition is an axiom. It is a premise on which all argument is based. Axioms are, by definition, assumed, not proved. Because men are in rebellion against God, their reasoning is flawed and unreliable; therefore rejecting the supremacy of human reason as a usable axiom is not unreasonable. Even leaving aside revealed knowledge about man, it is silly to make human reason the measure of things, since it obviously cannot tell you anything about how it came into existence.
ex-preacher: Ah, a presuppositionalist. As you imply, for you there is no point in looking at the evidence since you take the conclusion as your premise. This is also known as circular reasoning.
You too need to learn the meaning of axioms and a correct definition of circular reasoning. In this case, circular reasoning would be to derive from my presupposition a conclusion that God is faithful.
Your view carries little weight with me, though, since I lived 35 years of my life presupposing god until the evidence, much of it from the Bible itself, forced me to conclude otherwise.
If you had truly put your faith in God and had wanted to serve him, you would not have concluded thus. "If anyone desires to do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it is of God..." (Jn 7:17) For a long time I was obliged to hold science and faith as separate and irreconcilable until I discovered creationist explanations of the observed data and learned how weak the evolutionary arguments were. Having chosen to remain faithful to God in spite of the opposition of "science", I was vindicated when he showed me the truth.
posted on 08.14.2006 7:21 PM44
boonton: No well known advocate of evolution...has ever argued that science had proven their atheism.
I do not say that (or do not mean to say it). Because they are atheists they produce atheistic theories. But atheism is a presupposition of theirs, so it cannot be proved - it is assumed.
However, since they are so vocal (particularly Dawkins) in opposing the idea that God has worked in the world, and are so keen to offer alternative ways in which things could have happened without God, I do feel that their theories are intended to support atheism. It seems a reasonable conclusion to come to.
posted on 08.14.2006 7:27 PM45
Yet as you just agreed with me there are no atheistic theories. Considering the fact that there are plenty of atheists in science one would have expected one by now.
posted on 08.14.2006 7:37 PM46
Joe Mc Faul wrote;
The Judge further found that many proponents had lied--repeatedly.
The following that you posted is the line that I was talking about
As we will discuss in more detail below, the inescapable truth is that both Bonsell and Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions about their knowledge of the source of the donation for Pandas
This is the only lie that the Judge claims given by the board members but he never comes back to it. It's what I was referring to above. He says, "As we will discuss in more detail" but he never does. Maybe the Judge just meant that the case itself would be discussed in more detail, not the "lies".
Your other points can best be described as redefinition of the word lie. Just to clarify, a lie isn't something said or done by people you don't like.
Here is a better example of a lie:
That would at least be a start. In part III jhudson came pretty close when he actually ventured to make some predictions about front-loading. Then when he saw that his statements could actually be turned into something that could be actually tested in the real world he pulled back.
Boonton is becoming a real disgrace on this message board.
posted on 08.14.2006 8:08 PM47
Oliver:
You have explictly eschewed the use of human reason...which means everything you subsequently say melts into a puddle of jelly...
In particular, despite your claiming that you start from an "axiom" that humans basically can't reason, the point of even claming that you deduce based on some logical combinations of axioms seems utterly pointless and absurd...
Because men are in rebellion against God, their reasoning is flawed and unreliable;...
You beleive your reasoning is flawed and unreliable because your "natural" state - your mind as it is naturally- can't reason. Your thinknig cap's been checked at the door, lest you be sent to heck. You're reasoning from a place of fear, not logic.
48
Mumon,
This isn't particularly addressed to you, just your comments.
You said "We may then reasonably categorize your views as unreasonable, and illogical then, no?"
I realize this was not addressed to me but you are absolutely right.
We are to love our enemies. Whoever is first is last and whoever is last is first. We are to give the shirt off our back to one who does not have a shirt. We are to offer the other cheek. We are to serve others. We are not to place importance on worldly things including worldly possessions and worldly wisdom.
Of course there is more and of course we all too often fail at this (look at the state of Christendom in the western world today) but it is definitely unreasonable and illogical.
Too bad we can't all be unreasonable and illogical, then truly the kingdom of heaven will be on earth.
posted on 08.14.2006 8:52 PM49
You have explictly eschewed the use of human reason
Please cultivate some exactness in reading. I reject human reasoning as a reliable source of truth and a foundation for argument as compared to the revelation of God. That is not the same as saying that reason cannot be used. It should be obvious that reason in the context does not merely refer to the process of deduction but to the whole process of choosing premises and giving weight to various factors, a process which is corrupted and distorted by sin. But if you prefer word games to submitting to the truth...
You're reasoning from a place of fear, not logic.
What a strange assertion! What should I be afraid of? Here is the glory and the wonder of knowing God:
For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ...For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom. 8)
This is a gift that God has given to me, and offers to you, if you would only leave your pride and accept him. If you choose not to heed, it is your problem, and your eternal loss.
posted on 08.14.2006 9:06 PM50
That would at least be a start. In part III jhudson came pretty close when he actually ventured to make some predictions about front-loading. Then when he saw that his statements could actually be turned into something that could be actually tested in the real world he pulled back.
Boonton,
Didn't you mom ever teach you not to talk about people when they weren't around not to defend themselves?
I didn't 'back off' of the discussion about front-loading; in fact I offered two recent studies that gave credence to the theory here and here. Indeed, there appear to be more evidences for front-loading - like this one, offered, by no one less the PZ Meyers himself:
This is a tiny snippet of what we know—these are just some of the genes involved in setting up one plane of asymmetry, the dorsal/ventral distinction. BMP4, for instance, is a ventralizing gene that specifies cells to become part of your front half, while Chordin/Noggin/Gsc are genes that suppress BMP4 or specify dorsal fates, contributing to the formation of your notochord and nervous system.
These are old, old genes. We share them with other animals, like insects, so they arose and acquired their functions in generating asymmetries before our lineages separated, sometime way back in the pre-Cambrian. They are part of our makeup as members of the Bilaterian superphylum, the animals with bilateral symmetry, and, we thought, distinguish us from the Radiata (diploblasts with radial symmetry) and Parazoa (multicellular animals with no discrete tissues or organs.
They seem to be older than we thought, though. Recent work by Matus et al. has delved into the developmental molecular biology of the starlet anemone, Nematostella vectensis, specifically plumbing the sequenced anemone genome for the same genes used in frogs and flies and people to define our dorso-ventral axis, and they're there. What's more, they are expressed asymmetrically, and the anemone contains a huge amount of hidden complexity in its organization.
Now I don't expect that you will pick up on that, as I expect you are less apt to be able to discuss bilateralism than you are the morphology of microbats. But the gist of it is this; significant genomic capabilities appear to have been present very early in life's development, and were expressed invarious ways during the course of life's development, anticipating as it were future needs.
Again, front-loading isn't my preferred mechanism, but it has merit.
But I notice a trend in your posts, and this is just an observation from someone who doesn’t post here often but who has actually spent some time studying biology and spent a lot of time following actual scientific research; your discussions depend heavily on metaphor and story telling - you almost never cite actual studies, and you depend heavily on others knowledge to prop up your own beliefs. When the discussion starts to attain some levels of actual detail, you are unwilling to write, as you put it 'a treatise' on any particular subject and retreat back into vague comparisons. I think it's becoming obvious that you just don't know, and you are bluffing.
51
Boonton argues: These folks specifically think that if they've found Junk DNA then that rules out an intelligent designer.
Those folks are being generous to ID. Unfortunately ID would just respond "it was designed with junk DNA" just like Windows is designed to be bundled with a lot of useless extra programs that no one ever has any real use for.
Shockingly poor reasoning, Boonton.
This seems to be re-run of the 'vestigial organs' claims of a century ago. The claim was that humans have many useless 'hangovers' from earlier forms, proving origins.
But real science advanced and proved that some or most of these did have useful functions -like the little toes or the appendix - so the argument was gradually omitted from textbooks as false.
The problem was that it was always an argument from ignorance - just as claims of 'junk DNA' are now.
There are other odd features of this too.
"A lot of useless extra programs" should be discarded by natural selection in such a long time, as a break on survival efficiency.
How do you define 'junk' scientifically anyway? It may well be found to be the detritus of externally-caused nucleus damage, and be 'shunted aside' by a built-in program that does this to repair the function damaged, hence an elaborate survival mechanism or back-up program.
Now THAT suggests intelligence, and is a prediction worthy of ID!
Degraded data suggests non-degraded data, and so purpose in the first place..
Moreover, the analogy to Microsoft is to programs that DO have both function and design, but are redundant for some -just as 'vestigial organs' can have purpose in an organism's development from infancy.
Listen to yourself Boonton - 'designed with junk' is in NO way what MS programs actually are.
52
"Just to clarify, a lie isn't something said or done by people you don't like."
Just to clarify, lying for God is still a lie.
Now look into your own hearts and re-read what I wrote. They lied about the science. The judge detailed specific ways in the 139 page opinion. When Pandas lied about the state of science--it was lying for God.
When the board members denied purchasing Pandas under oath and later admitted that they did purchase pandas--that's lying for God.
When they denied using the word creationism at news conferences, and then were confronted with videotapes of the conferences where they used the words--that's lying for God.
"This is the only lie that the Judge claims given by the board members"
is recklessly inaccurate. my points 7, 8 and 9 document other lies by board members described by the judge.
Reckless inaccuracy is also lying.
The opinion is replete with specific examples of falsified science, falsified studies and falsified claims--all lies.
Lying takes many forms. It can be an omission of key informaiton. It can be a distortion of soemone else's position, like this one:
"Just to clarify, a lie isn't something said or done by people you don't like."
That is a distortion of my position. It's a lie. But that's OK--you're lying for God. Sadly I've come to belive that my fellow Christians will leap at the chance to lie for God.
Don't lie for God again.
53
I am reposting this below from an earlier thread because The Raven or ex-preacher [can't recall which] said no-one had yet tried to answer Collins's contentment with theistic evolution, a view which I find incoherent and i hope Joe does too..
Theistic evolution clashes with Christian 'theology' properly understood, and too little attention is being paid here to what Christians actually believe. Most theisitic evolutionists in my experience have an unorthodox view of Christianity's God anyway..
It's a case of not talking past each other, so [with small improvements]:
Boonton: A few responses to your thoughtful words, which include some theological confusions.
"If God wanted some excitement." There is no evidence in the Bible for your proposition. The attributes of foreknowledge and predestining power are not qualified at all, difficult as it is for us humans to fathom that. We are told 'He knows the End from the Beginning, the Alpha and the Omega.'
You see, I take the Bible as accurately revealing God's attributes. 'Modern' theologians, by contrast, make up their own authority and return to paganism.
So I find this quite incoherent: "simply permitting his universe to have true probability", would by definition limit God to mansize
and this just incorrect:
"We are, after all, just guessing what things look like from God's POV".
If He tells us, then we do know!
Quote: [asking me] "How then would you proceed if you were asked to write a textbook chapter on lotteries and other games of chance? Wouldn't you proceed with the standard tools of probability which assume no pre-ordination?"
I would do more. If I found sequences and complex data that went far, far beyond randomness working alone, I would agree with the Alien Intelligent searchers that that's good evidence of intelligent design, [or fiddling the wheel in a casino, if you prefer].
Why don't the evolutionists take these respectable statisticians seriously? I say because they don't like the [non-random] results they define as significant. Presumably the atheist will accept non-random radiation data, IF it is found, as evidence of intelligent beings 'out there', just as he interprets the data from stars as yielding other information because he works on the principle that the universe really is ordered.
Now for your last part: "When God interacts with humans in the Bible he doesn't seem to act like a person who has perfect foreknowledge."
True, and false. The Bible includes a few anthropomorphic epiphanies as illustrations. Jesus Himself didn't have perfect foreknowledge, but only as Incarnate Man. 'Seems to' proves nothing in the face of many very clear statements that God is NOT man, in His essence.
But your point fails to answer my objection about God not knowing the Universal Film's ending until it ends IF He is not all-knowing because not predestining. You can't have it both ways, nor can a 'process God'.
'Process theology' is a technical term. It points towards pantheism ['God' IS Everything, or will be], and panentheism [not a spelling error] is ['God' is somehow IN Everything and *indivisible from it*, so can only evolve with it, much as pantheism holds too.]
When the Bible says 'God is All and is in All' it is not saying either of these things. The Christian God is omnipresent WITH His creation and sustains it, but is not indivisible from it or a necessary joint part of it.
So you see, neither of these describe the Christian-Judaic God, whose first attribute is that He is NOT His Creation, but intrinsically independent of it. He created because He wanted to love it, not out of any known necessity.
I hope that helps you undertand where Christians are coming from who have problems with undirected, directionless evolution [the standard theory.]
Boonton wants to quibble that gravity is 'directionless', misunderstanding the 'arrow of time' to which I allude, which in fact produced MAN and not some other 'evolved thing'.
Collins is no theologian and hasn't thought about what sort of God is described in the Bible.
54
Confronting the issue head-on is exactly what we need. We don't need to convert people to atheism, but we do need to wake them up and let them know that there are legitimate arguments with their unquestioning acceptance of Christian dogma. ~ PZ Myers In which I envy the British January 10, 2006
Scientists will never be the close, reassuring father figures that Americans see every week. We will always be threats to the backwards-looking flocks of the majority of the religious, and we will always be railed against from the pulpits—science is an alternative and better way to approach the truth, so we are the competition. The only religion that we can coexist with is one that abandons dogma and scriptural authority, that concedes all explanations of the natural world to the scientific process rather than ancient writ. ~ PZ Myers The Dawkins/Dennett boogeyman March 27, 2006
posted on 08.15.2006 12:50 AM55
Joe Mc Faul wrote;
The opinion is replete with specific examples of falsified science, falsified studies and falsified claims--all lies.
You'd think if the opinion were replete with evidence of lies you'd have given us some. The best you can come up with is that a book was edited by people you don't like (Not a lie). Someone you don't like who doesn't remember something is not telling a lie, it's called not remembering.
What is really shocking is that if they committed perjury under oath that would have been a lie. For some strange reason though, none of the folks you don't like have been convicted of Perjury.
When you made the following claim:
The Judge further found that many proponents had lied--repeatedly. The judge then determined the reason they lied--to conceal their religious motivation.
I thought, well, it's been two years, certainly a judge would have taken action on this if true.
McFaul wrote;
Just to clarify, lying for God is still a lie.
And if you do it under oath, it's a crime. Where's the crime?
posted on