Re: QuestionEvolution.com News


alexanderhudson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Ron O wrote:
> > alexanderhudson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > Ron O wrote:
> > > > alexanderhud...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > > grinder2112@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
SNIP:
..
> >
> > I'd believe that they aren't consciously aware of the double standard
> > if the scam artists at the Discovery Institute and the dishonest board
> > members in Dover didn't think that they have to lie about what they are
> > doing.
>
> The DI is an interesting institution in many ways (none of them for the
> reasons they'd like however). The fact that we can see DI's aims for
> what they are doesn't necessarily mean that the proponents believe
> themselves to be engaged in a dishonest act. Their line of reasoning
> will extend from what they believe is a necessity driven from the
> 'need' for cultural renewal in the US (based on theistic rather than
> secular values). This is an extension of the evangelical mission to
> bring witness to the masses but the political machine has taken over.
>
> It's a shame that in their zeal to promote this change that DI cannot
> see the contortions they have to go through in order to arrive at what
> they would consider to be a satisfactory resolution. The problem is
> that when individuals are motivated through ideological drive the
> niceties involved tend to be overlooked in favour of the over-arching
> mission.
>
> So you can have individuals who deeply and sincerely believe in that
> mission and the basis under which it is promoted and who then convince
> themselves that the vehicle it's being pushed forward is a legitimate
> one. The reason the YEC and ID proponents scream censorship and
> scientific exclusion all the time is that if they conceded that they
> weren't being driven out through ideological differences they would
> have to acknowledge that the science itself was bad.
>
> This is denial writ large. It's not a good or happy place for them to
> be, and there may be individuals who are consciously aware of duplicity
> but the movement as a whole does not. This is why it's so diffciult to
> address using the science alone - the barriers are already in place.
>
> As for the Dover School Board - I imagine they have already convinced
> themselves they were telling the truth and everyone else was out to get
> them. Remember that for these people it is the secular world v. them.
> They have The Truth (tm) and it's those outsiders who are subverting
> truth for their own ends.
>
> The fact that they deny those double standards doesn't mean that they
> themselves believe that they are being dishonest in their dealings with
> others. Being caught out will invariably make them intractable about
> proceedings and more entrenched rather than anything else.

At some level the scam artists and the dishonest board members know
that what they are doing just doesn't cut it in the morality
department. They wouldn't have to lie to cover up what they are doing
if this was not true.

The scam artists at the Discovery Institute know this better than just
about anyone. They wouldn't be pushing a replacement scam that
pretends that ID never existed if they really believed the junk they
claim about ID. So at some level they know that ID is bogus, but it
doesn't stop them from trying to use it.

There are guys like Behe that appear to be incompetent, but you can't
claim that about Meyer or West (the director and assitant director of
the "science" wing of the Discovery Institute). These guys figured out
that ID wasn't going to cut it years ago. They knew before they had to
admit it in Ohio, but it didn't stop them from perpetrating a new scam
on the rubes in Ohio.

>
> >
> > You have to know what you are doing when you run a scam or you have to
> > go with the insanity defense. These guys know enough about what they
> > are doing that they have to consciously lie about it. If they didn't
> > know what they were doing why would they try to lie to cover up what
> > they are doing?
>
> The usual justifications around these sorts of things extend to
> variations on the 'other's not understanding the methods to acheive the
> ends (which are intended to be for the good of all .. the 'martyr'
> complex) - or that secular society will always try to portray the
> religious as liars and malcontents. I imagine Thomas' closing argument
> reinforced all of that and more in relation to how the defendants see
> themselves - pillars of the community who have had their words twisted
> and taken out of context by a secular media and science community.
> They didn't lie ... they were 'misunderstood' or 'mis-spoke'.
>
> The minor point that they were caught pushing forward an agenda which
> does directly contravene most SCOTUS decisions on religion since WWII
> sort of goes by the by.
>
> Being aware of what you are doing and then justifying it after the fact
> are key parts of our psychology and the Dover/DI lot are exemplars of
> what happens when that is taken to extremes.
>
> I personally think that the board thought they could activate
> principles they always intended to enact in other ways but had little
> regard for the consequences. Like many bullies they were called on it
> and had to defend their actions. This is were the more complex
> processes of self-justification spring into action, as the alternative
> is to admit you were wrong, and for someone who has spent their life
> justifying themselves through religious doctrine it is an incredibly
> difficult thing to walk away from.
>
> So again - they have been dishonest (to others and themselves) but are
> they aware of that dishonesty ... nope.

Why would you have to lie about something, if you were not aware that
you had to lie about something to support your case?

They could be incompetent, but it took willful planning to figure out
what had to be lied about, and what had to be "not recalled." Do you
think that Buckingham and Bonsell just happened to both forget where
the money came from to buy the books?

>
> >
> > You can say something is not true out of ignorance, but if you know
> > that ID isn't science and you want to teach it in the science class,
> > what does that make you? If you know that the money came from your
> > church and you lie about where it came from because it would hurt your
> > scam if the truth came out, doesn't that mean that you know what you
> > are doing is a scam?
>
> Why do you think Behe is trying to redefine science? It seems absurd
> but the whole anti-materialistic/evolution movement is based on a
> premise that science has been stacking the deck. By claiming that 'if
> only' scientists recognized that the processes that govern life should
> extend beyond the confines of mortal understanding then we could be
> more 'honest' about possibilities for research. The fact that this is
> bollox doesn't mean that the people that support it don't actually,
> sincerely, believe it.

Behe's redefinition of science just shows his incompetence. You can't
admit that astrology is science if ID is science and not put two and
two together unless you were being purposely dishonest, or you were
whacked.

Behe was admitting that ID isn't good enough to teach, but he just
can't admit it to himself. That is true insanity. That isn't what the
guys like West and Meyer are doing.

>
> Similarly if money is taken from a source and that source is not
> revealed when questioned under oath then clearly you are a liar.
> However, the individuals involved never believed they would be called
> on it or (probably until it was pointed out) considered how it might be
> prejudicial to their case. We don't know what was said or what
> happened exactly but at the time they arranged to have the books
> delivered to the school they probably didn't see anything wrong with
> it. I think the whole thing about handing the money off to the
> defendants father was their way of disclaiming responsibility (here ...
> give this money to someone you trust to buy books for the school) but
> that's speculation on my part.

Both Bonsell and Buckingham had to colude to not remember where the
money came from. They had to make sure that one didn't spill the beans
or it wouldn't have been worth lying about in the first place. There
had to be a conscious decision for both of them to make the same claim.
Buckingham collected the money from his church and gave the check to
Bonsell. If Buckingham is going to claim that he didn't know where the
money came from do you think that he didn't check with Bonsell to make
sure that he had the same story? Why lie if you know that someone else
that is going to testify knows the same thing that you do?

>
> You'd be surprised the extent to which individuals will go to in order
> to convince themselves of how 'right' they are. If you have the
> opportunity read up on case studies for narcissistic disorders ...
> having met and known individuals who are narcissistic I can affirm that
> there is very little you can do to convince them of their being
> incorrect about an issue.

Just go over to ARN and look at the ostrich syndrome at work. They
pretended that Ohio never happened and now they are trying to pretend
that Dover never happened. The saddest thing is the ads for the
ID/creationist claptrap that they push at the site. Guys like Meyer
are on the board of directors at ARN and probably gets a cut of the
take, but where is the honest discussion about ID? Why hasn't Meyer
put out a short essay as to why he gave up on ID and went with a
replacement scam that pretends that ID never existed. Just try and
find the ID in the teach the controversy lesson plan. Why aren't these
guys made aware of the shortcomings of ID so that they can work on the
real problems? Self deception is a big part of why ID exists, but we
are talking about the scam artists like Meyer and not the rubes like at
ARN.

>
> In the case of Dover I imagine some of them will have some serious soul
> searching to do now that the lie has been exposed, had it not been
> given coverage I doubt that any of them would have questioned their
> motivations and rationale.

Sure, there is self deception in the Dover board, but these guys knew
at some level that they were lying. It just didn't matter to them.

I have no doubt that they rationalized their actions, but who cares?
They knew what they were doing when they lied. It doesn't matter about
if they thought that it was a good lie for god or not.

SNIP:

It is difficult for me to believe that all these guys are just whacked
out with mental problems. At some level the guys that are scamming the
rubes are probably pathological, but it is a planned pathology or they
wouldn't stay so organized and they wouldn't know when to jump ship.

Look at Pandas and People the guys involved in that book are probably
busy removing references to intelligent design and putting in drivel
about abrupt appearance, or just putting up the "controversies" and
deleting their reason for bringing up the controversies. This is a
conscious effort. It was a conscious effort to go through the book and
replace creationism with ID. Forrest even found an instance where they
had inserted design into the existing creationist euphamism. The
original word was still there, but had the new euphamism inserted
within it. It was touted as a transitional fossil over at the Panda's
Thumb.

Some of these guys know what they are doing, and are doing it on
purpose.

Ron Okimoto

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: QuestionEvolution.com News
    ... >> Ron O wrote: ... address using the science alone - the barriers are already in place. ... > are doing that they have to consciously lie about it. ... Similarly if money is taken from a source and that source is not ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: GACK! BRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!
    ... s with any scam -- follow the money. ... I don't see any money made or not made whether you believe in a young earth or an ancient earth. ... So, because you like Chicken Little Science, *I* should? ... Leave out El Nino, La Nina, the jet streams and only include CO2 -- and wow! ...
    (rec.equestrian)
  • Re: What would science be like if intelligent design hadnt been a dishonest scam?
    ... Intelligent design is just a bunch of people who honestly and ... That is a great benefit to science certainly. ... What has anyone of the recipients ever done with the money? ... but a scam doesn't need to entail monetary profit. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Shec_Labs is ....
    ... If it's a scam and I lose my money, it's nobody's fault but my own. ... Although I can see people on this board wanting to see the science behind the process, giving it away would not make sense. ... Well, I would hope that with some of your money, there would be patents, so telling people how it works isn't an issue. ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: Why has the DI dropped the word "scientific" from their
    ... The scientific theory of intelligent design holds that certain ... admit that no one that they knew had done or was doing ID science? ... legitimate organization is to down play the bogus ID scam that they ... switch on the Ohio rubes in 2002. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading