Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Principia · 09-01-2002, 08:21 AM

I think I shall entertain Mike Gene's suggestion and devote an entire thread here at Infidels just for him (Mods, please warn me via PM before shutting this thread down).

The first installment is Mike Gene's incessant obsession with 'stereotypes.' From <a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000305;p=2" target="_blank">Sigmund Gene</a>:

Quote:

Y'see, the problem with rhetoric about one side or another being "criminals" and a "threat" is that when some people take it seriously, they tend to embark on a crusade where the end justifies the means - you do what ever ya gotta do to stop the criminal threat.

Yes, the hypocrisy is unbearable isn't it?

Let's try some of the ID/DI's own 'rhetorics' and 'stereotypes' about academia:

Quote:

Dembski: In the utmost of bad faith, the administration claimed my refusal to retract my press release constituted a lack of collegiality on my part and charged that this compromised my ability to serve as director, thereby providing the fig leaf of justification for my removal. Intellectual McCarthyism has, for the moment, prevailed at Baylor. The announcement of my removal from the Polanyi Center directorship states that I am to be kept on in my capacity as an Associate Professor in Baylor's Institute for Faith and Learning. I look forward in that capacity to continuing to work on intelligent design and its implications.

<a href="http://www.antievolution.org/people/dembski_wa/metanews_20001020_wad.txt" target="_blank">http://www.antievolution.org/people/dembski_wa/metanews_20001020_wad.txt</a>

Quote:

Arm (Philip Johnson ?): Second, the reason why Neo-Darwinism is mandated as the sole possible explanation of life origins and diversity is not because of strong logical foundations and empirical proof. You of all people should know that precisely the opposite is true. Neo-Darwinist exclusivism survives & thrives today merely because of philosophical and political tyranny. You seem to require logical/empirical THOROUGHNESS with ID theory before it can even be allowed to be HEARD in schools, but have no problems with Neo-Darwinism being the EXCLUSIVE explanation when you are intimately familiar with all its MYRIAD OF PROBLEMS more than most/all in this forum. This DOUBLE-STANDARD is inexcusable.

<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000220;p=2" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000220;p=2</a>

Quote:

Mike Gene: The anti-ID stereotypes have more sting, because they are more subtle and spread out among more people. When someone accuses an evolutionist of being damned to Hell for all eternity, that doesn't really shape perceptions of that evolutionist. In fact, so obvious and "over-the-top" are the anti-evolution stereotypes that it's usually the case that the stereotype-invoker only damages his/her own credibility when lashing out this way. The anti-ID stereotypes, on the other hand, have a tendency of going unnoticed as stereotypes and thus have a greater potential to shape public perceptions about the victim of the stereotype.

<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000305;p=2" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000305;p=2</a>

Quote:

MG: I should mention that I am a proponent of evolution who also regularly asks your questions. The focal point is not evolution or common descent, but the desire to explain all biotic reality in non-teleological terms. This approach, by definition, is Extremism. Non-teleologists simply cannot tolerate ONE instance of intelligent design. Since non-teleologists are forced to posture as extremists, there is a natural tendency for their ideas to slip into dogmatism. If you read through many of my exchanges, you will see that I consistently qualify them as opinions and perceptions as I explore the vast neglected arena of middle ground. I offer my ideas in a thoroughly provisional sense. Heck, now and then, I'll even poke fun at my own views and myself. Contrast this to the non-teleologists, who speak as if they have it all basically figured out, rarely acknowledge their views as opinions but cloak them as "Science," all to the point of pronouncing that someone who takes ID seriously cannot be a "competent biologist."

<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000228" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000228</a>

Quote:

MG:No, I recognize that in our ambiguous reality, different rational interpretations are possible and thus have clearly stated (many times) that I do not think non-teleologists are being irrational, closed-minded, illogical, etc. What amazes me is the ID critic's penchant for perceiving the ID proponent as one who is intellectually, psychologically, and/or morally handicapped, reducing their views to nonsense simply because they know it all. As I see it, most of the ID critic's that come to ARN wear this attitude on their shirt-sleeves and then get offended if someone thinks they are biased. You and your cohorts have perceptions of me. But don't forget that I too have perceptions of you.

http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000598

Quote:

Mike Gene: What's more, just who do you think does most of the research? Answer: grad students and post-docs. The effective result of demonizing the ID movement is to cut off the labor supply. Keeping ID out of academia (as the reactionaries at Baylor did) is one effective way of accomplishing this (not by intention, mind you, but by result). Portraying ID as a "threat to science" is also another effective way, as post-docs who invest in overt ID research have essentially killed their career (they become "the enemy"). You know, there are real world implications that follow when science becomes involved in politics.

I walk and live in the real world. I can understand why ID critics would rather ignore the real world and take root in some idealistic, la-la land rhetoric to score points. But when you live in the real world, you don't have to dig very deep to expose just how vacuous this line of ID bashing is.

<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000485" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000485</a>

Quote:

MG: Erik just uses the attack to advance his personal philosophical position, but admits it is not decent. Go figure (I�ve always known the anti-religious spirit drives much of the anti-ID agenda).

<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000965" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000965</a>

Well, you get the idea... Actually, does anyone know if there is a good compilation out there for more ID/DI stereotypes about academia?

[ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]

Lizard · 09-01-2002, 08:32 AM

The best one ever is PJ's characterization: the "elite scientific priesthood" bent on "wiping out God."

pz · 09-01-2002, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Scientiae:
I think I shall entertain Mike Gene's suggestion and devote an entire thread here at Infidels just for him (Mods, please warn me via PM before shutting this thread down).

I think it's a fine idea, but I would suggest that one good way to keep it clean is to do as you've done here: compile the quotes, but keep the editorial commentary to a minimum. The quotes speak for themselves.

I know it's not necessary to mention this to those of us on the side of science and reason, but for the benefit of the visitors from ARN who will be reading them: no selective editing of quotes to change the meaning, and an ellipsis cannot be used to cover 10 pages of deleted material. I don't want to catch anyone trying to make a pastiche of Philip Johnson quotes in order to convince us that he really is in favor of the scientific method or methodological naturalism or good science education.

pz · 09-01-2002, 09:07 AM

I just noticed this little bon mot this morning:

Quote:

Mike Gene:
I was not appalled. I'm quite aware that many people have very strong anti-religious emotions. This is just Madalyn Murray O'Hair stuff.

I guess it is safe now to dismiss things said on ARN as the product of people having very strong religious emotions.

Albion · 09-01-2002, 09:59 AM

Good grief... (ellipsis not meant to indicate ten pages of deleted anything).

Have they said why this naturalistic extremism is only a problem for evolution and not for atomic theory and relativity?

hezekiah jones · 09-01-2002, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lizard:
The best one ever is PJ's characterization: the "elite scientific priesthood" bent on "wiping out God."

Haha. These threads crack me up; thanks everyone.

I wonder, does anyone think the ID gang would be happy to see, in the abstract of some refereed paper somewhere, a statement such as, "Although preliminary results are inconclusive and more study is required, it cannot be ruled out that the proteins controlled by such and such a human gene are guided by the loving hand of our Saviour and Messiah Jesus Christ, or, in the case of analogous gene expression present in Pan troglodyte, Hanuman the monkey General."

Principia · 09-01-2002, 04:49 PM

Lizard,
Is there an actual first-hand quote for PJ using the "scientific priesthood" phrase? I could only find it in some report about a Congressional (?) testimony PJ was in.

In any case, here's the second installment of Mike Gene, selectively filtering out the IDiocy at ARN:

Quote:

Mike B: I would have to ask, however, if you have a similar file of the goodly number of times that those of us who accept the theory of evolution as the current dominant paradigm have been accused of being part of a conspiracy to lie about pretty much everything, of bringing down civilization, of being too stupid and evil to see what is right in front of us, of being the reason the Nazis arose, of being against God, and of being personally and generally damn to Hell for all eternity. While I haven't recorded the citations, I can attest to all of these, and more.

Mike Gene: Are you sure this has happened here on ARN? I can see this happening on other forums, as it does, but here? Perhaps you are confusing forums. For example, who said you are damned to Hell for all eternity because you accept evolution? There are only a small number of IDists/ID sympathizers here on ARN - Bilbo, PLA, RFH, bertvan, mturner, Leonard, nobody, Jack, vivid, etc. Are you suggesting these people have been employing this rhetoric. I simply can't recall any instances.

But, we read these little tidbits at ARN:

Quote:

mturner: Since when is, 'consistent with', synonymous with, 'proof of', JP? You sound like a member

of the new Washington Gestapo.

<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000291" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000291</a>

Quote:

creationist: third, you disagreement with oxnard, coming from that notoriusly even-handed talk

origins website is like visiting a nazi website for the truth about jews....i dont fall for propaganda like

that,but someone has to believe it i suppose.

<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000092;p=" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000092;p=</a>

Quote:

bertvan: [article redacted by moderator] STORMTROOPERS FOR DARWINISM
[...]
Didn't those meek fellows in the clean lab coats give us nuclear bombs and biological weapons? The age of

innocence ended in World War II.
[...]
In a forthcoming instalment, we will examine some more documented cases and delve deeper into the subtler

dimensions of the conspiracy.

<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000037" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000037</a>

Quote:

brauer about julbon: It was I (among others) who complained about Julbon's use of the phrase "Culture of Death" to describe the supporters of the NCSE (which most emphatically include myself).

In general I have a pretty thick skin. I can handle (and have handled) being called all kinds of names by Julbon. And I've apologized to him for my own extreme language.

But that thread had no business being in this forum, and I'm glad it got yanked. If Julbon can't handle it, then it's probably best that he stay away.

<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000053" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000053</a>

Quote:

Douglas: If not, though, just read through "In Six Days" edited by John Somebody-or-other. But not knowing how detailed or lengthy "The Origin of the Species" is, it would be unwise of me to agree to read it (besides, after work I am so tired it's difficult to concentrate or remain awake). Maybe I will, maybe I won't - but I don't know why I should read Satan's propaganda.

<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000300" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000300</a>

Quote:

Arm (Philip Johnson?):Darwinism may not REQUIRE or sanction "might is right," but does it have any place in morally CONDEMNING in an objective sense the horrible acts which you described or in morally REQUIRING in an objective sense values which you and I would agree are virtuous? For example, you assert that "Science is not value-neutral"; from where did you derive this moral ought command and the specific "values" which you did not mention? You also morally condemn in clear terms acts such as ethnic cleansing and the Holocaust, and you were not simply speaking of your personal, subjective tastes (you strongly implied that these acts are objectively wrong); from where did you derive these moral ought prohibitions? You could not have derived them from Darwinism, as you stated before. Darwinism, it seems to me, may not require acts such as ethnic cleansing, but it ALSO DOES NOT PROHIBIT such acts - IT ALLOWS FOR THEM.

<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000242;p=1" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000242;p=1</a>

Quote:

Mike Gene: According to many of our "experts" who dominate academia, tribalism is simply a product of natural selection. The brain, too, is simply a product of natural selection. Ergo, to be mad at Bin Laden is akin to being mad at Hurricane Hugo.

<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000963" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000963</a>

Quote:

nobody: [title of thread] "A form of social Darwinism"/"promoting the right of the strong to dominate the weak"

[commentary] Our thoughts and beliefs do have consequences in the real world. This rather rough story again makes that point. We will continue to have more of this kind of horror, in my opinion.

[text of article]
Satanism -- which has no official structure and means different things to different people -- typically involves worshipping Satan, the Devil, and a travesty of Christian practices and symbols.

Many adherents see it as a form of social Darwinism rejecting religious norms and promoting the right of the strong to dominate the weak.

Its practice often involves ceremonies with sex and sacrifice to tap dark primal forces. Most Satanists reject moral codes, saying an individual must determine what is good or bad.

Modern forms of Satanism draw on a host of traditions, from ancient Egyptian mythology to Celtic cults and Haitian Voodoo.

<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001722" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001722</a>

Quote:

Douglas:"Mental child abuse"....I can envision many conversations like the following hypothetical one taking place, in a Dawkins world:
[...]
Teacher: "Evolution. Humans have evolved certain attitudes regarding what they consider 'right and wrong, good and evil' - there is nothing 'objective' about such things...they only depend on our chemical, genetic, makeup."

Student: "So, it is only human 'convention', which is 'inspired' by evolutionary preference, that gives us our notions of 'right and wrong, good and evil'?"

Teacher: "Exactly so."

Student: "So there is no afterlife, and no eternal or even temporal spiritual judgment for a person's actions?"

Teacher: "Yes, that is correct."

<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001522" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001522</a>

Quote:

julbon:Atheistic Marxism is still considered fashionable and Marxist Darwinists are not called to account for what they did and supported. In the life sciences Marxism is not shunned at all.
There IS no backlash in science against communists or Marxists!!
Only, it seems, against religion and believers.
That tells you all you need to know about the life sciences.==

<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000305;p=2" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000305;p=2</a>

Quote:

Julbon: Well==The Darwinian Atheistic Mind-Control censors are at it again.On this subject, the Left says, no diversity or alternative theories are to be allowed.
The totalitarians call for help from their minions throughout the land to suppress opposition. But, they will lose, because the word is out. We understand them now.

<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001747" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001747</a>

Quote:

mturner: Muslims blame Darwinism and Materialism for the WTC horror. Do they have a point?
IDJon: Hmmm...I think they have a point, in a way. I believe when we pulled God out of our schools and society, that has resulted in severe consequences. If we all evolved, what's the point of morals? I'll end with a quote from Hank Hanegraaff.
[...]
Douglas:"Christianity" cannot be used, legitimately, as an "excuse for terror". "Darwinism", on the other hand (and as IDJon ["IDJohn"?] pointed out), can legitimately be used as an "excuse for terror" - if there is no ultimate, objective morality, and if life is essentially a "survival of the fittest", where everything really boils down to gene reproduction and survival, an argument could be made that those who hold to certain religious views or ideologies would better enable the human race to survive, and that those who hold to and promote the "Western", secular, world-view would lead to the extinction of the human race through greed and lust, and "softness". They would be wrong, but within a "Darwinian" scenario, there would be no real basis to argue that they were.
[...]
mturner: Darwinism is liable to a charge of fundamentalism because it is no more more immune to it than any other belief system. Step into any stockbrokers office, chamber of commerce meeting, or indeed anywhere business, trade, commerce, and finance are discussed by the rich and the 'wannabees', and you'll hear the slogans, 'survival of the fittest', and 'global competitiveness' again and again.

<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001018" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001018</a>

Quote:

[From a thread entitled: "Psychological Effects of Being an Evolutionist"]
Douglas: But, regarding your question, I recall when I bought into "evolutionary theory" (in its non "theistic" form) - it made me quite depressed and cynical, and lessened any guilt I might have had in how I viewed my "neighbor" (that is, I no longer felt that there was anything intrinsically wrong in not "loving" my neighbor - I felt that since we were all merely accidents, with no real "purpose" or destiny beyond death, it didn't matter anyway). I thank God that He delivered me from my atheism, and showed me the truth about myself and about Jesus.
[...]
nobody: The way I see it, evolution can lead to atheism because it claims that we are just animals. Smart animals, but still animals. Some evolutionists are extremely vocal about their atheism. Some don't push it. Some may not even think about it all that much.

I'm not sure you can make a rule that covers everyone. I am aware of cases where people that were raised in Christian homes became atheists due to being confused by the myth of evolution/abiogenesis. In those cases in particular I think evolution has been devastating on them. An absolute shock.
[...]
Douglas: No one who has a more than completely superficial understanding of the implications of evolution can accept it as true, and also be a (true) Christian. The two cannot mix.
Douglas:
And how do you know that these people are actually "Christians", dayton? Just because they say so? Don't you think that there is a basis to decide, even as those who claim to be "fundamental Darwinists" (not of the "neo-Darwinian" sort) can be checked to see if they are correct or not, by checking their views with Darwin's? So, it's "Back to the Bible" - doesn't that make sense?

The Bible indicates that it is necessary to believe in a literal Adam and Eve, and their literal sin, in order to understand the nature of our own relationship to God, and the necessity of Jesus' sacrifice. The one does not follow except from the other, dayton.

<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001797" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001797</a>

Quote:

Douglas: [More from previous thread] This is a more subtle issue, probably than the others in the paragraph above which I mentioned, but it boils down to one or a few of them. If a person UNDERSTANDS that evolution requires death prior to Adam and Eve's sin, or BELIEVES that evolution implies that Adam and Eve were not literal human beings (and still accepts evolution as being true [macroevolution, that is]), THEN their belief in evolution affects their salvation, in my opinion. Some people just don't think of the implications of evolution, and such people might be saved, if they accept everything else about the Gospel. However, those who fall into the former "category" deny a teaching which is central to the need for the Gospel itself - that is, that sin and death entered through one man, and that death is an evil, which Jesus has overcome. If death occurred PRIOR TO a literal Adam and Eve literally sinning (and this is what evolution implies is the case, that death occurred prior to any such thing, or that no such thing ever actually occurred), then God essentially "sanctions" death as part of His "process", and the meaning and significance of Jesus' death is stripped of much of its power and essential truth.

<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001797;p=2" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001797;p=2</a>

More to be added...

[ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-01-2002, 08:32 AM	#2
Lizard Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Kansas Posts: 169	The best one ever is PJ's characterization: the "elite scientific priesthood" bent on "wiping out God."

09-01-2002, 09:59 AM	#5
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	Good grief... (ellipsis not meant to indicate ten pages of deleted anything). Have they said why this naturalistic extremism is only a problem for evolution and not for atomic theory and relativity?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.