Intelligent Design

Literature Bluffing, Part Deux — Or, The Deceived Leading The Deceived

Spread the love

I had no idea that my original literature-bluffing post would spark this much discussion, but I’m certainly pleased that it did.

The entire history of Darwinian theory has been characterized by literature bluffing and legend accepted as fact. Phillip Johnson has observed that his challenges are not new, and that they have been dismissed with comments like, “These concerns were addressed long ago.” But when Phil checked the literature, he discovered that his concerns were not addressed with anything more convincing than glorified speculation. This Darwinian tradition persists.

It was known in Haeckel’s day that his embryo drawings were faked, but these drawings persisted in public-school textbooks for more than a century. How could this have possibly happened in a theoretically “self-correcting” scientific discipline?

It happened because of literature bluffing, that was passed down through generations. It happened because a legend had arisen, that many people desperately wanted to believe.

This entire phenomenon is a manifestation of the blind leading the blind, or, perhaps more appropriately, the deceived leading the deceived.

20 Replies to “Literature Bluffing, Part Deux — Or, The Deceived Leading The Deceived

  1. 1
    StuartHarris says:

    “It happened because of literature bluffing, that was passed down through generations.”

    By what mechanism was the bluffing passed through the generations? Was it a Darwinian one, or a telic process? Clearly it was a goal-oriented telic process that set out to hoax others to go along with a deception. It seems that Dawkins’ meme theory doesn’t apply as no “self correcting” has occurred.

    As you say Gil, the Darwinian tradition persists. It’s only a tradition, and it only persists because it pleases a certain set of people.

    Stu Harris
    http://www.theidbookstore.com

  2. 2
    El Schwalmo says:

    @Gil

    I didn’t find Your original ‘literature bluffing’ article.

    Would You provide a link, please?

    TIA

    Thomas

  3. 3
    Andrea says:

    I didn’t find Your original ‘literature bluffing’ article.
    It’s the one in whose discussion links were provided to every item on the reference list, plus some lay discussions of the data. No one seems interesting in reading them.

    The bluff may be there, but as long as people refuse to look at the cards, it’s hard to call it.

  4. 4
    Chris Hyland says:

    “How could this have possibly happened in a theoretically “self-correcting” scientific discipline?”

    I haven’t met a scientist who would call the publishing of public-school textbooks a self-correcting scientific discipline.

  5. 5
    Mats says:

    I haven’t met a scientist who would call the publishing of public-school textbooks a self-correcting scientific discipline.

    In other words, it’s OK to leave the mistakes/falsehoods/deceptions there (public school books) bkz that is not where the “self-correctdness” happens?!
    The “self-correctedness” has happen in the scientific literature, but let’s not remove them from the public school books bkz we have nothing else to offer.

  6. 6
    Mats says:

    …..or better yet, “let’s see how far can we go with those until we get caught”

  7. 7
    Chris Hyland says:

    Most scientists are as upset about the state of innacuracies and oversimplifications in textbooks as you are. The problems are a lot of the books aren’t written by practcing scientists or are written by someone who isn’t qualified in all the areas covered. Also you have to rememeber that school textbooks are published mainly for the purpose of making money for publishers, so scientific rigor is generally not a primary concern.

  8. 8
    John A. Davison says:

    Chris Hyland

    Don’t forget about the authors of those textbooks. Aren’t they are in it for the money too? Aren’t they all true blue Darwinians?

    “He that I am reading seems always to have the most force.”
    Montaigne

    “We seek and offer ourselves to be gulled.”
    ibid

    “A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
    John A. Davison

  9. 9
    johnnyb says:

    Chris —

    “Most scientists are as upset about the state of innacuracies and oversimplifications in textbooks as you are.”

    If that were the case then why aren’t they _joining_ with Wells and the DI in correcting them, rather than complaining that Wells is complaining? This seems to be a perfect combination of groups to get something done, yet the evolutionary biology community seems to want to _defend_ the textbooks if it is Wells attacking them. It seems that they should, instead, be saying, “Yes! We agree! This is all bad or poorly-presented evidence! Let’s all work together to get better-presented and more accurate evidences for evolution in the textbooks!” I don’t know anyone in the ID movement who would not be joyful to participate in such a move.

  10. 10
    GilDodgen says:

    None other than arch-anti-IDist Ken Miller has used the faked Haeckel drawings in his textbooks. Of all people, Ken should have known about the fraud, but even he was sucked in by the Darwinian literature-bluffing and legend-passed-down-as-fact tradition.

    Check out the section on Haeckel’s embryos and Ken Miller at

    http://www.iconsofevolution.co.....p3?id=1144

  11. 11
    mentok says:

    Let’s face reality: evangelical evolutionists have always believed in the ends justifying the means. They are propagandists with an agenda to attain their desired goal of atheistic hegemony over people’s minds (Except for the Ken Millers and George Coynes who want to convert people to their religious beliefs through the propagation of evolution). Their weapon of choice is evolutionist pseudo scientific babble. They could care less about lying or cheating if it serves their goal. They only change the lies and cheating if the lies and cheating are proving disadvantageous to their agenda. These people have proven time and time again to be completely without integrity and ethical behavior.

  12. 12
    Chris Hyland says:

    “If that were the case then why aren’t they _joining_ with Wells and the DI in correcting them, rather than complaining that Wells is complaining?”

    A few reasons I suspect. Many propents of ID insinuate that the innacuracies in textbook somehow have a bearing on the scientific validity of evolution, and some go as far as implying that it is done on purpose to protect the theory. I cant speak for Wells, but certainly some people do. Secondly most scientists don’t agree with many of Wells points, and I suspect that what we would actually want put in textbooks differs considerably.

    I’ve read quite a few popular book’s on evolution recently, and almost all of them complain about the treatment of evolution in textbooks.

    “They are propagandists with an agenda to attain their desired goal of atheistic hegemony over people’s minds”

    Most scientists really don’t care about that sort of stuff.

  13. 13
    antg says:

    Mentok,

    It is possible to believe in evolution and have integrity and high ethical standards.

    I am not sure if comments like these are helpful.

    With respect,
    antg

  14. 14
    Michaels7 says:

    Andrea, I responded twice re: your PNAS paper as evidence. You did not respond to my question asking which evidence in the paper proved your initial point of “evolution predicting” immunologic pathways. Everything I read in that paper was speculative. The scientist themselves mentioned several hypothesis without a final conclusion as to any historical prediction that can be proven by any sensible test.

    The article itself utilized the word “scenario” to descrive their best guesses. Again, please put forth the lines in the PNAS paper upon which I highlighted now twice and only NickM responded to.

    Unfortunately, Nick didn’t quote the article. He just called my review of the article foolish re: transposons.

    Yet the article I quoted verbatum could only speculate several different pathways and made more speculations:

    “Alternatively, the apparent phylogenetic discontinuity in adaptive immunity genes could be a consequence of gene loss and undersampling, and a longer and more gradual evolutionary process may underlie the emergence of the key elements of the vertebrate adaptive immune system (12).”

    If my statements are foolish, then why are the scientist still undecided? They still have not made up their minds conclusively and that is my point in reference to Andrea.

    I merely pointed out they still Do Not Know….

  15. 15
    mentok says:

    Chris Hyland and antg:

    If you read carefully what I wrote I said:

    “evangelical evolutionists have always believed in the ends justifying the means. They are propagandists with an agenda…”

    I didn’t say that anybody who believes in evolution is unethical and without integrity. I was commenting on the evangelical evolutionists who preach the gospel according to Darwin in order to convert people. I have as yet not seen a single one of those people who argued their case ethically and with integrity. In fact I don’t believe it is possible for an educated evangelical evolutionist to argue the case for evolution unless they purposely choose to ignore, suppress, or distort the evidence against it. The evidence against it is so strong and the evidence for it is so weak that they have no choice but to make their arguments unethcially and without integrity. It’s a catch-22 for them, although they will not admit it. That doesn’t mean it isn’t obvious to people whose intelligence is not clouded by years of brainwashing.

  16. 16
    Chris Hyland says:

    “I didn’t say that anybody who believes in evolution is unethical and without integrity. I was commenting on the evangelical evolutionists who preach the gospel according to Darwin in order to convert people.”

    Fair enough, but that doesn’t apply to the vast majority of scientists who do believe in evolution.

    “In fact I don’t believe it is possible for an educated evangelical evolutionist to argue the case for evolution unless they purposely choose to ignore, suppress, or distort the evidence against it.”

    I don’t know if I’m an ‘evangelical’ evolutionist but I can tell you that I only argue for it because of the evidence for it. I could just as easily say your brain is clouded and you can’t see the evidence for it, but that doesn’t really help the debate much. If you have any evidence that scientists are puposefully distorting the evidence becuase they believe evolution is weak Id like to see it.

  17. 17
    John A. Davison says:

    The evidence for evolution isn’t weak. It is overwhelming. The problem is that the Darwinans refuse to acknowledge that it isn’t going on any more. They don’t dare of course because if they did the entire fabric of the Darwinian hoax would unravel overnight. Julian Huxley knew evoution was finished. So did Robert Broom. Pierre Grasse suspected as much and I know it with absolute certainty and have published my convictions. That is why I am not allowed to exist, right along with my several like minded sources.

    “If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out.”
    Oscar Wilde

    “A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
    John A. Davison

  18. 18
    mentok says:

    Chris you wrote:

    “If you have any evidence that scientists are puposefully distorting the evidence becuase they believe evolution is weak Id like to see it.”

    I refer you to all the books and blogs and websites of leading ID proponents. They are constantly and overwhelmingly exposing the evangelical evolutionist’s fraudulent methodology. In fact on this blog this occurs on practically every blog entry. So for you to claim ignorance is in my estimation proof of my claim, unless you are brand new to all of this.

  19. 19
    mentok says:

    And another thing Chris I didn’t say that “scientists are puposefully distorting the evidence becuase they believe evolution is weak”. They distort the evidence or suppress or ignore evidence as a matter of course, it’s habit. Like I wrote; they believe the ends justify the means. They truly believe the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. In their minds evolution is true because God does not exist and therefore evolution has to be true because there is no other theory which can explain life. That alone makes evolution true to them, the rest is just attempts to speculate on how evolution occurred, not an investigation into the actual possiblity of evolution being able to occur. So right from the start evangelical evolutiuonists are basing their entire approach to the topic in a manner which elminates all data which contradicts the basal evolutionary paradigm i.e if a fact shows that evolution cannot occur then that fact is not a fact, and is ignored.

    Using this basic psychological pattern they create a castle in the sky, adding on ever more complex and creative gardens and moats and wall and towers. Any evidence which threatens to expose the fantasy is discarded automatically due to the psychological need to maintain the delusion. They KNOW evolution is true, therefore all data which refutes that truth must be ignored as faulty or distorted to fit their transcendent knowledge of truth.

  20. 20
    John A. Davison says:

    Ernst Haeckel was a great zoologist and a very talented artist as well. He simply got carried away with Darwinism. So did August Weismann. His drawings of the various vertebrate embryos were reasonably accurate except for the amphibian and there is much to be said for his biogenetic law – “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” He had an encyclopedic knowledge of the animal world much of which he aquired himself. I grow tired of seeing old horses kicked to death. That is why I don’t bother criticizing Darwinists anymore. I just laugh at them. They hate that don’t you know!

    I don’t believe Haeckel’s embryos are any longer displayed in text books anyway. Why make a big deal over such a trivial matter?

    “A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
    John A. Davison

Leave a Reply