From: Susan Brassfield <susanb@telepath.com>
>Below is an article that I found on another list by a biologist at Baylor
>University. For Bertvan's edification, the author not only defines the word
>"propaganda" but also "theory." Stephen should note that the author is a
>Christian.
>
>-----------------------
>Cliff Hamrick <cliff_hamrick@BAYLOR.EDU> April 11, 2000
>10:52:49 AM EDT
>reiterations@META-LIST.ORG
>
>Dr. Dembski's last submission to Metaviews has sparked in me the need to
>respond to all the Creationist propaganda that I have been reading. First,
>let me say that I do not use the words 'Creationist propaganda' lightly.
Since I have myself referred to ID material as propaganda, I'd like to
comment on Cliff Hamrick's article. I disagree with him on some minor
points, but I'd also like to reinforce his argument on other points.
>According to Webster's Third New International Dictionary, the definition
>of propaganda is 'doctrines, ideas, arguments, facts, or allegations spread
>by deliberate effort through any medium of communication in order to
>further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause'.
Unfortunately, this definition is of little help, since it could apply to
almost any argument. Valid scientific arguments could be described as
propaganda, if one's cause is the advancement of science.
I think that when we use the word "propaganda", we generally mean it in a
more pejorative sense, implying that the material so described is in some
way misleading, even deceptive. Well, that's what I mean anyway. I think
that the material produced by the ID movement achieves its goals to a large
degree through deception. I make no comment, however, as to the extent to
which this deception is practised consciously by ID proponents. I suspect
they are often unaware of how deceptive they are being. My own experience
suggests that ID proponents, like others who espouse crank theories, are
blinded to facts and logic by the strength of their beliefs. Nevertheless,
sometimes the deception is so blatant that this charitable interpretation is
difficult to maintain.
>In Dr. Dembski's
>article, 'Disbelieving Darwin and Feeling No Shame', he quoted Michael Ruse
>out of context to bolster the opinion of the dogmatism of Darwinists,
>misrepresented the ideas of Mickey Rowe (later writing a half apology) to
>paint the picture of Darwinists as monsters, and only wrote half the truth
>about Darwin's presentation of his Theory of Natural Selection (the truth
>is that during Darwin's time there were few if any specialized scientific
>journals, that Newton, Kepler, and Galileo also published books for the
>public, and that Darwin and Wallace copresented the Theory of Natural
>Selection to a group of fellow scientists). Given these facts, the lack of
>any scientific data, philosophical or theological arguments, and his close
>association with the Discovery Center, a think tank with a definite
>socio-political agenda, I can only determine it's purpose to be to further
>Dr. Dembski's cause and to damage an opposing cause, mainly Darwinism.
I think this supports my point above. The objection to these assertions by
Dembski is not that their purpose is to advance his cause (there's nothing
wrong with that); it's that they do so by deceiving the reader.
By the way, I myself pointed out in this forum another case of
out-of-context quoting by Dembski, in which he misrepresented the views of
Daniel Dennett. ID supporters in this forum would not accept that this was a
misrepresentation, but Dembski subsequently issued an equivocal retraction.
[...]
>Science is based on the principle of testable, falsifiable hypotheses. I
>will give the proponents of intelligent design credit for having a
>well-thought out, perfectly logical hypothesis that the universe and the
>living things in it are too specifically complex to have arisen by random
>chance alone. I agree with the premise of this hypothesis and that has
>bolstered my faith in a divine power. However, it is not scientific until
>some means of testing that hypothesis can be shown. I have never seen,
>though Dembski and cohorts profess to possess, any viable means of testing
>this hypothesis. Dembski makes claims of a mathematical model based on
>probability statistics that can sort out designed objects from undesigned
>ones. However, I have never seen any articles that enumerate and explain
>this model so that scientists can review it for it's scientific merit.
Dembski has published a monograph, "The Design Inference", in which he lays
out a purported method for identifying designed objects. I've already
critiqued the book in this forum. It is vague, equivocal, misguided and
buries a very simple idea beneath layers of unnecessary obfuscation.
However, the most damning criticism of Dembski's work is that he claims to
have detected design in nature despite the fact that he has never (to my
knowledge) applied the method described in his book to any natural
phenomenon. I have asked many ID supporters to cite an example in which he
has applied his method, or approved the application of his method by anyone
else, but no example has been forthcoming. It seems he is able to get away
with this amazing omission thanks to the equivocation, obfuscation and
innuendo which seem to be the hallmarks of ID arguments.
[...]
>He found that "This search of several hundred thousand scientific reports
>published over several years failed to discover a single instance of
>biological research using intelligent design theory to explain life's
>diversity". I will take this one step further. I doubt that Dr. Dembski
>or any proponent of intelligent design has ever even submitted an article
>explaining intelligent design to any scientific journal. If they had, then
>it would certainly be rejected for publication due to a lack of real
>scientific merit.
>
>This rejection of publication would lend credence to their belief in a vast
>naturalistic conspiracy against them in the scientific community.
>
>I have heard no one in the Intelligent Design movement cry 'foul' when
>their papers on intelligent design are rejected by peer review scientific
>journals.
Since publication of Cliff Hamrick's article, Michael Behe has described how
he submitted a paper, related to ID, to scientific journals and it was
rejected (see http://www.discovery.org/embeddedRecentArticles.php3?id=450).
His conclusion is expressed in relatively mild terms: "The take-home lesson
I have learned is that, while some science journal editors are individually
tolerant and will entertain thoughts of publishing challenges to current
views, when a group (such as the editorial board) gets together, orthodoxy
prevails." We can be sure that this will be widely used by ID propagandists
in response to charges that the work of ID proponents has not been published
in peer-reviewed scientific journals. They will also use it to justify the
way that they aim their arguments at the public and politicians, bypassing
the scientific community--another sign of the propagandist nature of their
campaign. In doing so, they will ignore the possibility that the paper was
rejected simply because it lacked scientific merit.
As to whether ID proponents believe there is a "conspiracy" against them, I
don't know. In my experience, they are careful to avoid using the word. So
many purveyors of crank theories have claimed conspiracies that the idea is,
I think, treated by the public with some disdain. ID proponents prefer to
claim that the scientific community rejects their arguments due to an
ideological predisposition against them (a disposition which, curiously, is
shared by the vast majority of scientists despite their wide spectrum of
religious, philosphical and political beliefs).
In short, I think that ID arguments are justly described as "propaganda",
due to their deceptive nature and the fact that they are aimed not at
well-informed scientists but at the unwary layperson.
Richard Wein (Tich)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 15 2000 - 06:44:49 EDT