Alt-Right is Secular? Anyone Buy That?

One of my favorite targets is the Discovery Institute (DI) and the lengths they will go through to rationalize just about anything.  Today's topic is "The Religion of the Alt-Right", and it appears to be an attempt at disassociating themselves not only from their religious roots, but any connection with Alt-Right groups.

The Alt-Right is collection of people, self organized into a number of different groups who lean to the far-far right of the political spectrum.  Their main weapon, at least according to the DI is Racism.  Their recent activities in Charlottesville Va is a good example of their behavior.  I think that view is quite narrow.  The Alt-Right is against a number of things, like Abortion, Gay Marriage, Antisemitism, Immigration, Civil and Women's Rights, and pretty much a rejection of any American Ideals.  Their tactics are full of violence and hatred for anyone who supports an alternative view.  Yet, the DI just wants to focus on just Racism.

Now why would the DI want to disassociate themselves from such groups and why use a one-trick argument, Racism?  I see two reasons here.  The first is one of the common themes from the DI, the efforts to disassociate themselves from their conservative religious underpinnings.  You see that in this post because what they are doing is to try and claim that the Alt-Right is not particularly religious, but secular.  Most of this post is a rationalization about the Alt-Right's use of religion and how they really aren't religious  -- regardless of all the religious symbolism and right-wing religious organizations that belong to the Alt-Right.

Why is that important?  Remember the DI is really a religious ministry wearing an ill-fitting lab coat and constantly trying to convince people that they are a scientific organization.  If they were not a religious ministry, then why is this part of the post be necessary?  If you aren't sure here is the first line of the DI's description in Wikipedia (my underlining for emphasis):

"The Discovery Institute (DI) is a politically conservative non-profit think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design (ID)" (Wikipedia: Discovery Institute)

From the same Wikipedia page, a few words from the Dover Court Decision:

"The court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions," and the Institute's manifesto, the Wedge Document, describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."^[  It was the court's opinion that intelligent design was merely a redressing of creationism and that, as such, it was not a scientific proposition."

Now, you are the DI, and you are associated with being conservative as well a being a religious organization.  So how to you try and break any association with the Alt-Right?  You disassociate yourself if you can, and if you can blame Charles Darwin at the same time you have a win-win.

That's what the rest of this post is all about.  And since the DI has tried to establish the Alt-Right as a secular organization, then it's just one more step to claim that they are followers of evolution and lay all the trouble they have been causing at the footsteps of Charles Darwin.  They even manage to drag in Hitler for a brief cameo.

So who does the DI turn to for this attempt? Why Richard Weikart, one of their stable of pseudo-historians and also a Senior Fellow at the DI. 

Richard Weikart is best known for his book From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany.  The Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement, funded the book's research.  The academic community has been widely critical of the book.  Regarding the thesis of Weikart's book, University of Chicago historian Robert Richards wrote that Hitler was not a Darwinian and called criticized Weikart for trying to undermine evolution.  Richards said that there was no evidence that Hitler read Darwin, and that some influencers of Nazism such as Houston Stewart Chamberlain were opposed to evolution. " Wikipedia: Richard Weikart)

Of course the DI doesn't mention that Weikart's book received an almost universal negative criticisms from academics -- historians and theologians alike -- conservative and liberal as well.  The main criticisms focused on his very selective focus on one narrow point of view and failure to regard a host of factors influencing Hitler and the Nazi's.  Bottom line is Weikart's pushing the DI's agenda, and therefore critics don't matter much, after all, the DI and Weikart are doing God's work, aren't they?

So what we have here is not some treatise to be taken seriously.  It looks like nothing more than a rationalization to try and officially disassociate the DI from their religious and conservative underpinnings and at the same time promote an already widely dismissed idea blaming Darwin and Evolution for the abhorrent behavior of some of the DI's philosophical brothers, those in the past and those in the present.

I do have to wonder about the timing of this?  The DI does nothing without a motive.  So why this sudden interest in disassociation with the Alt-Right?  Are they setting the stage for some new argument, or is this just an excuse to trot out Weikart again and his already much discredited ideas?  Guess we'll see what the future brings.

Division along Racial Lines is Bad, but Division along Religious Lines is OK! Really?

The Gospel Herald has an article about one of my favorite targets, little kennie ham of the Answers in Genesis, Creation 'museum' and Ark Park fame. In it they quote little kennie talking about racism:

"There aren't 'white' or 'black' people-we're all the same color," Ham wrote in a Facebook post. "All humans have the same basic color of skin (which comes from the pigment melanin) just different shades--there are no 'white' or 'black' people. Using terms like 'white' and 'black' promotes division, racism, and prejudice--all are brown." ()

My issue doesn't address race, but division and prejudice.  Yes there are specific terms are divide people in many ways.  In recent years we've seen huge examples of divisiveness due to politics, more so than I can ever remember.  But there is another set of divisive terms and for some reason kennie not only doesn't address them, but promotes them.  They have to do with religion.

This is the same man who is hosting a 'World Religions Conference' next month and the stated purpose of that conference:

""Join us for the World Religions Conference July 24-27 and please share this with friends and family members who might be interested.More than ever, Christians need to know what other religions believe and then learn how to reach the lost souls mired in them." (World Religion Conference)"

Let me repeat the last part of that: "reach the lost souls mired in them".  So we are expected to believe this is a person whose wants to end divisiveness and prejudice?  And yet shows absolutely no tolerance for any religious beliefs other than his own!  What makes his belief set any better than any other?  Absolutely nothing!  In my opinion, the fact that kennie believes it, should be a huge warning flag to anyone with a functioning brain!

He preaches that we are all one people, but it only works for kennie if we all share one religion, his religion.  It's not even mainstream Christianity any more, but a narrow version of Christianity based on his personal beliefs.  It may have started with Christianity once upon a time, but it's evolved into something much more divisive and prejudicial.  How can someone claim to against divisiveness when he clearly demonstrate s prejudice against anyone who fails to share his narrow viewpoint.

You can't even work for ham unless you share that view.  Here is a copy from the AiG Employment Website for the requirements for a Plumber:

Remember, this is for a Plumber, not a minister, a plumber.  But to work for kennie at any of his ministries, you have to share his narrow religious viewpoint. I can understand the first three, but what do the last three have to do with your ability as a plumber?  Although, you might ask why kennie would need a plumber, won't prayer handle any problems?

One of the things you can expect if you visit one of kennie ham's monuments to his own ego, is the lack of any sort of freedom of expression.  Back in 2009 the Secular Students of America visited the place and there was a number of email exchanges pretty much guaranteeing that free speech is not allowed, particularly any attire the Creation Museum staff decided was 'godless'.  Here is one example.

I was in attendance that day as well and found the SSA folks to be quiet and reserved.  I didn't notice any 'godless' clothing, but I did listen to a guy who was told to turn his shirt inside out because it said "There probably is no God".  A valid opinion, but not if you are kennie's place.  See what I mean, how divisive is an arbitrary limit on freedom of expression.

This is also the man who was dis-invited from two homeschool conferences back in 2011 for what was described by the organizers for:

"The Board believes that Ken's public criticism of the convention itself and other speakers at our convention require him to surrender the spiritual privilege of addressing our homeschool audience," read the email, posted on the AiG website."Our Board believes Ken's comments to be unnecessary, ungodly, and mean-spirited statements that are divisive at best and defamatory at worst," the homeschooling group wrote, however, that it is "100% young earth" in its scientific stance."

Look at the words:  "divisive at best and defamatory at worst"!  Little kennie, and his 'Hamians', are among the most divisive people on the planet.  They believe so strongly in their particular religious strain, that they are perfectly OK with discriminating against the rest of the world, the overwhelming majority of which don't share his views.  We don't even have to get into his views on the LGBT community to realize how divisive and prejudicial Ham and Co. is.  So take his post about racial divisiveness with a large bag of salt.  He doesn't care about it, he's just using it to market his religion. 

Time to Re-Write History . . . Again

A few years have past so now it's time for the Discovery Institute (DI) to resurrect David Coppedge and paint him as another martyr for the cause.  The post by the toothless chihuahua davey 'klingy' klinghoffer is "World Magazine Tells David Coppedge's Powerful Story" and, as I recall, it wasn't a very powerful story, actually it was pretty dull.

Let me nutshell it for you, if you aren't familiar.  Coppedge preaches to co-workers about Intelligent Design and his personal homophobia to the point of Human Resource complaints and does a poor job in an unpaid leadership position.  He gets counseled and relieved of his leadership position . . which was an unofficial position, an additional duty.  He sues claiming religious discrimination for his 'demotion'.  During the run up to his trial, he gets downsized because he wasn't keeping his skills up-to-date and . . . as you can guess . . . adds that to his lawsuit.  He loses his lawsuit and so the DI paints him as yet another victim, like John Freshwater, Guillermo Gonzales, Catherine Coker, and a few select others.

While klingy likes to paint him in the most positive light possible, Coppedge's co-workers painted him in a very different light.  Klingy repeated Coppedge's claims that his advocacy of Intelligent Design (ID) was always done in "the most respectful, appropriate manner" and "If anyone expressed disinterest, he says, he immediately backed down" and yet the complaints by his co-workers, multiple co-workers and managers, not only about his advocacy, but his job performance painted a very different picture.  They used terms like 'unwelcome' and 'disruptive'.  Eventually he was fired as part of a downsizing event, but you know that the DI can't just leave it at that.

Just to contrast, Since 1996, the year Coppedge was hired as a system administrator, I have been a Delphi programmer, Web Developer, Programming Instructor, Program Manager, Project Lead, and a Java Programmer.  What all Information Technologists learn quickly is that the key to continuous employment is constant upgrade of skills.  The field changes so quickly that your expertise can become obsolete much faster than many people will believe.  So the idea of Coppedge being downsized when his skillset was no longer needed is easily believable.

As a matter of fact, I think I have heard this tune before.  Yes, I had to check, but in 2011 the same psuedo-news organization reported about Coppedge only that DI write-up was by Anika Smith instead of klingy say pretty much the same sort of things.  I haven't noticed anything from Smith lately, so I guess it's up to klingy to re-write things.

Bottom line for Coppedge, he lost his lawsuit, you can read the statement of decision here.  Coppedge and his lawyers had a bunch of objections to the proposed statement, but it was approved by the Court. This decision certainly showed Coppedge was not the respectful and appropriate co-worker the DI likes to claim he is, nor is he one who backed down when disinterest was shown to his religious ideas.  What he was doing was preaching during work, he was also performing his additional duty poorly, and refused to keep his skills current and eventually got fired during a downsizing.  The DI likes to claim that as a senior person, he normally wouldn't be part of being downsized, but when you factor in not keeping his skills current -- that makes him an obvious candidate.  Here is a quote form the decision:

" . . . the evidence reflects that Coppedge was less skilled than those retained, regarding the skills needed on Cassini going forward; Coppedge himself testified that the other SAs [System Administrators] were more expert in these areas."

In another light, this also demonstrates how quickly the DI is to try and re-write history.  In Stephen C. Meyer's book "The Signature in the Cell" Meyer completely rewrote the 'Sternberg Peer Review Controversy' until it was nearly unrecognizable from the reality.  Every once in a while they bring this subject up again and keep trying to peddle their revisionist history.

They repeated attack the Dover Decision, most recently here, even after claiming that it wasn't particularly binding nor had any lasting effect.  How many times will they attempt and re-try the trial?  I guess we'll find out pretty much every December.  They literally repeat the testimony they would have wanted to give if they had the intestinal fortitude to do so during the trial.

Often their history re-writes take historical figures and re-baptize them as Intelligent Design proponents, like Alfred Russel Wallace, Thomas Jefferson, and even Anaxagoras, pre-Socratic Greek philosopher.  Of course these folks are safely dead and cannot refute their re-baptismal.

The history re-write they most often use is to try and blame Darwin for pretty much everything under the sun that they disagree with.  'Darwinism' is the blame for social ills, Hitler and the Holocaust, and even the decline of church attendance.  If it weren't for Darwin we would all be living happy, religious lives . . . as though there were no problems before the advent of Charles Darwin.  Sure, our history books show the world was all happiness and light before Darwin was born, right?

Well, that's enough today.  It's 'nice' to know that the DI will continue to re-write history.  I am glad that most of us don't fall for their foolishness.  In fact is there a difference between the DI and an old-fashioned snake oil salesman peddling his wares from a traveling wagon?  I don't see much of one, at least not philosophically.

When Rationalization is the Only Tool in Your Toolbox, What Do You Do? You Rationalize!

Many, many years ago I read a small cartoon that struck me not funny, but something all too real.  I don't remember the source, it could have been anything from the New Yorker to Mad Magazine, but I remember the cartoon well.  It was the clearest example of racism I had ever heard and one I took a lesson from.  I wish I had the image, but while it left a lasting impression, the original source apparently did not.  I tried a web search, but my parameters are too wide.  Well anyway, it went something like this:

 A man was sitting in his easy chair watching a baseball game.  It was the bottom of the ninth, two outs, based loaded, and his team was down.  Visually he was pretty much an Archie Bunker type.  In fact you could easily picture Archie Bunker doing exactly this. 

The announcer names the next batter, an African-American player and the man is livid.  He goes on to proclaim the game to be over and how the next batter is a choker and can't handle the pressure of playing baseball all because of his race. . . you can easily picture this little bout of verbal diarrhea.

On the first swing of the bat the baseball the player hits it out of the park and wins the game.

The man now proclaims that the man was super-strong from all those years in the jungle.

Actually I paraphrased it a great deal, but I hope you get the gist.  You can probably well imagine the actual words used, so there is no need to repeat them verbatim.  The lesson I learned was that no matter what really happens, a racist goes into any situation prejudiced toward a certain result.  If the outcome is in line with his prejudices, he uses it as reinforcement.  If the actual results are contrary to his prejudices, he is going to find a way to rationalize the results to support his beliefs.

So as I was spending a small part of my weekend going through some news feeds I saw a great many articles about the discovery of Gravitational Waves.  It is very exciting news and also confirms a prediction Einstein made a century ago.  Here is a video from one of the many items I found in my news feeds on the subject.

Needless to say this is an incredible achievement!  But . . . me being me, I had to wonder if any of the Creationist organizations were going to say anything about it.  I haven't seen anything from ICR on it yet, but little kennie ham's Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute just had to start their spin.  Here are some quotes, and the links if you want to read their whole posts.

First up a few 'thoughts' from AiG (What Does the Detection of Gravity Waves Mean for the Creation Model?):

"What does this mean to the creation model? Not much. Some creationists may wonder about the distance, but we already know about many objects even farther away. Creationists are well aware of the light-travel-time problem, and we have proposed several solutions. By the way, the big bang has its own light-travel-time problem, the horizon problem."

 "This first direct confirmation of gravitational waves is just another example of how far out and cool God’s creation can be."

AiG pretty much dismisses the whole thing, they do try and remind true believers that the distances spoken of with the discovery isn't something they should consider to be real.  Their 'scientists' have postulate a rather creative 'problem' so they can dismiss the actual evidence.

Next the DI weighs in (What Should We Make of Gravity-Wave Detection?):

"In other words, the universe began to exist, and there is no physical explanation in cosmology or physics for why this happened. "

"The only causal option left is an immaterial transcendent personal agent of immense power and wisdom."

While AiG tried to dismiss the discovery as irrelevant, the DI tries to use it as justification for their mythical designer . . . you know the Christian God they never want to 'officially' recognize.  Simply put, if there is no physical explanation, there must be a supernatural one.  I see this as nothing but a re-statement of the God-In-The-Gaps argument.  Even if it were true that there is no physical explanation, that doesn't mean there will never be one, only that we may not have one right now.  The reason I worded it this way is because I really don't feel the need to dig into the research and see if the DI is telling the truth, about there being no physical explanation.  As you know, I don't trust anything the DI says -- and that's based on their history.

Now do you see the connection to my opening story.  No matter what actually happens in science, be it the discovery of new planets, new fossils, gravitational waves, whatever . . ., Creationists will find a way to use it to further rationalize their own beliefs. 

But really there is no surprises here.  Science will keep on moving forward and pretty much ignore the efforts of folks like these to drag down science in order to shore up their belief systems.

Wikipedia deserves an Award! They Annoyed the DI! Yea!

The Discovery Institute does not like Wikipedia, what a shock!  Since when does the Discovery Institute like anything, or anyone, who doesn't grant them every concession they seem to feel is somehow owed to them?  Disagree?  Well think about two cases in point, Intelligent Design (ID) and the Dover Trial.

When it comes to Intelligent Design who wants it to be taught alongside real scientific theories as if it had any actual science behind it?  Exactly!  They keep demanding to be allowed at the science lectern through tactics that never seem to include performing any actual science.  Think about their tactics "Teach the Controversy", "Evolution is only a Theory", Strengths and Weaknesses", "Academic Freedom", to name a few.  Any actual science involved?  It's all marketing and politics.  Currently their "official" position is that they don't want it to be taught.  I don't buy that, their own guiding documents doesn't say that -- its just another tactic.  I think they don't want it to be taught yet.  First they want to weaken science and science education, then they can more easily market their theistic-ally friendly ideas without ever having to do actual science.

And how about Dover, more specifically the Federal Judge.  Who was it touting a slam dunk when a Conservative Judge, appointed by a Republican President, was announced.  It must have thrilled them to the core.  As mentioned in several books, their confidence level of winning the Dover Trial went up considerably at that point.  Lauri Lebo quoted one of the contributors over on Wild Bill Dembski's blog, Uncommon Descent, describing Judge Jones:

"Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E, an Assistant Scout Master with extensively involved with local and national Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. Bush’s circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. Senator Rick Santorum is a Pennsylvanian in the same circles (author of the “Santorum Language” that encourages schools to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won’t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too. "

Once the trial started, they started circling the wagons.  When the verdict was handed out, Judge Jones was vilified, called an Activist Judge, and is regularly whined about by the DI still today, 10 years later.  What changed?  Judge Jones upheld the law and didn't let the DI get away with anything.  What did they try and get away with, you might ask?  Well if you read the transcripts, a lot.  They tried to offer opinion as facts, contested assertions as if they were facts, they tried to squash the testimony of prosecution witnesses because they knew just how devastating their testimony would be, they tried to re-define science and evolution to make their particular kool-aid more palatable.  The list gets pretty long, but Judge Jones held them up to the light of day, and their little heart shriveled right up.  It doesn't seem like they have learned anything in the last 10 years.

Such is a common theme.  When you play nice with the DI, they say nice things about you.  The problem is that their idea of playing nice is you do what they want, you say what they want you to say, and by no means ask or say anything that might be interpreted as critical of the DI or their pet ideas.  If you cross them, they get out one of the pack of toothless Chihuahuas to attack you, most often little casey luskin or davey 'klingy' klinghoffer.  If you think I kid, do you remember little casey's diatribe attacking a quilter who dared win an award with a quilt entitled "Myths of our Time: Intelligent Design.".  Any time someone says critical stuff about ID, the DI has a knee-jerk reaction to defend it!  They do it all the time (Evidence of Evolution and Selection, DI's knee-jerk anti-ID whine, The Discovery Institute responds on Ohio HB 597, are a few examples.) 

Before getting specific with their issues with Wikipedia, let's talk a little about it.  It is one of the most popular websites in the US, with good reason.  I know, I use it all the time.  Now, what I wouldn't use it for is a reference for an academic paper, even though a 2005 study by Nature declared that Wikipedia is as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica.  Now that being said, I would also not use Encyclopedia Britannica for an academic paper either.

It might sound strange, but we are talking about encyclopedias, which are great for bringing together information, but it's the source of the information in the encyclopedia that is a better reference than using the encyclopedia itself.  I grew up with a set of encyclopedias and in elementary school and high school they were in constant use.  However, in college and for my Master's Degree I used a number of sources, the authoritative source for information, not second or third hand like an encyclopedia.  Encyclopedia's are great for quick reference, but not the authoritative source for anything.

While the study said Wikipedia and Britannica were equal in accuracy, there are differences between the two.  Wikipedia does use an open-source model for editing that does seem to lack some level of author non-repudiation and editorial control.  I think the early assumption was based on people being honest, but too often they re-discovered that isn't always the case.  There have been a number of cases where one particular point-of-view tried to hijack Wikipedia pages, there have even been lawsuits about it when someone tries to remove what they feel is damaging information about themselves or their organizations.  So they have had to implement various processes to help keep folks honest.  But still problems do happen.  It doesn't invalidate Wikipedia as a reference, but it does require some care.

Just for fun I popped over the PubMed to see how many times Wikipedia was used as a reference . . . also Britannica, just to be fair.  I found 295 references of Wikipedia and 3 of Encyclopedia Britannica -- however, looking over the abstracts I didn't see them being used as references, but the papers were about them.  Here are two examples:

• HISTORY OF MATHEMATICS IN THE RECENT EDITION OF THE ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA.
• Automatically Expanding the Synonym Set of SNOMED CT using Wikipedia.

While PubMed doesn't list the sources in their abstracts, you can tell by the abstracts that the articles were about Wikipedia and Britannica.  Certainly would make me realize that the scientific community also doesn't use encyclopedias as the authoritative source for information.  Guess any complaints in that department would be foolish, since that's not how encyclopedia's are used.

A recent article in PLOS ONE "Content Volatility of Scientific Topics in Wikipedia: A Cautionary Tale".  The authors looked at three politically controversial subjects:  Acid Rain, Evolution, and Global Warming and four non-politically controversial subjects: heliocentrism, general relativity, continental drift, and the standard model in physics.  What they looked at was the number of edits and even the number of words in the edits.  Luckily Wikipedia keeps track of the edits and makes that available for review.  What they discovered should have surprised no one, politically controversial subjects get edited more often.  Gee really?  Are you surprised?  I wasn't.

Now before we go on, I want to point out they didn't look at scientifically controversial subjects, but politically controversial subjects.  We all know there is no scientific controversy about these subjects, especially evolution.  Much to the annoyance of the DI.

OK, so there is no surprise for us, politically controversial subjects get edited more often.  It's just like people having conversations, politically controversial subjects tend to be talked about more and with more emotion.  Wikipedia edits can become like arguments, where people are trying to talk over each other.  If you happen to hit a topic during one of these edit wars, you might end up with material that is less than . . . shall we say  . . . objective.

Wikipedia does try to remain neutral and provide a place for experts to maintain information.  They don't always succeed, which is why my cardinal rule is always to check my sources!  Wikipedia does a good job of identifying the source of material and listing it at the end of each entry.  But before diving into what casey and the DI say about it, I want to mention one last thing on neutrality.

While Wikipedia does its best to remain neutral, it does not make the same mistake that many journalists make in claiming neutrality.  All too often a journalist, in an effort to be neutral, will provide an equal coverage to two opposing views.  There are times that is appropriate, but there are also many times when it is not appropriate.  For example on civil rights, would you provide equal coverage to a civil rights march and a Ku Klux Klan rally?  I don't think so.  While the two views are opposite, they are not equal by any means.  Journalistic 'neutrality' all to often is taken to mean equality.  Here is Wikipedia's own policy on Neutrality: [I added the underlines]

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views."

We see this frequently in papers, online, and even on-air articles between the political controversy between intelligent design and real science.  Reporters giving people like the DI equal time, even though they have yet to earn it scientifically.  Well Wikipedia does not emulate journalism and does it's best to insure that even controversial topics have some reliable sources, especially when it comes to science.

The PLOS ONE article looked at Evolution, for fun I looked up Intelligent Design in Wikipedia and I bet the very first line pissed off the DI to no end:

"Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view that 'certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.' "

Also for fun I looked back in the recent edits and saw that someone was trying to change "the pseudoscientific view" to "a hypothesis of origins, considered by some to be pseudoscientific".  This particular editor claimed that would make the description:

" . . .more neutral, and a more accurate description. (Even evolutionists have been known to express belief in possible design behind evolution)"

Someone came along shortly thereafter and restored the original "the pseudoscientific view".  While it might be fun dissecting the differences between the two, a quick read shows that the attempted edit would not make things more neutral, but water down the issue of pseudoscience and assign what sounds like an unearned 'hypothesis' to ID, important differences when looking at things like intelligent design, astrology, or parapsychology.  So it's easy to see why the edit didn't stand.  Look at pseudoscience on Wikipedia (about 3/4's of the way down the page) it could have been written for ID!  Equal standing is earned, and one of the ways to earn it, especially for science, is what are scientific theories and what are not.  No matter what standard Wikipedia uses, if the DI doesn't get treated like real science, they will be attacking the source instead of correcting the deficiency!

I can also see, by the edit history, that in early July there were a number of rapid edits that caused Wikipedia to declare ID as a 'Disruptive Edit'.  Declaring such changes the editing policy to try and damp down the edit war, which is remarkably similar with a 'flame war', minus the profanity.  I am starting to get a feeling of what probably happened.  The DI got busted violating the various rules that govern Wikipedia.  And having gotten busted, are trying to make Wikipedia the bad guy.  I am starting to see nothing more here than the DI playing the Victim card once again.

Let's see little casey goes on . . . Wikipedia biases, partisan,  . . . obviously casey, and that means his bosses at the DI, doesn't like Wikipedia. Sounds like Wikipedia, and the editors, wouldn't let little casey and his friends . . . OK, here I have to quote the little guy:

 "I say this based upon years and years of people contacting me who tell of having tried to make bland, benign, reasonable edits and who then saw those changes immediately deleted by pro-Darwin editors. "

Bland, benign, and reasonable edits?  To paraphrase a favorite movie, I don't think those words mean what little casey thinks they mean.  I wonder if little casey would claim this is one of those 'bland, benign, and reasonable edits'?  One of the early edits to the Wikipedia page on Evolution changed a line to say this:

"It is worth noting that the theory of evolution is not falsifiable, hence not a scientific theory at all, since it includes the claim that God did not intervene in evolutionary history by creating new forms of life." 

I am sure the author feels his edit was bland, benign, and reasonable, but since the Theory of Evolution makes no such claim, his edit was corrected as short time later.  I bet little casey would have loved reading that one!  Take some time and go look at the edit history of any topic that interests you.  I think you might be surprised, especially in popular or politically controversial subjects.  When you look back at the edit history for items that might be of interest to the DI, I bet you will see lots of stuff the DI doesn't like!  I took a quick peek at the Sternberg Peer Review Controversy  and saw a number of edits that would have subtly, and some not so subtly, changed the page to make it sound more like how the DI tries to sell it, rather than the reality of the controversy.  Little casey claimed not to edit Wikipedia himself, but I would be hard-pressed to believe someone at the DI doesn't try.

So the bottom line seems to be that Wikipedia refuses to let the DI sell their pseudoscience, and in not doing so, earned the ire of little casey.  Is Wikipedia perfect?  No, but as a reference, it's as good as the gold standard of encyclopedias, Britannica.  The fact they are doing things that annoy the DI is just gravy!  Keep it up Wikipedia! 

Glenn Beck-erhead is wrong -- what a shock!

I caught part of a Glen beck episode mainly by accident. Now Beck, like Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh are pundits. I do not care for pundits in general -- Certain ones in particular. Now you might ask why I dislike pundits, it's easy. They say little and mean less. They are pseudo-journalists without any accountability for their actions. There are no ethics for pundits, they are actors playing a role, and the role means a loud, obnoxious mouth saying anything in order to gather an audience and inflame them. One important thing to remember is that pundits are NOT journalists. There are no ethical considerations. they can be as rude and pretty well say anything they want and get away with it.

Glenn Beck is a prime example. He recently was 'discussing' the relationship of Government, Religion, Science, and Commerce from a historical perspective. Of course then he admits to not being a history teacher! Well he sure proved that without a doubt. But my main complaint is his tactics. Just before one break he drops a bomb and then does what pundits do and walked away. Here watch it for yourself and identify the bomb and then wait for the follow-up -- like me you would still be waiting. Glenn Beck Part II. Watch the next part as well and you still won't hear him support his accusations. Why? Because he's a pundit and he doesn't have to.

He discusses Abolitionists, Josiah Wedgewood, and then mentions that two generations later, Wedgewood's great-grandson, Charles Darwin, is the father of modern racism. Aside from the obvious issues with math (two generations is not a great-grandson) but he drops his bomb and then walks away. He takes a commercial break and when he comes back, he fails to support his words. He says it, and then fails to support it. Plainly put Glenn Beck is wrong in typical pundit style.

Aside from his whining, there is no truth to Darwin being a Racist. There is no truth to Racism, eugenics, or Nazi-ism being caused or started by Charles Darwin or his scientific theories. To make a statement like that and then walk away just shows you what pundits are -- nothing! They try to inflame, but never explain. They don't care if the majority of the people who might have heard it know better -- they only care with their core audience, the ones who are making them wealthy, pay attention and nod their little ditto-heads.

Need more? When someone is discriminating what are they doing? They are making a judgment. They have made a decision that someone else is less than they are. Whether they are talking race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, religion . . it's all about judging, making a decision. Whether you are talking to a loud-mouth bigot or an ethnic cleanser -- it's all about judgment -- a decision. Someone decides that one group is somehow superior to another and then act on it. It doesn't matter what their rationale is, it's still a human being passing judgment.

Now where in all of Charles Darwin's work does he say evolution involved making a judgment on the superiority of one group over another? Look hard because you will not find it! The Theory of Evolution, and particularly Darwin's contributions, do not factor in any form of human judgment. It's not there, it's not even implied. Beck-erhead isn't the first to make this argument, He, little kennie ham, and even smaller-minded david klinghoffer should get together and pat each others back. But they all make the same mistake. They are lying to us, one and all. Here is what a few others are saying as well.

Glenn Beck on Darwin, the Dispersal of Darwin Blog
Glenn Beck on Darwin and Racism, The Sensuous Curmudgeon Blog
Glenn Beck Wrong on Darwin, Michael Zimmerman, Huffington Post

Glenn Beck does live up to his role as a pundit. He says little and means less. He really doesn't give a damn what anyone else thinks as long as some people buy his books, watch him on TV and listen to him on the Radio. He has his fans, and I certainly am not numbered as one of them. It would be nice if he would get educated on a subject before ranting about it, but that is much to much to expect. Besides, he would lose his audience . . . and his income.

I'll leave you with two of the quotes of Darwin:

"As man advances in civilization, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races. If, indeed, such men are separated from him by great differences in appearance or habits, experience unfortunately shews (sic) us how long it is, before we look at them as our fellow creatures." The Descent of Man

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil." On Origin of Species

Remember that last one is the one misused by bennie stein when he tried this same disreputable tactic in his mockumentary "Expelled: No intelligence Allowed" He strung together a few sentences from this complete quote to imply a very different message. Just another lie! I talked about Stein when I discussed Quote Mining. Beck finds himself in pretty poor company.

David Kinghoffer is . . . . right this second there are no words!

Ladies and Gentlemen who peruse these pages. I try and maintain a civil discourse. I do not moderate comments, although I do like to comment back. I will freely admit that I have shown less than a high degree of respect for some people, Casey Luskin and Kennie Ham come to immediate mind, although I am sure there are others.

However David Klinghoffer, senior fellow of at the Discovery institute has sunk to a level that practically leaves me speechless. There are no words to describe him!

OK, let me cool off for a sec and lay a little ground work. I completely disagree with the Ben Stein, and others, who claim that Darwin is responsible for the Nazi Eugenic program. I pretty much have made that clear. In my opinion the Nazi's would have found any excuse to do what they did. Claiming some sort of racial superiority is not support by evolutionary sciences! Darwin never claimed it did and no scientist since has supported that position. There is no 'hierarchy' of some things being more evolved than others. Evolution is a process not a ladder.

It's when humans make such a judgment that the issue tends to get confusing. Folks like Ham, Stein, and others like to use that confusion to make false and unsupported statements about Darwin and his work.

OK, I am a tiny bit calmer. Enter Klinghoffer. According to him, the assault at the Holocaust Museum just yesterday was done by an Evolutionist. I caught this from John Lynch's new Blog 'A Simple Prop'. "Klinghoffer: Terrorist was an evolutionist". I really couldn't believe my eyes. I had little respect for Klinghoffer but now I have absolutely none! I really hope other groups, particularly groups impacted by the Holocaust respond to this level of insanity. Klinghoffer wrote his POS over on BeliefNet: "James von Brunn, Evolutionist". He claims that von Brunn, a racist and home-grown terrorist is an Evolutionist!

No Klinghoffer, he is a Racist! He is a Terrorist! He is a Murderer! Calling him an Evolutionist is nothing but you bending over and kissing the feet of your Masters over at the Discovery Institute and using this as propaganda for your marketing scheme. You should be ashamed of yourself, but I have learned that shame doesn't enter into the politicking and marketing hype of the Discovery institute. I am sure you will find support from other people who think like you do. I wouldn't be surprised at all. The problem is are you actually 'thinking'? I don't believe so. Blaming the Theory of Evolution for this tragedy is a perfect example of your lazy intellectual ideas. Rather than understand what the Theory of Evolution actually says and what it does not say, you feel free to use it in such a way that is, at it's core a lie! I beloieve that you know it's a lie, but you propogate it anyway.