Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Monday, December 22, 2008

Eugenie C. Scott & Glenn Branch are Dishonest Assholes and the NCSE is a Nazi-like Propaganda Machine

Eugenie C. Scott & Glenn Branch are Dishonest Assholes and the NCSE is a Nazi-like Propaganda Machine-

In the January 2009 issue of Scientific American, Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch of the National Center for Spreading Evolutionism, I mean for Science Education, have an article titled “The Latest Face of Creationism”.

The article starts with a caption-

“Creationists who want religious ideas taught as fact in public schools continue to adapt to courtroom defeats by hiding their true aims under ever changing guises.”

So I assumed (wrongly it turns out) that somewhere in the article there would be names of these Creationists and the religious ideas they want taught in public schools.

But there wasn’t anything in the article which would support that claim! No names and no evidence to support the claim. That is a bad way to start and then write an article. It is a demonstration of dishonesty.

Also what else is wrong with that opening caption is that science can neither be legislated nor adjudicated! It is stupid to think that politicians and judges are in any position to make a determination as to what is and isn’t science. (science is world-wide and does not yield to the arbitrary rules one country places upon it)

Yet that is what the anti-IDists do. Heck Eugenie and Glenn even quote Judge Jones as saying ID is not science. Too bad Judge Jones didn’t know what was being passed off as science. If he had then he could have compared. But anyway, as I said a judge isn’t in any position to decide what is and isn’t science.

Moving on- Another error committed by Eugenie and Glenn is the way they throw around the word “evolution”. They do so as if neither ID nor Creation holds that “evolution” occurs.

This tactic is very misleading and very dishonest. Heck Bill Nye the science guy thinks that Creationists hold that species are fixed and no change takes place!

This is the sort of ignorance that is rampant in the evolutionary camps. And the NCSE likes/ wants/ needs it that way.

So here it is you two and your ignorant minions. My article that tells us what is being debated (however I doubt that neither Eugenie nor Glenn will ever admit to it):

Biological Evolution: What is being debated

HINT- the debate is all about a) origins and b) mechanisms

Another error they make is to conflate ID with Creation. This is a sure sign of willful ignorance and dishonesty. Eugenie, for one, should know better- here is why-

In 2000 Michael Behe wrote the following:

Intelligent Design is NOT CReationism

Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God." Where I and others run afoul of Scott and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is simply in arguing that intelligent design in biology is not invisible, it is empirically detectable. The biological literature is replete with statements like David DeRosier's in the journal Cell: "More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human" (1). Exactly why is it a thought-crime to make the case that such observations may be on to something objectively correct?

Scott blames "frontier," "nonhierarchical" religions for the controversy in biology education in the United States. As a member of the decidedly hierarchical, mainstream Roman Catholic Church, I think a better candidate for blame is the policing of orthodoxy by the NCSE and others--abetting lawsuits to suppress discussion of truly open questions and decrying academic advocates of intelligent design for "organiz[ing] conferences" and "writ[ing] op-ed pieces and books." Among a lot of religious citizens, who aren't quite the yahoos evolutionists often seem to think they are, such activities raise doubts that the issues are being fairly presented, which might then cause some people to doubt the veracity of scientists in other areas too. Ironically, the activity of Scott and the NCSE might itself be promoting the mistrust of science they deplore.

1. David J. DeRosier, Cell 93, 17 (1998).

Other people have also weighed in on this- including John Morris, the president of the Institute for Creation Research:

"The differences between Biblical creationism and the IDM should become clear. As an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization, ICR is concerned with the reputation of our God and desires to point all men back to Him. We are not in this work merely to do good science, although this is of great importance to us. We care that students and society are brainwashed away from a relationship with their Creator/Savior. While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them."


What else is being said:

The Creationist Fabrication, which includes standard accepted definitions: defines creationism as “Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.”

Merriam-Webster defines it as “a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis."

The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as “Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.”

“Essentially the same definition even appears in the scientific, peer reviewed literature” MG:

Creationists are those who believe that God created the universe, and all species alive today, in a geological instant several thousand years ago. The usual motive for creationism is conformity to a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesisor some analogous scripture. (Leigh EG Jr. 1999. The modern synthesis, Ronald Fisher and creationism. Trends Ecol Evol. 14:495-498.)

Futuyma’s Glossary:

The doctrine that each species (or perhaps higher taxon) of organism was created separately in much its present form, by a supernatural creator.

Creation stands and falls with the Bible. ID doesn’t require the Bible NOR a belief in “God”.

To try to make the case that ID = Creation they rely solely on Barbara Forrest’s interception of a rough draft of “Of Pandas and People”. Got that- a ROUGH draft that had the word “creationist” (small c), as the authors were searching for the proper term that would fit their position.

That is why we call them ROUGH drafts- because they are NOT ready for prime-time.

In another rough draft "creationist" was replaced with "cdesign proponents". And guess what? These two jump all over that too! (the "c" was over-looked)

For some reason these imps think that a rough draft means something. Too bad the publisher did not have a chance to defend itself during the trial*. And it is pretty sad that evolutionists can only “defend” themselves in venues in which there isn’t any opposing view that could refute there nonsense.

For example I doubt that SA will give any press to the sound refutations of their articles. I know this because last year they trumpeted the coming IPCC meeting in Asia. But when the outcome wasn’t what they wanted to hear they didn’t publish anything about that meeting. But anyway…

Let’s look at their claim. Their claim is that the word “creationist” in a rough draft means that ID – the book really has no bearing on the ID of today- equals Creation- even though ID does not fit the definition.

However if we hold the theory of evolution to the SAME standard then it becomes obvious that it too is a Creation theory:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.- Charles Darwin in “The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection” last chapter, last sentence (bold added)

That is in a RELEASED edition. Yet do either one of the authors mention that? Hell no!

And Earth to Eugenie and Glenn- The “Kitzmiller” case was decided on the weakness of the school board- as in the school board didn’t have any idea as to the tenets of ID.

So what is the evidence for evolution they provide? Antibiotic resistance for one. But what does antibiotic resistance really tell us?

Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change? Kevin Anderson, Ph.D.


Evolutionists frequently point to the development of antibiotic resistance by bacteria as a demonstration of evolutionary change. However, molecular analysis of the genetic events that lead to antibiotic resistance do not support this common assumption. Many bacteria become resistant by acquiring genes from plasmids or transposons via horizontal gene transfer. Horizontal transfer, though, does not account for the origin of resistance genes, only their spread among bacteria. Mutations, on the other hand, can potentially account for the origin of antibiotic resistance within the bacterial world, but involve mutational processes that are contrary to the predictions of evolution. Instead, such mutations consistently reduce or eliminate the function of transport proteins or porins, protein binding affinities, enzyme activities, the proton motive force, or regulatory control systems. While such mutations can be regarded as “beneficial,” in that they increase the survival rate of bacteria in the presence of the antibiotic, they involve mutational processes that do not provide a genetic mechanism for common “descent with modification.” Also, some “relative fitness” cost is often associated with such mutations, although reversion mutations may eventually recover most, if not all, of this cost for some bacteria. A true biological cost does occur, however, in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems or functions. Such loss of cellular activity cannot legitimately be offered as a genetic means of demonstrating evolution.

Not to mention that even the most ardent YEC is OK with bacteria “evolving” into bacteria. IOW their example proves they are out to misrepresent the Creation position. And they never demonstrate that they know anything about Intelligent Design.

A book exists that has both ID and anti-ID passages/ essays/ articles. It is titled Darwinism, Design and Public Education. On page 92 it is stated that Intelligent Design is based on three premises (with the inference that follows):

1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.

2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

But is any of that mentioned? No.

Why don’t they tell us what is being debated? Why do they use the word “evolution” as if both ID and Creation argue against change of any kind?

I know why- they are dishonest assholes with an agenda of malicious misrepresentations and grandiose, albeit vague, claims of a superior position.

Also in the opening caption was a part about “hiding their true aims”. As If the true aims of evolutionism is not to force atheism on students! At least people like Richard Dawkins and his ilk admit to that fact.

The real sad part about their article is that they attack academic freedom because the “know” what is REALLY going on.

Did they use scientific methodology to come to this “knowledge”? They don’t say. But we are to be assured that they know what is best.

So please take me to Court for calling you dishonest assholes and exposing the NCSE as a Nazi-like propaganda machine.

Be prepared to provide a testable hypothesis for undirected processes. And also be prepared to provide the scientific advances that have been made in the name of undirected processes.

*additional information pertaining to "Of Pandas and People" from the publisher:

Darn! Due Process Summarily Denied; Lost the Very First Lawsuit We Were Never In

After learning that the case turned on specific allegations about key passages in Pandas, and more importantly, the allegation that “Intelligent Design”originated with creationism, FTE sought to intervene. Why? Because the term “Intelligent Design” was first introduced into current public discourse through FTE’s 1989 publication of Pandas, and the only two eyewitnesses to the question of continuity with creationism and to the other historical events in the core allegations at issue initiated the project themselves in 1982 and worked at FTE to produce the book. But Judge John E. Jones, III, ruled against FTE’s intervention. Perhaps he felt that the Plaintiffs knew more than the eyewitnesses about the events surrounding the publication of Pandas, or that the intervention would just drag the trial out even longer. For whatever reason, uncontested allegations made by persons who were not eyewitnesses proved to be sufficient evidence for the court on this matter. Sadly, FTE was not even allowed to participate in a trial over its own book, and was denied the opportunity to explain and defend its own publication.

No wonder John West, Associate Director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture, and Associate Professor of Political Science at Seattle Pacific University marveled, “Frankly, it is astounding that Judge Jones treats Pandas as central to his decision given that he refused to grant the book’s publisher, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, permission to intervene in the case in order to defend itself.”

In addition Judge Jones insisted at the hearing that the Thomas More Law Center (the public interest law firm defending the Dover School Board) would defend FTE’s interests also. But by the time FTE was served a subpoena by the ACLU, TMLC had not so much as sent FTE a copy of the Complaint, nor even notified FTE the Complaint put FTE in serious jeopardy. These facts hinted as to how well they would defend its interests!

The real truth about the key passages of the book and the origin of Intelligent Design are laid out for the visitor to this site. See the links to “Is ID creationism in disguise?”, “Does ID require supernatural creation?”, and “Did Pandas ever advocate creationism?”


  • At 1:07 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Right. Which part of "I'm not a conspiracy theorist" do you misunderstand?

  • At 2:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Conspiracy theory? What Conspiracy theory

    I notice your comments are missing from that thread and all you have ever provided is a vague bald assertion.

    Again I ask what conspiracy theory are you talking about?- please be specific.

  • At 2:31 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Once again I notice you didn't post anything of substance.

    And also (once again) you have failed to address one point in the opening post.

    Why do you insist on going through life with your head up your ass?

    Is that some sort of clown thing?

    It is funny but in a sad way...

  • At 2:47 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Which part of "I'm not a conspiracy theorist" do you misunderstand?

    Right- I am NOT a conspiracy theorist- what do you think is the misunderstanding?

    And again please be specific. (My bet is any misunderstanding is all yours- 100% so far)

    Or better yet go run and tell Eugenie so that you get what you want- that is me in a Courtroom.

  • At 10:12 PM, Blogger Jorgon Gorgon said…

    Bwahahahaha! Can you spell clueless?

    But thatnks for a laugh; meanwhile, only one thing really needs to be said:
    " Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the [B]origin[/B] of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity."

    Bullshit, despite all of Behe and Dembski's attempts to cover it up. What's more, if "naturalistic" mechanisms are inadequate, then what you have left are "supernaturalistic" which are, by definition, outside of the purview of science.

  • At 9:11 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Can you spell clueless?

    In this case clueless is spelled- J-o-r-g-o-n G-o-r-g-o-n

    What's more, if "naturalistic" mechanisms are inadequate, then what you have left are "supernaturalistic" which are, by definition, outside of the purview of science.

    "Naturalistic" in this case means "blind and undirected". So what we are left with is "intentional and directed".

    And what is funny is tat YOU cannot even provide a testable hypothesis for YOUR position.

    Not only that you can't even address one point I made in the OP.

    The "best" you have so far is a blatant misrepresentation of what is being debated.

    But perhaps you could provide a peer-reviewed article that demonstrates a structure like the bacterial flagellum could arise via an accumulation of genetic accidents.

    However before you do that you first have to develop a testable hypothesis for that mechanism.

    Thanks for the laugh though- I am laughing at the fact that you are as clueless as Eugenie, Glenn and perhaps most of the anti-ID crowd.

  • At 9:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hey clueless one-

    Do you want to know what you will NEVER hear a physicist say?

    "Gravity is as well supoorted as the theory of evolution."

    You will NEVER hear a physicist say that.

    However astrology is as well supported as the theory of evolution.

  • At 9:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…


    Something else for your little mind to consider:

    Natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot be responsible for its origin.

    So what do you have left to get the universe going in YOUR scenario?

    That is another question Eugenie and Glenn will have to answer if they decide to try to sue me.

  • At 9:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Great- So far only 2 evolutionary fart-n-darts.

    Is that the best evolutionitwits can muster?

    Or are they plotting to take me to Court?

    I doubt I will be that lucky...

  • At 7:55 PM, Blogger Rotifer said…

    There is a difference between not naming names because they don't exist, and not naming names because there are too many. It is hard to argue that the intelligent design movement does not get the majority of its funding and support from creationist sources. The reason that people make statements about creationists not believing in any form of evolution is that many of them don't. We are aware that some do, but there is no standard creationist creed. The evidence for evolution is in the molecular biology of every living thing, fossils, geology and even astronomy. Carl Sagan looked to the heavens, Stephen Jay Gould dug into the earth to find fossils and Richard Dawkins looked at living animals all to find the same thing, the continuity of evolution over time. Michael Behe is wrong. His assumptions are all based on the unsaid and ignored notion that the surrounding environment was unchanging. Irreducible complexity is based on the relation of the item to its current surroundings and does not note the possibility of a change of surroundings. Science is a process, the results are facts. It is important that we do not simultaneously tell children that something is a fact that was obtained through science if it is not the case. Intelligent design is not supported by science. Daniel Dennet has a video that succintly annihilates the notion that design is unique and can be discerned easily by end results. Look into this further before calling others names.


Post a Comment

<< Home