Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is Cheri Yecke’s advocacy of ID a career-maimer?

arroba Email

Check out the following story about Florida’s #2 education person who may lose out on the #1 spot because she has been tarred with ID (go here for the Miami Herald story). Apparently Wesley Elsberry, who has now moved on from the NCSE, is stirring the pot:

. . . Until recently, the scientist in the picture, Wesley Elsberry, worked for the National Center for Science Education, a pro-science watchdog group. Now a visiting researcher at Michigan State University, he says the statement in question might be more controversial for Yecke than her other statements because it ”would tie her directly to advocacy of intelligent design.” But in his view, Yecke’s other words and actions already made her an advocate. . . .

[...] Mr. Dembski over at his Uncommon Descent blog notices the Cheri Yecke controversy, but completely misses the point. In his post he blames Dr. Elsberry for stirring the pot. Ummmmm … what? Did he not read the actual article? It’s Yecke who “stirred the pot,” not Elsberry. Elsberry was responding to Yecke’s hiring ReputationDefender to go after him. Notice how Dembski chooses not to mention ReputationDefender, or any part of the article’s main thrust. [...] Florida Citizens for Science » Blog Archive » Dembski misses the point
Dennis, "Arbitrary" censorship is censorship because: (1) the blogger disagrees with the comment, (2) the blogger agrees with all or part of the comment but the comment would prevent a one-sided presentation that the blogger is trying to make, (3) the blogger dislikes the commenter or the suspected commenter, or (4) there is some trivial reason (one blogger censored my comments on the grounds that my on-topic links to my blog were "advertising" my blog, though that was just a pretext for censorship because the blogger would not have censored the comments if he agreed with them). Examples of "non-arbitrary" reasons for censorship are the following: (1) extreme and/or repeated abuse, especially abuse that disparages anyone's race, sex, religion, etc.; (2) credible threats; (3) invasion of privacy; and (4) disclosure of confidential information. Usually it is clear where the censorship is arbitrary. Larry Fafarman
I am curious Larry, what is the difference between arbitrary and non-arbitrary. thank you in advance, d. grey dennis grey
O'Leary said (comment #4) --
One outcome of the Internet is that experts can weigh in, as needed.
IrishFather412 said (comment #5) --
In the blogoshere one need not be an expert to express ones view.
Because large numbers of both experts and non-experts can "weigh in" on blogs, blogs are often perceived as having high degrees of reliability and fairness. Because of this trust in blogs, blogs are now frequently being authoritatively cited by the official news media, scholarly journal articles, etc.. A report from last year listed 489 citations of law blogs in law journal articles. BTW, Panda's Thumb was cited by Jay Wexler in a law journal article opposing the teaching of ID in the public schools. Blogs have even been cited by court opinions. There are now proposals to give "pajama-clad" bloggers (I prefer "BVD-clad" because Hugh Hefner considers pajamas to be formal wear) the "reporter's privilege," which would allow them to hide the identities of confidential sources. But this trust in blogs can backfire where there is arbitrary censorship of blog visitors' comments. This is one of the reasons why I am fanatically opposed to arbitrary censorship of blog visitors' comments. Larry Fafarman
Witch-hunting BVD-clad blogger Wesley "Ding" Elsberry has no credibility. He will not allow any blog visitors' comments that dispute his charge that Yecke misrepresented and misused the No Child Left Behind Act and the accompanying House-Senate conference report. Furthermore, he will not allow any challenge to his false insinuation that the Act requires or authorizes withholding federal funds from states or local school districts that require, allow, or do not prohibit the teaching of intelligent design or other criticisms of Darwinism in K-12 public schools. My blog now has four articles about the Yecke affair. Two of them are the following -- http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2007/07/darwinists-misinterpret-significance-of.html http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2007/07/witch-hunter-elsberry-posts.html Larry Fafarman
I think it is fair to say that in order for one to be an expert in ID thought and have a strong understanding of ID, one need not be an expert in evolutionary biology. While by no means is Mrs. Denyse O'Leary an expert in understanding evolutionary biology, she does have a profound understanding of the the sociological importance of ID and the dangers Darwinism presents to truly understading the natural world. In the blogoshere one need not be an expert to express ones view. That's what I like about this site :) UD! We all come diverse backgrounds and none of our thinking is tainted by currently practiced scientific thinking. None of this sites contributors are practicing scientists. This gives them an edge in thinking outside of the curreent paradigm. Keep up the good work. IrishFather412
Thanks for excluding me from excoriation, Atom. I try to do a good job with the resources I have. It is very difficult for most reporters for major media to take much time to find out what ANYTHING is. If only people knew ... The inability of the journalist to be an expert is - in my view - the primary reason for the current (unstoppable) decline in print and TV media circulation. Indeed, that is why the blogosphere hit print journalism so hard. The Microsoft Word experts sank Dan Rather's claims about Bush's National Guard record and the shutterbugs sank Reuters' photoshopped reporting from Lebanon. (Readers, please feel free to add examples from your particular perspective if you wish. My examples are not icons, they are only the ones I have used as examples when addressing my journalist colleagues on the subject of print/TV media vs. Internet-based media.) It is NOT the journalist's fault that he isn't an expert on the subjects of the story to which he is assigned. Of course, he could be more open-minded, but .... One outcome of the Internet is that experts can weigh in, as needed. The Darwinists are still reeling from that, but - Marshall McLuhan would certainly have said - let 'em reel. O'Leary
mike1962, I was going to post the same snippet. When will reporters (Denyse excluded, of course) take five minutes to learn what ID is, instead of simply repeating what ID-critics claim it is? Bad reporting, plain and simple. Atom
"National Center for Science Education, a pro-science watchdog group" (milk coming up thru nose) :D mike1962
"intelligent design, a faith-based counterpart to evolution" Yeah, uh huh. (Rolling eyes) mike1962

Leave a Reply