Back At Special Agent ERV’s Blog…

_{April 12, 2008

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

DMS, with an as yet undetermined appendage writes:

Might I suggest that “someone” (perhaps a group effort) work up a brief flyer to hand out to people going to see Expelled. It should be non-snarky, non-confrontational, with some simple points and web addresses to go to for more information

Great idea! I think they should shave their heads, wear togas, and chant ziiiiiiii-enzzzzzz ziiiiii-enzzzzz ziiiiii-enzzzzz. People will wonder if the Hare Krishnas are making a comeback and be naturally curious.

Now boys and girls at Ms. ERV’s website please, no applause for this awesome marketing strategy. Just send me money to show your appreciation. Y’all have paypal, right? Of course you do.

Comments

Kariosfocus, This is why this issue about the metaphysical and the physical and the proper domain of sceince is so important to me. I have seen Dembski get killed in interviews debates where the otherside clamis that if it is not materialistic it is not science. We need to have a coherent understnaing and line on this issues because matphysics is as much of a part of sceince as physics is. And in fact physics is loaded with metaphysics.Frost122585_{April 14, 2008
April
04
Apr
14
14
2008
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

Charlie, "It will be a shame to lose you. Your posts are very useful." Am I or Kariosfocus going somewhere?Frost122585_{April 14, 2008
April
04
Apr
14
14
2008
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

Jack Krebs refers to ID as "creationism", "antievolution", and "Christian fundamentalism", as well as calling his opponents "culture warriors" and remarks not only upon the facts of their statements but upon their honesty. He then says that Liz' strategy is not his and cries righteous foul, declaring that he does not stoop to bigotry and generalizations. The facts don't jibe with the self-righteous posturing. On the other hand, the goading term "fascist" is a little much. The examples provided in defence of applying the term are sufficient without the rhetorical value of the term itself. IMOCharlie_{April 14, 2008
April
04
Apr
14
14
2008
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

Hi KF (good convo Frost), It will be a shame to lose you. Your posts are very useful. === Poachy, See Leostotch's remarks here for why he is not considered, although pseudonymous, a sockpuppet. He's often on the wrong side and often offensive, but he's not trying to pretend he's saying something that he's not. === LS, Speaking of stalking and harassing, your personal opinion about how many words KF types and how many syllables each contains is just that. And we've heard it many times already. If you really have a problem with repetition then you know where you can start to correct the problem.Charlie_{April 14, 2008
April
04
Apr
14
14
2008
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus, excellent*** post. I want to push this a little further if you‘d like. The underlying essence of this sight as posted in the sights description is the idea that "materialistic" ideology or even religion is subverting science. That is science as defined as the honest search for total and objective truth. Now whenever I bring up Kant he gets an unfair beat down from you. I don’t know if you quotes are from Kant or people critical of his work. I however am one who fell in love with science and philosophy once reading Kant at age 17 or 18. Once I read him I knew that there was something infinitely deeper, more useful and constructive than psychoanalysis and socialist ideology. There were many different "shapes of thought" and constructs beautifully connected and aligned in his Critique that I feel enlightened me beyond the common man of today- though I wish the common man was enlightened as well. Here is what you said about Kant...
I have my doubts on Kant’s thought, as say Kreeft and Tacelli highlight: [Kant’s] “Copernican Revolution in philosophy” was the claim that our knowledge does not conform to a real object but vice versa . . . All the form, determination, specificity or knowable content comes from the mind and is projected out onto the world rather than coming from the world and being impressed upon the mind . . . . Kant’s “Copernican Revolution” is self-contradictory, just as simple [radical or selective] skepticism is. After all, if Kant was right, how could he possibly have known he was right in terms of his system? He couldn’t. He could never know that there are “things- in- themselves,” onto which the knowing self projects all knowable content. That would be knowing the unknowable, thinking both sides of thought’s limit. There is a half truth in Kantianism. Some knowledge is conditioned by our forms of consciousness(e.g. Colors by the eye, measurements by artificial scales and ideological positions by personal preferences). But even here there must be some objective content first that is received and known, before it can be classified or interpreted by the knowing subject.[Handbook of Christian Apologetics, (Crowborough, England: Monarch, 1995) pp. 372 – 373.]
I am always disappointed when I see you giving Kant such a hard time. I myself think he was the greatest mind of all- that is raw talent wise. I think part of your frustration with Kant comes from the fact that he had reduced his faith to very little by the time he began to write his great works. As a young man he wanted to become a priest and had supreme religious devotion but after his earthly senses kicked in he rejected the miracles of the bible and as the story goes he became a philosopher of the highest order. Now, this is also the same story that you find with Einstein. He wanted to be a theologian but then after “seeing the light” that is rejecting the idea of miracles, he went to philosophy. I however think that it is their religious roots that gives their philosophies and in Einstein’s case his physics such depth and deep value. But my point is that indeed Kant concluded against Design as a deductive method for science. And indeed Kant considered the conception or ontological reality of God to be beyond the reach of any empirical markers- that is evidence for or against God’s existence. So I can understand your frustrations here with Kant but I do think you take them too far. Einstein for example was very similar to Kant but certainly his contribution with Relativity has to be taken aside from the fact that he rejected fundamentalist religion in his adult life. When I talk about Kant I am referring to his main work - the one considered the finest in philosophical history- The Critique of Pure Reason. For me Kant’s philosophy breaks down to what he says it breaks down to - Experience and Intuition. Experience includes the metaphysical as well as the empirical and physical or the senses and intuition is the sense of knowing but not knowing exactly how you know it. Intuition is internal natural backbone of reason. My post above was about experience and intuition when I used the word metaphysical and physical I was referring to the empirical and how we rationalize it. My point was that Kant knew such intuitions and experiences existed and were very real to say the least. It is my view that such intuitions about design and experiences that we have via phenomenological reflection are as real as any strict materialistic interpretation of empirical data. Perhaps what I was trying to focus on here with Kant was the metaphysical reasoning and rationalization we experience when thinking about empirical subjects. That is, how can science claim empiricism for materialism when it is anti-intuitional? We see the cell and wonder who built it. No materialistic mechanisms can surmount this intuition by convincing us otherwise. So the intuition of design remains but yet they seek to synthetically eliminate it. The best the other side can do is claim that they do not experience such an intuition but this becomes unreasonable or difficult to relate to and believe when you see the molecular machines in the cell. Ill ask the question again and you can run with it if you like. Where does science get off separating the physical form the metaphysical and only accepting the physical as its domain? This is not supportable and it is anti-intuitional. Now you point about the self contradiction of Kant in this matter I find to be incorrect. Kant fought to preserve metaphysics and unite it with materialism into his manifold. So I don’t see why you are paining him as the self contradictory one. If you mean to pain those in science who fight only for materialism as the self contradictory ones you would be spot on. That is to say, “how can you claim only matter exists while at the same time attaching some metaphysical significance to your philosophical construct” which is solely metaphysical because if material is all that exists then there is no reason to discriminate between the visions of a schizophrenic and a rational person. They are both “merely” material manifestation with no objective purpose.Frost122585_{April 14, 2008
April
04
Apr
14
14
2008
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

leo stotch, Jack Krebs, Just a side note. The Kansas science standards prevent the teaching of Darwinian macro evolution because it is not science according to these standards. However, that does not stop them from teaching it or putting it into the curriculum. No one has an explanation for that. Jack Krebs certainly doesn't. Jack always ducks the relevant issues. We had this discussion a few weeks ago.jerry_{April 14, 2008
April
04
Apr
14
14
2008
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

LS: One last, before I get up and go. 1] You are imagining things! Assertions do not make confutations. Many have asserted and then have conssitently run off following red herrings to strawmen, duly burned to announce dismissive "triumph." I have yet so see a serious, actual confutation on the merits. [And BTW, "gadly" is actually an honour -- that was the title held by one certain Socrates of Athens . . .] 2] If you read above you will see that I do not claim that I am truly anonymous. 3] The Kansas standards in fact are neither historically nor philosophically well-warranted. As to "current praxis" under the domination of the evo mat atheocrats, why of course the definition reflects their view and praxis -- that is exactly the problem. [It is time to step outside Plato's Cave into the sunshine Leo . . . hope you enjoy the video; never mind its own odd moments of bias.] 4] And, has it ever occurred to you that I care about BOTH science and souls? 5] As well as, sound education, and logic and facts and truth and . . .? [In short, you have indulged in ad hominerm-laced quote mining that exactly fulfills the point in the LC strategy about portraying those who dispute the evo mat agenda as "evangelical activists."] GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 14, 2008
April
04
Apr
14
14
2008
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

JK: To insert a correctly descriptive parenthetical remark is not a lie. (Or even one that is THOUGHT to be correct . . . ) Again: a lie is a CALCULATED DECEPTION. I have neither calculated nor am I factually in error, much less misleading those who would be inclined to accept what I have summarised in the relevant parenthetical note. It is plain that LC was speaking as an officer of KCFS, and that her strategy was not only her own but that of KCFS. Onlookers, note the import of "OUR TARGET" and the statement that the solution is a "political" one, in a context where plainly the ignorance of the moderate middle is to be exploited. You therefore, sadly, have slandered me yet again -- even while pretending to have successfully exposed and corrected me in a grievous wrong. Not that that matters much to me, but it is revealing on the tactics being by your ilk used to promote evolutionary materialism in our schools, institutions of science and the wider culture and civilisation. Please, rethink and correct what you and yours are doing -- before it is too late and science finds itself utterly discredited as an institution in our culture, not to mention science education and related policy-making. The consequences of such developments and the resulting backlash are far, far too horrendous to even think about. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 14, 2008
April
04
Apr
14
14
2008
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

LS: That's disappointing. If I am saying nonsense, why not just refute it on the merits -- the always linked is right there, a single click away; and has been all along while I have occasionally interacted with you. And, well you should know just why those of us who work on the ID side of the current issue are often compelled to resort to anonymity: the "machine" tactics as just again adverted to. In my case, however, a couple of clicks from my always linked will suffice to get through to me. Now, on why I have taken the effort to make this now extended -- and BTW, drawing to a conclusion (have patience, soon you will not have to "bother" with me here at all . . .) -- blog visit to UD: 1] Has it ever occurred to you that there may be a very serious reason why I am making addressing the rising tide of evo mat pseudoscientific advocacy in our civilisation a major focus of my attention and effort, even in the wee hours of the morning? 2] Something like: sufficiently helping me to understand and thus to slow down the disintegration of a civilisation that I aim to preserve enough of to hand on something worth having to my kids and grand kids to be, even out here in the Caribbean? [A Caribbean that when you Americans sneeze, we get flu . ..] 3] Not to mention, caring enough about science and sci education to object when I see them being horribly abused? 4] And, what about exposing and standing up to cultural bullies who would destroy much that is precious if they have their way, while doing a lot of harm to a lot of innocent people? 5] Such as -- for just one instance -- the students in Kansas who are being taught the distorted version of what "science" is, as excerpted above from their state science STANDARDS? 6] And, in light of say Rom 1:18 - 23, just maybe, I see myself as also duty bound to use what I know to stop those who would make innocent little ones stumble, to their spiritual peril, too? GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 14, 2008
April
04
Apr
14
14
2008
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT}

to kf: Now that you have correctly started the quote with "My strategy" instead of [KCFS's startegy] you are no longer lying. You are still very wrong, but you are no longer lying. Hope that eases your mind.Jack Krebs_{April 14, 2008
April
04
Apr
14
14
2008
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT}

Frosty: I hear your concern. I too am interested in the metaphysical and epistemological issues, adn would love to chat a bit on them. However, I responded to a request for clarification on a point of contention, and brought to bear unfortunately relevant facts. Sadly, I then had to respond to someone who has in effect now called me a liar, and who to do that has flown in the teeth of the evidence in this blog for several weeks now. [As I noted already, he may correct my errors by raising cogent facts and reasoning that show me in error, but simply dismissing evidence and calling me a liar in effect will not do.] On the -- far more pleasant -- issues you raise: 1] this claim that we cannot test things which are outside of materialistic causes . . . The basic evidence is that we can -- and routinely do -- test across unintelligent and intelligent causes; if you want, you can call them proximate causes. This only becomes controversial -- guess why -- when we are cutting across the plausibility of evo mat scenarios and underlying worldview assertions. [BTW, JK -- by his own admission -- taught STATISTICS, so he knows that contingency comes in two main flavours: chance and intent, and that there are stats tests routinely used to discern the two empirically.] More specifically, we can see that in certain instances, empirically anchored inference to intelligent action may raise the possibility that there are non-human agents at work. In a subset of these cases, it may be credible -- e.g the origin of the observed cosmos with its multi-dimensionally and convergently fine-tuned life facilitating physics -- an Extracosmic, powerful, hioghly intelligent agent is a likely explanation. Such an agent resembles the God of traditional theism sufficiently to make the atheists get worried and agitated. For me, my conclusion is that I happen to know God independent of any science I may do, and I find that the God I know fits with what sound science points to, just as Rom 1:18 - 23 argues [and in so doing exposes the core of the Gospel to empirical test]. 2] since we can metaphysically grasp the concept and even image of transcendence then we can apply it to the materialistic world in various contexts Fair enough as it stands, as an exercise in phil. [Remember; I have had the peculiar experience of having taught both phil and sci-tech at tertiary level; it was interesting to see how the sci students had it hard to think about the underlying worldview level issues in sci,a nd how the arts students turned green around the gills when sci came up. Was it Snow who deplored the two academic cultures? For me, I came to think about phil largely by way of asking hard Qs on sci and its basis. Charles Sanders Peirce is a personal intellectual hero.] 3] The common ignorant argument from the other side is that you cannot calculate probabilities backwards . . . People like Miller claim that “the actual probability for DE is 1 or 100% because it happened.” A sad revelation of mathematical and philosophical incompetence -- on the charitable interpretation. Scientifically informed reconstructions of the unique past are just that: reconstructions, not that past as it "really" happened. They are provisional and cannot be known with 100 % certainty. So, DE is not known to be so with 100% certainty, though one may hold that it seems true to him/her with moral certainty. [And IMHBXO, one would greatly err to do that!] In fact, we routinely ask, and meaningfully so: as to what the a priori probability of an observed outcome was. Indeed, in comms theory, we often have to look at the a posteriori and the a priori probabilities of a given message: if we detect M after the fact, what were the odds M was sent? And, before messages are sent, what is the probability that M will be sent across the possible universe of messages? Cf my Section A on this -- this leads straight to a metric for information! That leads to a dilemma: [A] if men like Miller don't know this, they don't know enough to comment on the inference to design competently, or [B] if they do know, they are exploiting the ignorance of those who don't know this. 3] Kant synthesized physical and metaphysical reasoning way back in the 1700’s in his great Critique of Pure Reason… what leg has science to stand on today separating the two formats of knowledge, experience and reasoning and only including the physical into its methodology? I have my doubts on Kant's thought, as say Kreeft and Tacelli highlight:
[Kant’s] “Copernican Revolution in philosophy” was the claim that our knowledge does not conform to a real object but vice versa . . . All the form, determination, specificity or knowable content comes from the mind and is projected out onto the world rather than coming from the world and being impressed upon the mind . . . . Kant’s “Copernican Revolution” is self-contradictory, just as simple [radical or selective] skepticism is. After all, if Kant was right, how could he possibly have known he was right in terms of his system? He couldn’t. He could never know that there are “things- in- themselves,” onto which the knowing self projects all knowable content. That would be knowing the unknowable, thinking both sides of thought’s limit. There is a half truth in Kantianism. Some knowledge is conditioned by our forms of consciousness(e.g. Colors by the eye, measurements by artificial scales and ideological positions by personal preferences). But even here there must be some objective content first that is received and known, before it can be classified or interpreted by the knowing subject.[Handbook of Christian Apologetics, (Crowborough, England: Monarch, 1995) pp. 372 – 373.]
It is credible that, however imperfectly, provisionally and subjectively conditioned, we may observe and know about the real world. So, when we think scientifically, we must bridge the inner and outer worlds, however imperfectly and provisonally. In so doing, one of the things we entail is the power of mind, and int hat the power of real choice to alter the course of thought and events: we must be able to really decide if we are to think correctly and act effectively in that light. That brings us back to the point where I was as a student about 20 - 25 or so years ago: 4] The self-referential absurdity of evolutionary materialism: Here is the up to date form of my thoughts circa 1985 - 6: ________ [evolutionary] materialism [a worldview that often likes to wear the mantle of "science"] . . . argues that the cosmos is the product of chance interactions of matter and energy, within the constraint of the laws of nature. Therefore, all phenomena in the universe, without residue, are determined by the working of purposeless laws acting on material objects, under the direct or indirect control of chance. But human thought, clearly a phenomenon in the universe, must now fit into this picture. Thus, what we subjectively experience as "thoughts" and "conclusions" can only be understood materialistically as unintended by-products of the natural forces which cause and control the electro-chemical events going on in neural networks in our brains. (These forces are viewed as ultimately physical, but are taken to be partly mediated through a complex pattern of genetic inheritance and psycho-social conditioning, within the framework of human culture.) Therefore, if materialism is true, the "thoughts" we have and the "conclusions" we reach, without residue, are produced and controlled by forces that are irrelevant to purpose, truth, or validity. Of course, the conclusions of such arguments may still happen to be true, by lucky coincidence — but we have no rational grounds for relying on the “reasoning” that has led us to feel that we have “proved” them. And, if our materialist friends then say: “But, we can always apply scientific tests, through observation, experiment and measurement,” then we must note that to demonstrate that such tests provide empirical support to their theories requires the use of the very process of reasoning which they have discredited! Thus, evolutionary materialism reduces reason itself to the status of illusion. But, immediately, that includes “Materialism.” For instance, Marxists commonly deride opponents for their “bourgeois class conditioning” — but what of the effect of their own class origins? Freudians frequently dismiss qualms about their loosening of moral restraints by alluding to the impact of strict potty training on their “up-tight” critics — but doesn’t this cut both ways? And, should we not simply ask a Behaviourist whether s/he is simply another operantly conditioned rat trapped in the cosmic maze? In the end, materialism is based on self-defeating logic . . . . ________ GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 14, 2008
April
04
Apr
14
14
2008
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT}

leo, Why can't Jack address KF's and Stephen's points. Does KCFS (and Jack) portray those that disagree with them as “religious”, “creationists”,”anti scientific”, “anti science”, etc?”tribune7_{April 14, 2008
April
04
Apr
14
14
2008
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus, I am more interested in this claim that we cannot test things which are outside of materialistic causes. I am a transcendentalist (not the early American kind but more like the German) who understands that the fact that since we can metaphysically grasp the concept and even image of transcendence then we can apply it to the materialistic world in various contexts. The common ignorant argument from the other side is that you cannot calculate probabilities backwards. This has been the grand antidote to Dembski's and more recently Behe's work on probability and Darwinian pathways in biology. People like Miller claim that "the actual probability for DE is 1 or 100% because it happened." This is idiotic. If you can’t probabilistically evaluate "a theory about the past" which no one witnessed and given that of the fossil record we have some .0000001% of the evidence in, you would think that computer models, that is "mathematical models" would be warranted to critique and test the DE hypothesis. If of course Dembski’s and Behe's calculations came out in favor of a DE explanation we can be certain that we would not hear any complaints from the demagogues of the other side. In fact they would most lily co-opt the work for their own publications. My question to you Kariosfocus is this -- Kant synthesized physical and metaphysical reasoning way back in the 1700's in his great Critique of Pure Reason... what leg has science to stand on today separating the two formats of knowledge, experience and reasoning and only including the physical into its methodology? We have people who want to turn sceince into the poltical "materialist party."Frost122585_{April 14, 2008
April
04
Apr
14
14
2008
01:50 AM
1
01
50
AM
PDT}

Stephen: I pointed you to a recent thread where you can see from 117 on, Mr Krebs in action. [NB: Cf my initial remarks at 123 - 4, and the resulting exchanges up to the closing off of the thread.] That will fully underscore the reason for my concerns about what happened in Kansas, as an experienced science and technology educator who has worked in curriculum development. One who knows, for instance that a sound basic definition of science [I am very aware of the demarcation issues etc] looks like this:
science: a branch of knowledge ["true, justified belief"] conducted on objective principles involving the systematized observation of and experiment with phenomena, esp. concerned with the material and functions of the physical universe. [Concise Oxford, 1990.] scientific method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge [”the body of truth, information and principles acquired by mankind”] involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. [Webster’s 7th Collegiate, 1965; I have deliberately chosen definitions from dictionaries that were published before the current controversies.]
NOT like this:
[Kansas Sci "Defn." circs 2007] Science is a human activity of systematically seeking natural [in effect, evolutionary materialistic, usually disguised as "meththodological naturalism" -- as opposed to objective and truth-seeking] explanations for what we observe in the world around us . . . As it is practiced in the late 20th and early 21st century, science is restricted to explaining only the natural world, using only natural cause. This is because science currently has no tools to test explanations using non-natural (such as supernatural [in the context, this is a slanderous allusion to the design inference, which in fact infers through observed organised, evidently purposeful complexity to INTELLIGENT (as opposed to "supernatural") CAUSE]) causes.
In short, right there in this question-begging ideologically loaded attempted redefinition of science by the Kansas School Board circa 2007, we can see the manipulation of the ignorant and slander against those who challenged it; all in the name of "education" and "democracy." Corroboration, anyone? So, it is unsurprising to see one of the advocates who carried off the above educational coup now in effect calling me a liar, while refusing to deal squarely with facts -- such as what a sound definition of science is historically and philosophically [cf 123 - 4 etc]. The linked thread will also show several instances of Mr Krebs ducking from the issues on the merits but rushing off on red herrings leading out to strawmen soaked in ad hominem oil and burning them. This gives further evidence that the truth is that the cite I sued above is dead right as to what KCFS has done since 1999, with Mr Krebs a prominent leader of the movement circa 2005 when, on supportive testimony by FtK [an eyewitness to the events in Kansas], the above cited remark was made by a PR officer of that group in a forum moderated by Mr Krebs, and reportedly neither repudiated nor rebuked. Worse, the described propagandistic stratagem is accurate to the long since observed tendencies of the Evo mat agenda all across the US for many years now, e.g. Dover case, Sternberg, Gonzalez, etc etc etc. Let us therefore hear FtK -- an eyewitness -- in 533 in the linked thread:
[JK:] “The quote you offer is not, and never was, the stated policy of KCFS. Not only that, the quote is wrong – the word “our” was inserted by others. That statement was from a post on public discussion forum, was a personal opinion and not at all the “stated policy” of KCFS, and started with the word “my”, not “our”.” [FtK:] Oh, good grief…kf, don’t let Jack BS you. That “personal opinion” came from LIZ CRAIG, Jack’s right hand gal at KCFS and very much a part of their public relations. She was also the president of KCFS at one time. She made the statement in the KCFS forum, and I didn’t see Jack or anyone else correct her. He’s the moderator so you’d think he’d set her straight if she was off base.
Now, let's compare the remark his PR person made in that forum JK moderated again, here giving it in the literal exact words used as saved and entered into the long-term record by KFS circa 2005, with emphases and explanatory square brackets:
My strategy [as declared in their online forum by Ms Liz Craig, their PR person, circa 2005] at this point is the same as it was in 1999: notify the national and local media about what’s going on and portray them [i.e. those who advocate for objectivity, fairness and balance in science definitions and in teaching about the science of origins] in the harshest light possible, as political opportunists, evangelical activists, ignoramuses, breakers of rules, unprincipled bullies, etc. There may no way to head off another science standards debacle, but we can sure make them look like asses as they do what they do. Our target [i.e. this is not just a loose cannon speaking] is the moderates who are not that well educated about the issues, most of whom probably are theistic evolutionists. There is no way to convert the creationists. The solution is really political. . . . Posted by Liz Craig, Member no 70 KCFS .org Discussion Forum
So far,observe how JK has claimed that the cite leads with "My" not OUR. Fine -- that is why I have taken time to use the bracket in explanation above. Then, observe where it goes: "OUR TARGET." This is a PR officer of the group then headed by JK, speaking of her strategy, which has a target in common with the group as a whole. So, JK's objection in the previous thread was a half truth, which is too often often a whole lie, the common resort of the manipulator. In short, on the evidence in hand and the patterns we can still see -- including flying off and in effect calling me a liar instead of simply showing how Ms Craig was slapped down for going out of line -- John Calvert and William Harris et al have both accurately summarised and have evidently spoken accurately about the actual practised strategy of KCFS, including Mr Krebs. As to Mr Krebs' claim "I am a very public spokesperson for the benefits of civil and on-topic discussion as opposed to polarized demonization of people . . ." let his record in the already linked thread when challenged on the issues speak for itself. And, the just above. FYI, Mr Krebs: 1 --> as the American revivalist [and lawyer and educator] C G Finney aptly defines, lying is "any species of CALCULATED DECEPTION." 2 --> I am speaking the truth as I see it, based on the objective evidence I have; which includes cross-checks and observation of your behaviour in the previous forum thread as linked. 3 --> That said, I am of course finite, fallible and just as fallen as you are; so I am aware that I can be in error or worse. Thus, anything that I say about a state of affairs in the empirical world is inherently provisional. 4 --> In other words: if you are able to show me in error through solid facts or cogent reason relative to he facts, I will immediately withdraw my claim, and apologise for my mistake and for harm done. 5 --> However, to date I have seen nothing from you that would lead me to the conclusion that I am wrong. But, just the opposite -- including a latest ad hominem that would elicit a personal challenge from me if you were to say it to my face: for, FYFI: I am not a liar. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 14, 2008
April
04
Apr
14
14
2008
01:18 AM
1
01
18
AM
PDT}

Jack: I am prepared change my mind if evidence warrants it. Here is what I have so far: -----Jack: “KF lies when he says that the quote he has taken to posting every time my name comes up is or was KCFS’s policy, and I defy him to find an example of something that KCFS has done that has been anything more than acting to express our views in a democratic manner - which we have every right to do.” -----vivid blue: "Liz was your (Jack) PR person posting the strategy of KCFS on the KCFS online forum for heavens sake. At the time did you correct her or object in any way to her portrayal of the policy of KCFS? -----"Does KCFS notify the media and use the media in order to let them know whats going on? Has or does KCFS portray those that disagree with youas “religious”, “creationists”,”anti scientific”, “anti science”, etc?" Sort it out for me. Unlike Darwinists, I do not have a "no concession policy." I apologize every time I am wrong. Explain to me why KF and vivid blue are wrong. That correspondence that was alluded to seems like a smoking gun to me.StephenB_{April 13, 2008
April
04
Apr
13
13
2008
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT}

"KF lies when he says that the quote he has taken to posting every time my name comes up is or was KCFS’s policy, and I defy him to find an example of something that KCFS has done that has been anything more than acting to express our views in a democratic manner - which we have every right to do." Jack, Liz was your PR person posting the strategy of KCFS on the KCFS online forum for heavens sake. At the time did you correct her or object in any way to her portrayal of the policy of KCFS? Does KCFS notify the media and use the media in order to let them know whats going on? Has or does KCFS portray those that disagree with youas "religious", "creationists","anti scientific", "anti science", etc? Vividvividblue_{April 13, 2008
April
04
Apr
13
13
2008
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT}

to StevenB and kf: Bullshit. Ban me if you must for being so crudely blunt, but you don't know what you're talking about. If you knew me and how I behave instead of believing stereotypes and lies, you would know how wrong you are. Yes, I believe differently than you do, but I have always acted civilly and always with respect for the democratic principles of our country. KF lies when he says that the quote he has taken to posting every time my name comes up is or was KCFS's policy, and I defy him to find an example of something that KCFS has done that has been anything more than acting to express our views in a democratic manner - which we have every right to do. I am a very public spokesperson for the benefits of civil and on-topic discussion as opposed to polarized demonization of people. I have no problem disagreeing with people and explaining why I think they are wrong, and I have no problem with making judgments that I think I can back up with evidence. But I don't engage in gratuitous insults or bigoted generalizations about people, and I don't demonize people just because they disagree with me. So I hope at least some of you reading this will see beyond the crass and unfounded generalizations that are aimed at me here just because I hold a minority position here, because I am politically active in support of my position, and because I'm interested enough in the civic value of dialogue to come here occasionally and try to discuss things with you guys. Jack Krebs_{April 13, 2008
April
04
Apr
13
13
2008
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT}

Leo Hales: "I don’t get the impression that the Darwinists are particularly “wounded” by the Machine video. They were actually wondering if it was someone on their side who produced it: that means, scarily enough, they approved of the contents, and revela themselves to be little better than caricatures in their attitudes." You may be right. I thought as you do at first, but I concluded that no one could possibly be that clueless and that their reaction was a desperate attempt at damage control. Its a little like a boxer who has been hit hard and tries to pretend that he is not hurt. Even so, the fact that they posted it on their website would support your theory.StephenB_{April 13, 2008
April
04
Apr
13
13
2008
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus #40 was written to you.StephenB_{April 13, 2008
April
04
Apr
13
13
2008
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT}

----"KCFS’ PR] strategy [as declared in their online forum by their PR person, circa 2005] . . . is the same as it was in 1999: notify the national and local media about what’s going on and portray them [i.e. those who advocate for objectivity, fairness and balance in science definitions and in teaching about the science of origins] in the harshest light possible, as political opportunists, evangelical activists, ignoramuses, breakers of rules, unprincipled bullies, etc . . . . Our target [i.e. this is not just a loose cannon speaking] is the moderates who are not that well educated about the issues, most of whom probably are theistic evolutionists . . . . The solution is really political . . . kairosfocus, thanks for helping me make the connection. Somehow, I was not aware of the fact that the KC group's propoganda machine contacted the national media in this fashion. I all makes sense, though. If, in order to perpetuate his ideology, Jack would impose oppressive policies at the state level and encourage the persecution of ID scientists, it follows that he would not hesitate to disturb the peace of movie goers for the same reason.StephenB_{April 13, 2008
April
04
Apr
13
13
2008
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT}

I don't get the impression that the Darwinists are particularly "wounded" by the Machine video. They were actually wondering if it was someone on their side who produced it: that means, scarily enough, they approved of the contents, and revela themselves to be little better than caricatures in their attitudes. I imagine Eugenie Scott may be somewhat wounded by being so grotequely sexualized in the video. I would sympathize with her there: I don't agree with sexual portrayals of individual women, without their consent, being made public, for any reason.Leo Hales_{April 13, 2008
April
04
Apr
13
13
2008
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT}

Steve: Jack -- per the upshot of the recent Complex Speciation thread here, from 117 on -- is an educator and state-level curriculum developer in Kansas. He has in that context been a major leader of the attempt to redefine science as taught to students there, as in effect applied materialism; cf the 2007 standards, especially the "natural explanations" clause. (I call that, for excellent reason, substitution of ideologically loaded indoctrination for education, through abuse of the state education powers; a la Plato's Cave.] He is also associated with the group KCFS as a principal leader, and has thus also been associated with the declared PR policy stated on the KCFS forum he then moderated, by its PR person [cf FtK's remarks on that, at 533], namely:
[KCFS’ PR] strategy [as declared in their online forum by their PR person, circa 2005] . . . is the same as it was in 1999: notify the national and local media about what’s going on and portray them [i.e. those who advocate for objectivity, fairness and balance in science definitions and in teaching about the science of origins] in the harshest light possible, as political opportunists, evangelical activists, ignoramuses, breakers of rules, unprincipled bullies, etc . . . . Our target [i.e. this is not just a loose cannon speaking] is the moderates who are not that well educated about the issues, most of whom probably are theistic evolutionists . . . . The solution is really political . . .
Strategy sounds familiar? Sadly, it should. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 13, 2008
April
04
Apr
13
13
2008
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

It looks to me like, much better than RIDICULE, are going to be THE BOX OFFICE NUMBERS!jstanley01_{April 13, 2008
April
04
Apr
13
13
2008
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

Sorry to be dense, but I can't seem to make anything out of "ziiiiiiii-enzzzzzz ziiiiii-enzzzzz ziiiiii-enzzzzz". A little hint, please? sci-ence Graceout_{April 13, 2008
April
04
Apr
13
13
2008
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

Is Jack associated with the folks who are recommending these tactics? Is he involved in the planning process? In not, then, in this case, the most anyone can charge him with IN THIS ONE INSTANCE, is playing the role of "enabler." Save your heavy artillery for criticizing him in his official capacity for the initiatives that he himself undertakes. You have plenty of opportunity and material to do that at the appropriate time and place. So, be cool. In a broader sense, the term "fascism" can be used to describe radically autocratic behavior. Now, for the necessary clarification. There is nothing fascist about the ACTIVITY of passing out flyers. The people who are doing it just happen to be fascists busily engaged in the practice of damage control. I hope that helps.StephenB_{April 13, 2008
April
04
Apr
13
13
2008
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to political and economic liberalism. Ya gotta love Wiki (which sometimes I actually do). They are saying that patriotism and anti-communism are elements of fascism. LOL. Oh yeah, and totalitarianism. So what happens if you oppose the totalitarianism of communism? Anyway, you want to understand why fascism is not an unfair description of the emo evo crowd that controls the academy. Look at the parts of the Wiki definition that includes autocracy and "opposition to political and economic liberalism." Political liberalism means free speech, tolerances of dissenters and due process. Economic liberalism means -- anyone, anyone, Bueller, Bueller -- a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard. Believe it or not. The word "liberal" has been stolen, twisted and perverted by collectivist leftists and most people thing it means the exact opposite of what it says in the dictionary.tribune7_{April 13, 2008
April
04
Apr
13
13
2008
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

Jack Krebs: You might want to read Jonah Goldberg's recent LIBERAL FASCISM. Here is a Blog Reference. http://liberalfascism.nationalreview.com/ It seems that this might be the intent of some comments above, pejorative though they are. Goldberg's definition has more to do with Fascism (drawing upon socialist ideology - whether nationalist or Marxist) replacing religion and free thought with the state or some other substitute. Given that definition, Darwinism fits like a glove in western culture. The academy, et al, certainly seem to mandate falling in line or else, don't you think?toc_{April 13, 2008
April
04
Apr
13
13
2008
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

And, deep design, what is wrong about handing out fliers? Why is that a "fascist" tactic?Jack Krebs_{April 13, 2008
April
04
Apr
13
13
2008
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

According to wikipedia,
Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, and/or religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to political and economic liberalism.
This definition does not apply to me. What exactly do you think "fascist" means?Jack Krebs_{April 13, 2008
April
04
Apr
13
13
2008
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

These guys are fascists.DeepDesign_{April 13, 2008
April
04
Apr
13
13
2008
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply