So You Want To Know What's Wrong With Religion? (7)

Caught this little gem from the Sensuous Curmudgeon, one of the blogs I read quite religiously (pun intended), "Creation alone!", by an Aaron Swartzentruber.  It's hilarious!  Here is his opening:

"Athiests or evolutionists who flat out reject God and Creation is one thing, God have mercy on them and open their blind eyes, but what is worse yet is that there are now many “professing Christians” who are trying to mingle evolution with creation."

Aside from misspelling 'Atheist', I started immediately wondering about his justification for assuming anyone who agree with evolution is an atheist or all atheists agree with evolution, but the rest of the opening made me realize his real target are the multitude of Christians who understand and support real science and real science education.

This guy is setting himself up as the one who gets to decide who is a 'real' Christian and who is not.  Doesn't he know little kennie ham keeps trying for that job himself.  Maybe we will get a pseudo-Christian cage match!  I guess the over 13,900 signatures of Christian Clergy supporting the science of evolution and the teaching of such science to our child just burns his ass!

The rest of his letter is a mix of Bible quotes with him interspersing his own take on what it all means.  Did you ever heard the phrase "There are liars, damned liars, and statisticians"?  What it means is that when you take a set of data, you can often twist it to mean whatever you want it to mean.  Religion is like that as well.  Let's jumble a bunch of Biblical reference, ignore the ones we don't like and force them into a narrow viewpoint that we demand everyone follow.  So how many religions are there that do that and conflict with each other over and over again?  How about all of them!  Even those who use the same starting point, like the Bible.

His final paragraph starts with this line:

"If you are one of those who are mingling evolution with creation, you are doing the Devil’s work and I would be doing you, and God, a disservice to tell you otherwise"

Obviously he doesn't see anyone who doesn't agree with his incredibly narrow viewpoint to be an actual Christian (have to mention again the over 13,900 Christian clergy who disagree with Aaron).  Of course if you look at the claims of the Bible of what Jesus taught, Aaron here wouldn't be a real Christian either.  But he's managed to convince himself that he's doing us all a favor by telling us this.

No, he's not doing me any favors because I don't share his narrow views and I will never share his narrow views!  Apparently the majority of the world doesn't share it either!  But do you think he would listen to anything resembling an opposing view!  Yea, neither do I!

Quote-mining Revisited, AKA the Discovery Institute is At It Again

The Sensuous Curmudgeon, whose Blog I read on a regular basis pointed out a little quote-mining, a topic I haven't mentioned on here in a while. To refresh, Quote-Mining is a disreputable tactic of taking the words someone said and using them in context different from the intention of the source. We've talked about it many times, "DI Mouthpiece and Quote-mining", "Expelled: and Quote Mining", and "More on Quote Mining" are a few examples.

Perhaps the most famous, or infamous, quote mine is this one:

Ben Stein quoted Charles Darwin:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. 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. 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. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

Old Bennie made it sound like Darwin was supporting and even encouraging Eugenics, but when you look at the actual quote, not just the parts Bennie quote-mined, you get an entirely different context.  To make it easy, I bolded the parts Bennie used: 

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.

As you can see, the appropriate context, including the entire quote and not just the pieces you can string together to change the meaning, shows something very different than what Bennie claimed Darwin said.

Well, this next example, from SC, isn't quite as bad, or nearly as lengthy, but it does show you a good example of how Creationists like to twist things around.  In this post from SC, "Discoveroids Adopt a Ken Ham Doctrine" you can read the details for yourself.  But the bottom line is DI pseudo-historian Richard Weikart takes part of a quote from Richard Dawkins and completely misrepresents what Dawkins said!  Weikart claims that Dawkins said:

"What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."

 Dawkins did say those words, the quote-mining comes in because Weikart failed to place Dawkins words within the context of the actual discussion.  It wasn't a discussion about Hitler's atrocities, but a discussion on the shifting of moralities.  Here is Dawkins comment in context:

“What defines your morality?” [The question put to Dawkins]
There was an extended pause as Dawkins considered the question carefully. “Moral philosophic reasoning and a shifting zeitgeist.” He looked off and then continued. “We live in a society in which, nowadays, slavery is abominated, women are respected, children can’t be abused — all of which is different from previous centuries.”

[Follow-up question]“As we speak of this shifting zeitgeist, how are we to determine who’s right? If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the Muslim [extremists] aren’t right?”

“Yes, absolutely fascinating.” His response was immediate. “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question. But whatever [defines morality], it’s not the Bible. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath.”

SC's comment here shows why this is nothing more than another quote-mine: 

"That’s all there is on the subject. Did Dawkins say that he, personally, had difficulty deciding that Hitler was wrong? No, he obviously didn’t, but that’s what Weikart wants us to believe."

One last current example, something I read today, it's also from the Discovery Institute, 'Now It's Bill Nye the "Jailing Science Skeptics as War Criminals" Guy'.  Since the conversation is about quote-mining, I bet you are guessing that the DI is misrepresenting what Bill Nye actually said.  You would be correct.

What Bill was talking about was not all climate change deniers, but those who are denying climate change for the purposes of making a profit.  The DI forgot to mention another analogy Bill said:

"Was it appropriate to jail people from the cigarette industry who insisted that this addictive product was not addictive and so on? And you think about in these cases — for me as a taxpayer and voter — the introduction of this extreme doubt about climate change is affecting my quality of life as a public citizen. So I can see where people are very concerned about this and are pursuing criminal investigations as well as engaging in discussion like this.”

[They] are leaving the world worse than they found it because they are keeping us from getting to work. They are holding us back.” (Source)

 You see what I mean.  Bill Nye isn't considering jail time for all climate change deniers, he is thinking that the possibilities exists for people who are denying climate change in order to profit by it!  At the same time, these deniers are preventing us from moving ahead and dealing with the problem! If it was criminal for the tobacco industry to deny the dangers of tobacco for decades . . . and earning millions at the same time . . . shouldn't people who are denying climate change AND profiting from it to the tune of millions and billions be held responsible?

I will repeat this again.  You cannot trust anything that comes out of the DI because while you know they are putting their own spin on everything, you cannot be sure that haven't also 'adjusted' any quotes or references in order to make other people's words mean something totally different than what was actually intended.

My Prediction Sort of Came True!

A couple of posts back, "Re-Trying Kitzmiller v Dover School Board", I wondered what the DI's next target would be in their fairy tales about Dover Trial 'Myths'.  I thought something about Judge Jones, but I didn't think the Judge would be the target for Myth #6, I figured he would be Myth #1.  I was incorrect, but not entirely in error.  Yes, Judge Jones was the target of Myth #6.  Myth #4 was about the Judge's ruling.  Myths #2 and #1 also targeted Judge Jones.  So while I didn't think Myth #6 would have been about the Judge, I was right he would be targets by #1, but rather than 1 shot in 10,  4 of the 10 total 'myths' targeted Judge Jones.  So you see, I thought they would save it all for the final Myth, delivered on Kitzmas itself (the 20th of Dec, this one being the 10th anniversary of the Dover Ruling).  But they either couldn't contain themselves or, more likely, couldn't find anything else to spin as a myth.

You know for a court ruling that they claim has had a very limited impact on the Intelligent Design Movement, they certainly had a lot to say about it, over and over again.  What I found funny as well was that one of the Vice-Presidents for the Discovery Institute, John G. West, followed all those myth posts with one of his own "The Day a Judge Tried to Kill Intelligent Design".  For some reason I am not sure John read the actual decision because it wasn't Judge Jones who put a knife into the ID Movement, but it was a combination of the Dover School Board and the testimony of ID proponents that did more damage to ID than anything the Judge did.  All the Judge did was render a legal decision  . . . one based on actual law, not what the Discovery Institute thinks the law should be.  His legal decision summarized much of what the DI proponents, like Scott Minnich and Michael Behe had to say and explained why their testimony was particular compelling.

John repeated other things said in some of the other myths.  One I wanted to spend a little time discussing, 'Ten Myths About Dover: #5, "Discovery Institute Supported Dover School Board Policy" '.  John said:

"Even though we had opposed the Dover school district policy, we were the ones who bore the brunt of the impact of Judge Jones's decision."

So did the DI oppose the Dover School District policy?  The answer isn't the simple back and white the DI would like you to think.  Their answer is no, officially they did not support the Dover School Board.  However . . .:

1. Why did the DI feel it was necessary to submit an Amicus Curiae brief about Intelligent Design if they weren't part of it?
2. Why did the DI's own Wedge Strategy Document describe tactics similar to those used by the School Board and even by Michael Behe's in his testimony?  The strategy also said:
   

   "We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory in public school science curricula. (Wedge Strategy Document, Phase III, page 7)"

3.  Why did Seth Cooper, DI attorney, have several calls with William Buckingham (Chairman of the Dover School Board Curriculum Committee discussing the legality of teaching ID.  (Trial Transcripts)
4. Why did the DI forward to Buckingham DVDs, videotapes, and books. (Trial Transcripts)
5. Why did two lawyers from the DI make a legal presentation to the Board in executive session. (Trial Transcripts)
6. Why was the DI one of only two outside organizations consulted.  (The Thomas More Law Center was the other).  Plus the consult wasn't for scientific material, but legal advice. (Trial Transcripts)

In my opinion any claim the DI has in opposing the Dover Policy is a sham.  They were in the middle of it from the beginning and any claims of 'officially' opposing the policy is more a face-saving action rather than anything substantive.  I believe they and the Thomas More Law Center were looking for a test case for teaching any form of Creationism in public school.  Here are a couple of lines form the WIkipedia page on the Thomas More Law Center that I found interesting:

"Prior to taking on this particular case [Kitzmiller v. Diver Area School District], the lawyers of the Thomas More Law Center traveled the country seeking a school board willing to withstand a lawsuit as a test case for the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, forcing the first test case for intelligent design in the courts."

"In the summer of 2004, the Dover, Pennsylvania, school board, after receiving legal advice from the Discovery Institute, accepted the center's offer of advice and possible representation, as they worked to change their science curriculum."

The Dover School Board went down the path that cost the district $1,000,000, cost several members their seat on the board, and should have put at least two of their members in jail for perjury AFTER receiving legal advice form the Discovery Institute.  Does anyone really believe they were opposed?  What do you think they would be saying if the Dover School Board had won? 

John, and the rest of the DI keeps trying to paint the Judge as the ogre.  But John went in another direction as well and even tried to put himself in the role of a self-sacrificing hero.  Does this sound a little self-serving to you?

"It was during the bleak months following Dover that I made one of the biggest decisions of my professional life. Rather than cut and run, I decided to risk everything. Convinced of the critical importance of the intelligent design debate, I gave up my tenured position as a university professor to devote my full energies to Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture, which I had co-founded with Stephen Meyer in 1996. "

To be clear John was an Associate Professor of Political Science at Seattle Pacific University (a private Christian university) where he chaired the Political Science and Geography department.  Please note he's not a biologist, but a Government major.  Maybe I should add his teaching position to another "So there's nothing religious about ID" post?  I do wonder what his salary was in his Associate Professor position, because according to the DI's 2013 Form 990 (Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax), John made $120,000.  Donations were down about 25% from 2012, but John is pulling in 6-figures. The further back I can find in 2006 and while the link to the 990 was bad, the Sensuous Curmudgeon talked about another VP Stephen C. Meyer making $112,000 that year.  So I think John's was probably in the same neighborhood, after all he and Meyer co-founded the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture.

The DI keeps trying to minimize any impact of the Dover Trial and yet in his post John wants everyone to feel sorry for the DI because while claiming not to have been a party to the trial, claims to have born the brunt of the decision.  So which is it, was any impact minimal or was the impact serious?  I know what I think, but to date the DI wants everyone to believe the trial had little impact?  Which is it?

I will repeat something I said in a recent post:

" . . . How many public schools have ID on the science curriculum on par with Evolution?  They tried in many places and so far, haven't been very successful.  How many of their 5-year goals have they achieved?  How about none!  And that's not 5-year goals based on the Dover Decision, but 5-year goals set from the founding of the DI's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture . . . which I believe was 1996.  So in reality after 19 years, they haven't achieved any of their 5 year goals, let alone put a dent in their 20 year goals."

I think the impact was profound, but why would John change the DI's spin and recognize the impact all of a sudden?  I wasn't sure why until I saw the end of his post.  He tried to turn it into a plea for support, monetary support.  Here is a couple of the last lines:

"Will you take a stand against censors like Judge Jones and help us continue and expand the debate over intelligent design in 2016?
If you've helped us in the past, can you do it again right now?And if you've never donated to our work, isn't it time to join us?
DONATE now to support the work of intelligent design in 2016."

So now it wasn't enough to try and vilify the Judge, he also wants to use that vilification to raise funds.  Picture my head shaking!

OK, so there you have it.  My prediction on the Judge being saved for the big 'myth' #1 was right, but they spread their attempted vilification for Judge Jones across 40% of their 'myths', something I didn't predict.  It might have been interesting if they had anything new to say.  But the reality is they simply repeated much of their whines and cries over the last decade.  Nothing new, nothing earth-shattering.  Just more marketing, more spin.

Tactics may change, but strategies . . . never!

Ken Ham must be reacting to critics.  I, and a number of others, have pointed out that Kennie Ham and the Ark Park should not be taking Kentucky money and incentives while discriminating on hiring practices.  As far back as 2011 this was noticed (here) and more recently the same issue with a job posting for the Ark Park.  The bottom line was kennie required you sign the AiG Statement of Faith as part of the application process.  The way it was worded, you HAD to sign before submitting your application.

Well I am pleased to report that requirement appears to have disappeared.  However . . . and you knew there had to be a however . . . The Sensuous Curmudgeon, whose blog I read regularly, reported that as you go deeper into the application process you have to answer several questions and requests for information that seem a bit suspect:

• How old would you estimate the earth to be?
• Please provide your Salvation testimony:
• Please provide your Creation belief statement:
• Please write the confirmation of your agreement with the AiG Statement of Faith:

OK, more than a bit suspect. Instead of requiring you you sign it, you have to write your confirmation of your agreement.  So I guess he can swear on a stack of Bibles that he wasn't requiring applicants to sign the statement itself.  Yea, real honest, kennie!

What makes this worse is you get to these questions AFTER you read that AiG doesn't discriminate. Yes, believe it or not, this is on the site before you get to those questions:

"Answers in Genesis, Inc. is an Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action employer. We provide equal employment opportunities to all qualified employees and applicants for employment without regard to race, religion, sex, age, marital status, national origin, sexual orientation, citizenship status, veteran status, disability or any other legally protected status. We prohibit discrimination in decisions concerning recruitment, hiring, compensation, benefits, training, termination, promotions, or any other condition of employment or career development." 

So what really happened here is AiG, after getting some flack, took their requirement to sign their Statement of Faith off the front page and buried the equivalent in the application itself, along with several other questions regarding an applicant's religious beliefs and how they relate to AiG's and, of course that mans kennie ham's beliefs.  They also added a disclaimer, I guess people are supposed to read that and believe that kennie isn't being discriminatory!  If anyone believes that, I still have this bridge in Brooklyn I need to get off my hands.

First question is  . . . and I am not a human relations expert so I really don't know . . . but is it legal to ask these questions?  Supposedly the Ark Park is a for profit public company.  Add in that they are taking Kentucky money and tax incentives for the tourism they are supposedly going to bring into the park  Regardless of the legality, it's pretty obvious that the information will be used to filter applicants well before the process gets to the interview stage.  That's called discrimination, plain and simple!

Second question . . . posting that you don't discriminate and then asking questions designed to discriminate . . . isn't that lying?  Now according to my understanding of kennie's religious beliefs, isn't that a sin?  Well it is, but we are dealing with kennie ham and it certainly didn't bother him to lie before (Turnabout is fair play!), lying for Jesus is apparently an acceptable tactic.

Final question . . . why are the people and politicians of Kentucky putting up with it?  That's the part that I don't understand, that's the part I will never understand.  You shouldn't be paying for kennie's follies!  You certainly shouldn't be paying for someone who will violate Federal and State hiring practices!