(c) 2005 by Lenny Flank
As those of us who have attempted to ask questions of IDers online already know, getting them to answer even the most simple and basic of questions is like trying to nail Jello to a wall. IDers are slippery, squishy, insubstantial, and impossible to pin down.
By way of example, I cite my recent 'conversation' with Paul Nelson, a young-earth creationist who was one of the original founders of the Discovery Institute's Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture. Dr Nelson recently popped into the Panda's Thumb blog, giving me the opportunity to ask him a few simple questions. There then ensued a surrealistic exchange, as Nelson desperately tried to evade, avoid and slip away from answering those simple questions. Here is the conversation. I have edited it so that responses to each question form a single thread, to make it easier to follow along. I should also note that Paul, for some odd reason, left, twice, without answering anything -- when he returned weeks later, I simply requoted my question and picked up right where we left off.
Regarding the first question, the conversation went:
LENNY FLANK:Does the ID movement call itself the ID movement simply to bamboozle people into thinking it has an actual alternative theory when it really doesn't? Does the ID movement call itself the ID movement to try and gain all the rhetorical advantages of claiming to have an alternative theory without the disadvantages of actually having to PRODUCE one?
PAUL NELSON:
'The ID movement' is just a name for a group of people with similar ideas. When I began thinking about design years ago, there was no 'ID movement' denoted by that name, but the ideas were percolating away nonetheless (e.g., in the writings of Charles Thaxton). The name -- the label -- is largely a matter of convention. It's the ideas themselves that attract, or repel, people.
Think about it this way. If I broiled what I said was 'really fine steak' for you, but served you shoe leather, it's the shoe leather, and not what I called it, that would matter. Or, conversely, if you said to me that B.B. King's music was 'sucky Muzak dreck, don't bother with it,' as a fan of blues I'd discount your description or label. (Btw, I only serve USDA choice or prime to guests, if you're ever in Chicago. Shoe leather is strictly for thought experiments.)
In short, it doesn't really matter what one calls 'the ID movement,' which explains why pejoratives such as 'IDiots,' 'intelligent decline,' 'creationism-lite,'creationism in designer clothing,' and the like, have had little discernable effect on the growth of the ID community.
LENNY FLANK:
You, uh, didn't answer my question, Paul.
My question was very specific. If there is no such thing as a theory of ID, why does the ID movement call itself the ID movement? You say "it really doesn't matter what one calls the ID movemnet". If so, why name it after something that doesn't exist? Is it, or is it not, to imply that it DOES exist, even though it actually doesn't.
I still await your answer to that simple question.
PAUL NELSON:
Well, let's pick a name that you might like, such as "The Fundamentally Religious and Scientifically Misbegotten Objections to Evolution Movement" (FRASMOTEM for short). FRASMOTEM is unwieldy, but if you can persuade others to use it, instead of "intelligent design movement," go for it. As I said earlier, however, the name won't really matter. Fred Hoyle coined "The Big Bang" originally as a cheeky jab (insult) towards a theory he never liked. Didn't matter: the name was widely adopted, because it was vivid and handy, and the scientific idea itself chugged right along. If the "intelligent design movement," however named, didn't exist -- meaning Behe, Dembski, Nelson, Meyer, Gonzalez, et. al, and their ideas -- this blog wouldn't exist. As I explain here, the study of evolution and a group of investigators one could call "evolutionists" existed long before a formally-articulated theory of evolution. There is more than enough content to the idea of intelligent design, even absent a theory, to make the conventions "intelligent design" and "ID" useful and accurate. But who knows? FRASMOTEM may have a promising future!
LENNY FLANK:
That's nice. Now answer my question. I'll ask again:
If there is no such thing as a theory of ID, why does the ID movement call itself the ID movement? You say "it really doesn't matter what one calls the ID movemnet". If so, why name it after something that doesn't exist? Is it, or is it not, to imply that it DOES exist, even though it actually doesn't.
The conversation regarding question 2 went:
LENNY FLANK:What, precisely, about "evolution" is any more "materialistic" than, say, weather forecasting or accident investigation or medicine. Please be as specific as possible.
I have never, in all my life, ever heard any weather forecaster mention "god" or "divine will" or any "supernatural" anything, at all. Ever. Does this mean, in your view, that weather forecasting is atheistic (oops, I mean, "materialistic" and "naturalistic" -- we don't want any judges to think ID's railing against "materialism" has any RELIGIOUS purpose, do we)?
I have yet, in all my 44 years of living, to ever hear any accident investigator declare solemnly at the scene of an airplane crash, "We can't explain how it happened, so an Unknown Intelligent Being must have dunnit." I have never yet heard an accident investigator say that "this crash has no materialistic causes -- it must have been the Will of Allah". Does this mean, in your view, that accident investigation is atheistic (oops, sorry, I meant to say "materialistic" and "naturalistic" -- we don't want any judges to know that it is "atheism" we are actually waging a religious crusade against, do we)?
How about medicine. When you get sick, do you ask your doctor to abandon his "materialistic biases" and to investigate possible "supernatural" or "non-materialistic" causes for your disease? Or do you ask your doctor to cure your naturalistic materialistic diseases by using naturalistic materialistic antibiotics to kill your naturalistic materialistic germs?
Since it seems to me as if weather forecasting, accident investigation, and medicine are every bit, in every sense,just as utterly completely totally absolutely one-thousand-percent "materialistic" as evolutionary biology is, why, specifically, is it just evolutionary biology that gets your panties all in a bunch? Why aren't you and your fellow Wedge-ites out there fighting the good fight against godless materialistic naturalistic weather forecasting, or medicine, or accident investigation?
PAUL NELSON:
"I have never, in all my life, ever heard any weather forecaster mention 'god' or 'divine will' or any 'supernatural' anything, at all."
Nor have I. But climatologists and atmospheric scientists weigh the effects of intelligent agency all the time. Consider global warming and its possible causes. To be sure, humans aren't "supernatural," at least in the sense that I think you mean, but disentangling atmospheric effects due to intelligent agency (e.g., gas emissions from industrial activity) from so-called "natural" causes is an important area of ongoing research. If agency is suggested by evidence, science takes up the question. ID theorists think biological evidence suggests the role of intelligent agency; most biologists disagree; and so we find ourselves with a vigorous dispute.
LENNY FLANK:
That wasn't the question, Paul. I'll ask again.
IDers are the ones bitching that science, and biology in particular, is "materialistic" and "naturalistic" and rejects any "supernatural" explanations.
It seems to me that weather forecasting, accident investigation and medical practice are ALL equally "materialistic" and "naturalistic" and reject "supernatural" explanations (note that NONE of the "intelligent agencies" involved in any of these is in any way NOT "materialistic" or "naturalistic", Paul).
So I'll ask again; why, if weather forecasting and accident investigation are every bit as "atheistic" and "materialistic" as evolution, aren't you out there fighting the good fight to get God back into weather forecasting and accident investigation. Why aren't you out there fighting the "materialistic naturalistic biases" of weather forecasting or accident investigation. Why does "atheism" in evolution get your undies all in a bunch, but "atheism" in weather forecasting doesn't.
Or does that all come later, as part of, uh, "renewing our culture . . . ?
PAUL NELSON:
Two questions for you (to help me answer this one, and to throw a little variation into Lenny's Game):
1. If life on Earth were designed by an intelligence, could science discover that?
2. When Darwin argued against design in the Origin of Species, was he doing science?
LENNY FLANK:
Gee, Paul, you seem not to have answered my question. Again.
I'll ask once more:
Why, if weather forecasting and accident investigation are every bit as "atheistic" and "materialistic" as evolution, aren't you out there fighting the good fight to get God back into weather forecasting aqnd accident investigation. Why aren't you out there fighting the "materialistic naturalistic biases" of weather forecasting or accident investigation. Why does "atheism" in evolution get your undies all in a bunch, but "atheism" in weather forecasting doesn't.
And, for question number 3, the conversation went:
LENNY FLANK:Do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?
PAUL NELSON:
About Howard Ahmanson. Can you document for me, with evidence, which of his currently-held views I should repudiate?
LENNY FLANK:
I see, so your argument is "Ahmanson isn't as nutty now as he has been for the past 20 years." Is that it?
I am not aware of *any* public statement by Ahmanson or any of his mouthpieces wherein he repudiates any part of the views that he held and funded for over two decades as a Rushdooney groupie. Can you point me to one?
I *am* aware of some recent PR puff pieces (no doubt prompted by the public reaction to his nuttiness once it became generally known; after all, politicians have returned checks from him once they found out who he was -- a sign of integrity that DI apparently lacks), wherein he tries to soft-pedal his views and paint himself as a "kinder, gentler" lunatic. Alas, though, even in those puff pieces, Ahmanson seemed unable to flat out repudiate things like, say, stoning people he thinks are sinners.
Ahmanson was still supporting the Chalcedon Foundation in 1996 when he put up the seed money to form the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture. Didn't any IDers pipe up and say "Hey, ya know, this guy is kind of a flake, and maybe we shouldn't be taking money from someone who wants to, ya know, stone people, or abolish the minimum wage, or place the US under Biblical law, or legally punish people for blasphemy, or tear down the wall of separation of church and state. I'm not accepting any money from nuts like this."? Did any IDers pipe up and say that? Why not?
Perhaps you would be so kind as to give us a list of the nutty views that Ahmanson held for 20 years that he has just recently and suddenly repudiated, and why. After that, perhaps you can list the ones that he has NOT repudiated, and why not.
Or would DI simply prefer not to talk about the fact that it gets much of its funding from a sole wacko billionnaire who for twenty years advocated the same sort of program as the Islamic nutjobs we are currently dropping bombs on in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Sort of like the Harun Yahya kook who is testifying in Kansas on ID's behalf. ID *does* seem to have some sort of soft spot for religious nuts, doesn't it?
I wonder why that would be?
PAUL NELSON:
Lastly - your Howard Ahmanson obsession. I've spent a little time with Howard (had a memorable long dinner with him in Irvine, CA, one night), and we talked about movies, wine, and whatnot. I've never heard or read anything from Howard that comes even remotely close to 'extremism,' whatever that is. You are circulating hearsay, Lenny, if it rises even to that.
What actual evidence do you have, in Howard Ahmanson's own words, of his positions?
LENNY FLANK:
And, once again, you've not answered my question. (Gee, I'm shocked.)
I'll ask again.
Can you point me to any published public statement by Ahmanson wherein he disavows any of the positions he held as cash cow and chief cheerleader for the Chalcedon Foundation nutballs?
If you want to tell me that he has repudiated his positions and is no longer as nutty as he HAS been for the past 20 years, then please tell me (1) which of his former positions he has repudiated and why, and (2) which of his former positions he has NOT repudiated, and why NOT?
Offhand, Paul, I'd say that placing the US under "Biblical law",to include such things as stoning "sinners", is, well, pretty extremist. I find it illuminating that you do not.
PAUL NELSON:
Again with the Howard Ahmanson obsession. What to say? I'm happy to be supported by Howard's money. I guess you'd better put me on your list of unspeakable theocratic monsters. However, I'm a registered independent and voted for Obama here in Illinois, so maybe you should start a new list, "Confused and Inconsistent Theocratic Monsters," first entry, "Paul Nelson."
I don�t know what Howard's view were before; I don't know what they are now; frankly, I just don't care. The republic is in no danger from Howard Ahmanson.
LENNY FLANK:
Gee, Paul, for some odd reason, you once again neglected to, ya know, answer my question.
I'll ask again:
Can you point me to any published public statement by Ahmanson wherein he disavows any of the positions he held as cash cow and chief cheerleader for the Chalcedon Foundation nutballs?
If you want to tell me that he has repudiated his positions and is no longer as nutty as he HAS been for the past 20 years, then please tell me (1) which of his former positions he has repudiated and why, and (2) which of his former positions he has NOT repudiated, and why NOT?
At this point, Paul suddenly left, again. Prompting me to write:
Feel free to run away, again. I'll be waiting right here when you get back, and this conversation will once again take up exactly where it left off.I'm a very patient man. If I have to ask you the same questions a thousand times till I get an answer, then I will.
Finally, apparently unable or unwilling to just answer my simple questions, Nelson responded with:
For Lenny's Game (tm) players, here is a convenient set of cut-and-paste Paul Nelson Answers to be used in almost any game session:" Paul Nelson is a crazy, anti-science YEC.
" There is no theory of intelligent design. Paul said so himself.
" Howard Ahmanson is a dangerous theocrat-wannabe, and Paul Nelson takes his money anyway.
" "The intelligent design" movement is a misleading but rhetorically useful name for religious objections to evolution.
" If ID advocates were consistent, they should try to reform meteorology and indeed any science to include appeals to divine intervention. But they only care about biology, for religious reasons.
Which prompted my response:
Oddly, these are the very first things I have ever heard Paul say that (1) actually attempted to answer my questions and (2) were in any way honest and nonevasive.Interesting that he considers this an attempt at "humor".
In private emails sent to me, Nelson has made no further attempt to answer any of my questions, other than repeating his "response" given above.
I can only conclude that Nelson's "answers" were a sad attempt at humor that were intended solely to divert everyone's attention from the simple fact that he didn't (and won't) answer any of my questions.
Oddly enough, though, the "humorous answers" that Nelson gives are, indeed, precisely correct. If Dr Nelson disagrees and has some better answers to offer to my simple questions, I'm all ears. He need only email me and I will post them here for the whole world to see.
(sound of crickets chirping)
Yep, that's what I thought.