Anyone mind a rant? The Boston Globe published a pro-intelligent design piece today

[TayTay]

and boy of boy, did that ever piss me off. I cannot stand the ID people. They lie as often as they breathe, IMHO. And they are a walking, talking, money-raising insult to human intelligence, science education and ethics. In short, I was quite upset to see the Boston Globe give them a soapbox to dispense creationist nuttery around. Shame on the Globe for this.

Okay, brace yourselves, cuz this is http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/07/15/jeffersons_support_for_intelligent_design/">idiocy on a pretty big scale.

Jefferson’s support for intelligent design
By Stephen C. Meyer
July 15, 2009

Excerpt:
In 1823, when materialist evolutionary ideas had long been circulating, Jefferson wrote to John Adams and insisted that the scientific evidence of design in nature was clear: “I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition.’’ It was on empirical grounds, not religious ones, that he took this view.

Contemplating everything from the heavenly bodies down to the creaturely bodies of men and animals, he argued: “It is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion.’’

The “ultimate cause’’ and “fabricator of all things’’ that Jefferson invoked was also responsible for the “design’’ of life’s endlessly diverse forms as well as the manifestly special endowments of human beings. Moreover, because the evidence of “Nature’s God’’ was publicly accessible to all and did not depend upon a special appeal to religious authority, Jefferson believed that it provided a basis in reason for the protection of individual liberty. Thus, the Declaration of Independence asserted that humans are “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.’’

Of course, many people assume that Jefferson’s views, having been written before Darwin’s “Origin of Species,’’ are now scientifically obsolete. But Jefferson has been vindicated by modern scientific discoveries that Darwin could not have anticipated. For example, in 1953 when Watson and Crick elucidated the structure of the DNA molecule, they made a startling discovery. The structure of DNA allows it to store information in the form of a four-character digital code. Strings of precisely sequenced chemicals called nucleotide bases store and transmit the assembly instructions - the information - for building the crucial protein molecules and machines the cell needs to survive. Francis Crick later developed this idea with his famous “sequence hypothesis,’’ according to which the chemical constituents in DNA function like letters in a written language or symbols in a computer code. As Bill Gates has noted, “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.’’

This is stupid on such a grand scale that I scarcely know where to begin. I really have to quote a lengthy excerpt from the Wikipedia entry on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible">Jefferson's Bible to get to how absurd it is to claim Jefferson as someone who would believe in intelligent design:

In an 1803 letter to Joseph Priestley, Jefferson stated that he conceived the idea of writing his view of the "Christian System" in a conversation with Dr. Benjamin Rush during 1798–99. He proposed beginning with a review of the morals of the ancient philosophers, moving on to the ethics of the Jews, and concluding with the "principles of a pure deism" taught by Jesus, "omitting the question of his deity." Jefferson explained that he really doesn't have the time, and urged the task on Priestley as the person best equipped to accomplish the task.<3>

Jefferson accomplished a more limited goal in 1804 with “The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth,” the predecessor to Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.<4> He described it in a letter to John Adams dated 13 October 1813:

In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics, the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their logos and demiurges, aeons and daemons, male and female, with a long train of … or, shall I say at once, of nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphibologisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines. <3>

”

Jefferson frequently expressed discontent with this earlier version, however. The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth represents the fulfillment of his desire to produce a more carefully assembled edition.

Jefferson respected religion or he would not have gone to the trouble of exploring the Bible in the way he did. It obviously mattered to him. However, he specifically took a Bible and cut out of it anything that smacked of superstition. This does not strike me as a guy who foresaw DNA and would go, "Wow, sign me up for a lifetime membership in the Discovery Institute."

I have to write to the Boston Globe and find a way to shorten my remarks so they evolve to something like: "This is the dumbest thing I read all month. (And Sarah Palin wrote something this month, so that saying something.) IT is a leap of logic to infer Jefferson approved of intelligent design 190+years before the term was even invented. Please don't smear up the pages of the paper with this garbage. It's bad writing, bad history and bad science."

[TayTay]

1. BTW, more on this at a great link from the PBS show NOVA

NOVA, the science education show, did a 2 hour special on the Dover, PA case that put Intelligent Design on trial in federal court. The TV show was fascinating and full of great drama and human interest stories. You can watch it online at: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

For those of you unfamiliar with this case, I seriously recommend watching this show. The drama has some really incredible moments that you have to see to believe.

[TayTay]

2. Why does this matter in the JK group?

The climate change deniers draw from the same pool as the folks who trumpet ID. They promote shoddy "science" in support of a particular religious view. Moreover, they want their view taught in the public schools in violation of the doctrine of separation of church and state. These people win converts with their well-crafted argument that they are only looking for a chance to explain themselves, that evolution is only a theory and that good, old American fairness dictates that nutty theories should be taught alongside peer-reviewed science.

These people cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. Claiming that intelligent design was something Jefferson thought highly of is a despicable falsehood. Jefferson understood the difference between science and religion and didn't mistake one for the other. Jefferson understood that religion should be honored on it's own ground for the moral truths it taught and not confused with scientific theory. This is an insult to a very worthy Founding Father.

I have another reading assignment for you. (Hey, I am upholding truth, justice and real science education here, throw me a bone people.) Read this wiki entry on The Santorum Amendment from 2001: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_Amendment . Honestly, this is what we lived through in the Bush years.

Of all the things I truly respect about Sen. Kerry, his tireless and often lonely fight against superstition masquerading as "science" is at the top of the list. Thank God he and others like him have been there to keep the light of reason burning. It could have gone out oh so easily with people like Santorum, Inhofe and Allen around.

Sarah Palin, btw, is an ID believer. Somehow, I don't think anyone is surprised by that information.

[YvonneCa]

3. This is why the state of our education system...

...is so important. We can't afford to only teach math and reading and ignore everything else (which is what happened under NCLB). Kids have to learn science (and history, etc.) and that science is methodical...it is a way of thinking about the world and testing it systematically.We have so many citizens who lack this BASIC training...and it allows the 'flat-earthers'to happen and helps them pretend to be as credible as a scientist.

I posted about this at dKos on Senator Kerry's thread today:

Thank you, Senator Kerry for your dedication to this fight for our future. This is a little presumptuous of me, but I hope you will consider the importance of educating the public on this issue. I listened to a speech you gave a couple of years ago at the Council on Foreign Relations where you made the case for changing our energy policy. Many lines in that speech, IMHO, need to be repeated...often...until they are understood by everyone. Paraphrased, they are:

1. The Stone Age didn't end for a lack of stones, and the Oil Age won't end for a lack of oil...but the problems associated with use of that 'tool' became too difficult. Better tools were found.

2.If we're wrong, we get a cleaner Earth...but if THEY'RE wrong, we get catastrophe.

3.Your story examples about how reliance on oil has hurt the national security of our country.

Lastly, many people don't know what a 'scientific process' is...how it must be replicable and peer reviewed. So judging a real 'scientist' from someone who says they are a scientist doesn't happen. This needs to be taught to everyone...so people can judge the credibility of speakers on the issue of climate change.

Thank you, again for your hard work for our country.

Edited to add...nice rant, Tay. :7

[MBS]

4. oh, I was furious about that piece

The Discovery Institute is notorious creationist outfit. The piece was so wrong-headed on so many levels that I could barely finish it. And misquoting Thomas Jefferson of all people!! Good God.

First the WaPo publishes an oped by Palin; now the Globe publishes this garbaage. . .
What is journalism coming to???

[Blaukraut]

5. Thankfully, the comments are much more intelligent

than the notion of Intelligent Design and the article touting it. I only read the first three pages of the comments section but they certainly warmed my heart :)

[MBS]

8. yes, unusually intelligent for the Globe blog

(and even edited/moderated, too! A lot seem to have been removed. . )

My favorites were those from
Davelu (Pg 1)

I am astounded, absolutely astounded, that the Globe would publish something from an outfit as discredited as the Discovery Institute.. .

Barry1Roberts2 (pg 1)

Davelu is absolutely correct. The Boston Globe has lost its bearings. In the last two weeks the BG has showcased (1) A log in Ireland that resembles the Virgin Mary, (2) a Sunday article expounding on faith-based miracles, (3) today's rubbish from a creationist propagandists. Is it because it is summer and the best writers are on vacation? Or, is it a sign of the BG's inexorable decline prior to bankrupcy.

Gaston.x (pg 2)

The reader Davelu is correct...

That Mayer would write such a piece is understandable, but the Boston Globe has dropped another notch in its credibility as a reputable paper by allowing such rubbish to be published in its Op-Ed section.

BuffaloGuy (pg 3)

Wow, we already have Jeff Jacoby to provide the weekly imbecility; we don't need this thinly veiled creationist tripe.

Jefferson was a creature of his enlightenment environment, wrestling like many others to reconcile his observations of nature within his still strictly religious surroundings. Contradiction was a common theme in Jefferson's intellectual life; take for example the discordance between his beliefs in the rights of man and his ownership of slaves.

. . . . Had Jefferson lived long enough to read Darwin's writings a half century later (he surely would have devoured the books) or lived long enough to see the first stirrings genetic theory he certainly would have immediately grasped their implications.

and DrHolloway (pg 6, 12:29, 7/15)

Its a bad reflection on the Globe's journalism that they printed an article from the Discovery Institute, not because the DI's views shouldn't be printed, but because there are other options they could have taken that would present those views along with objective facts. The Globe didn't even bother to inform the its readers of what the DI is, and what its been involved in. I wouldn't have been so concerned if they had chosen to print pro and con articles, or, even better, an article on the ID creationism campaign by someone reputable, like Ken Miller of Brown, for instance. I'm sure there must be a biology educator in Boston that's an expert in the problems with creationism in biology education. Why not have an op-ed on the subject from someone that knows what they're talking about, and not solely a propaganda piece.

. . .(and a little later. .)
12:46

Shame on me for thinking this of course, but the Discovery Institute would have been happy to pay the Globe a large amount of money to print this article. But then they'd mark it as a paid ad, wouldn't they?

Glad these comments were so good. . .I didn't have time this week to weigh in myself. .

[beachmom]

6. Good rant! I actually am not terribly knowledgeable about science

past the usual stuff you study in high school/college (not being a science major), but my rule of thumb is to defer to PEER REVIEWED science. I figure if a bunch of respected scientists say it's legit, and it gets published in a reputable place then I figure it is good science. ID has never been given that kind of respect; in fact, it has been treated with derision from scientists. That is all I need to know.

[TayTay]

7. The NOVA special had a really great moment in it.

The parents who were suing the Dover School Board over the mandatory introduction of Intelligent Design into the Dover school system hired a University professor to research the text book which had mysteriously showed up in the school public library one day. Now, creationism is explicitly excluded from the school curriculum. This is why we have the term intelligent design in the first place, because creationism is explicitly not allowed.

The text book in question is called "Of Pandas and People" and it has been through a number of revisions since the fund-raising for it began in the 1980's. It began before the "Edwards" court decision that explicitly excluded the term creationism as text that could be used in school science classes. The researcher, Barbara Forrest, found:

NARRATOR: Barbara Forrest's testimony would make a strong case that the Dover school board was thrusting religion into the classroom. And in comparing the Of Pandas and People drafts, Forrest discovered that the authors had apparently made their revisions in haste.

BARBARA FORREST: In cleansing this manuscript, they failed to replace every word properly. I found the word "creationists." And instead of replacing the entire word, they just kind of did this, and got "design proponents" with the "c" in front and the "ists" in the back from the original word.

NICK MATZKE: So the correct term for this transitional form is "Cdesign proponentsists." And everyone now refers to this as the "missing link" between creationism and intelligent design. You've got the direct physical evidence there of a transitional fossil.

Okay, totally funny in a geeky way. (Said as I push my glasses back up my nose and snort.)

Totally off topic, but just to let you know that it's not all work, work, work with me on things like ID destruction: I did have a bit of fun with a post on DU today: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6078605&mesg_id=6081283
I couldn't help myself.

[ladym55]

9. The Globe published WHAT??????

OMG. I apologize for being a few days late in joining in the conversation, but OMG again. When a supposedly respected paper like the Globe publishes total garbage, I go over the edge.

Excuse the brief rant, but whatever happened to JOURNALISM in the United States ... you know, where JOURNALISTS actually researched what they were writing, and their editors actually did little things like FACT CHECKING.

I expect this level of stupid in the LTTE of a newspaper in Ohio (we have LOTS of fundamentalist Christians out here, which makes for fun and exciting science classes), but not from the Globe.

We have developed a mindset that all arguments are equal. They aren't. A good argument is based on evidence. ID and its predecessor, creationism, are not based on evidence. They are based on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. And to make their arguments work, I've had fundamentalists tell me that people and dinosaurs were here at the same time (umm, no) or that Catholics planted fossils to test our faith. (I kid you not.) ID supporters sneer and say that evolution is a "theory," not understanding that scientific theory is carefully tested. It is not something that scientists decide to say today for fun. And yet somehow because we have short-circuited our ability to argue clearly and thoughtfully based on real evidence.

Caribou Barbie is in the WaPo and this is in the Globe. Wow. :wow:

[MBS]

10. . . what you said.

If you may remember (i certainly do, as it was a black day for me), the NYT also published another ID screed, by the detestable Cardinal Schonborn of Vienna, sometime around 2006 or so.. . it was obvious that that one was placed by the Discovery Institute, too

And don't forget Judith Miller's pro-IWR work at the NYT. .