Monday, February 10, 2014

Evolution Professor Praises Andrew Dickson White’s Whig History

Self-Destructing

The winners, as they say, get to write the history, and nowhere is this more obvious than with evolution. Evolution has long since won the battle of who gets to tell our creation story, and so evolution also gets to tell the history of that battle. And tell it they do. The problem is that, as with the science, evolutionists misrepresent the history as well.

Two classic examples are (i) Andrew Dickson White’s nineteenth century mythical tome, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom and (ii) Jerome Lawrence’s and Robert Lee’s cartoon rendition of the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, Inherit the Wind. The latter is slightly complicated by the fact that Lawrence and Lee made no attempt to represent accurately the events in Dayton, Tennessee in the summer of 1925, but rather liberally adapted the story to fit their purpose of criticizing McCarthyism and its witch hunts. But that only makes matters worse for evolutionists, for they have no excuse for coopting the screenplay as an important and insightful historical reference point in the twentieth century origins debate. Indeed, if you compare the history with the script, you can see Lawrence and Lee altered the former in order to sanitize and exalt the evolutionists while slandering their opponents.

Likewise evolutionists have no excuse for adopting White’s contrived Warfare Thesis based on his silly misrepresentations of the history of thought.

The fact that evolutionists do enlist both Inherit the Wind and White’s Warfare Thesis is just another sign of the anti intellectualism at the heart of evolution. Notable examples in recent years include Judge John Jones of Dover fame hilariously revealing that he actually wanted to see Inherit the Wind a second time in preparation for the Dover case because, after all, the film puts the origins debate into its proper “historical context” (Jones later unbelievably explained that “I understood the general theme. I’d seen Inherit the Wind”), and legal expert Andrew Cohen not only giving high praise to Inherit the Wind, but absurdly calling it “one of the great trial movies of all time.”

Now arch evolutionist Jerry Coyne joins in with his laughable approbation of White’s Warfare Thesis, revealing that he is reading through White’s “famous 840-page anti-accommodationist book.”

Famous?

If White’s book is famous for anything it is for the immediate debunking of its mythical content. No historian takes it seriously. Or perhaps it is famous for serving as a keystone of evolution’s false history.

Evolutionists are making public spectacles of themselves with their blatant misrepresentations of both science and history. They insist it is a fact that the biological world arose spontaneously and they insist that skepticism of their “fact” comes from parochial, anti-intellectualism. This is like a bad dream.

18 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Cornelius,

      "This is like a bad dream."

      If it were only a dream, but alas, it is all too real. We live in a world dominated by the pseudo intellectual where reason and sound analytical thinking have been displaced by political correctness and the religion of materialism.

      As one who has long had an interest in the law and the legal system, it makes me shudder to think someone as incompetent as John Jones is sitting in the position of a judge. Alas, he is not alone, we have more than our share of such incompetents on the bench in Canada.

      Delete
    2. nic:

      it makes me shudder to think someone as incompetent as John Jones is sitting in the position of a judge.

      Yes indeed. Ignorance is one thing. But it is rather disturbing to see in a position of power.

      Delete
  2. Evolutionists prove the inmates are running the asylum.

    ReplyDelete
  3. CH: Evolutionists are making public spectacles of themselves with their blatant misrepresentations of both science and history.

    This is rich for someone who not only uses the phrase “the science” without rigorously defining the term, but fails to even acknowledge direct questions asking him to do so. And the history of science? Apparently, you didn’t get the memo. The early 1900’s called and wants Empiricism back.

    As I’ve pointed out, we’ve made progress since then. As such your argument is parochial as it ignores the progress we’ve made.

    CH: They insist it is a fact that the biological world arose spontaneously…

    Again, I don’t think the biological world arose spontaneously. This is particular rich for someone who refuses to clarify where he disagrees on a line of questions specifically designed to clarify the issue. I’ll post them here for your convenience.

    CH:.. and they insist that skepticism of their “fact” comes from parochial, anti-intellectualism.

    As I seem to recall, someone recently said: “If the shoe fits, wear it”.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Given the following clarifications about the status of evolutionary "facts" it's unclear just who these "evolutionists" are Cornelius is addressing.

      Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method

      Excerpt from Karl Popper's Conjectures and Refutations on stephenjaygould's website.

      Cornelius is tilting at windmills.

      Delete
  4. Speaking of public embarrassment, the Jones misquote was throughly address in this thread.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correction: the Jones quote mine, which misrepresented the totality of what Jones knew.

      Picking out particularly insightful comments and quotes….

      Oleg: Hunter's carefully cropped quote makes an impression that Judge Jones's understanding of the creation-vs-evolution cases came from seeing the film Inherit the Wind. The context of the quote makes it clear that the judge was far better informed than Hunter would have us believe. As a law student in the 70s, Jones followed the legal precedents as they unfolded in real time.

      Hunter's quote mining is a clear attempt at character assassination. It doesn't take much to see through his shenanigans.


      Interview with Jones:

      Gitschier: So now it's on your docket, and you must have been curious. Did you Google intelligent design?

      Jones: No. I got what I needed in the context of the case. And it was the monster on my docket.

      To your question: I think laypersons apprehend that when we get a case, it's incumbent upon us to go into an intensive study mode to learn everything about it. Actually that is the wrong thing to do. The analogy is that when I have a jury trial in front of me, I always instruct jurors, particularly in this day and age when you can Google anything, not to do that. I don't want you to do any research or investigation. Everything you need to decide this case you'll get within the corners of this courtroom.

      So it is with me. And I knew that by the time the case went to trial and during the trial, that I would get expert reports.

      [...]

      Go back to your last question. It's very critical. I have to decide cases on the facts that are before me. I can't decide a case based on my own opinion, gleaned from outside the courtroom. That's why I don't engage in my own independent investigation. If you look at other systems in other countries throughout the world, they do that. But in our system of justice in the US, we let the parties try their cases and we find the facts from what is presented to us in the courtroom. And the law, presumably we know and we apply the law. That's our job. But the facts that we apply the law to are covered at that time.

      Gitschier: I don't know if you're even allowed to answer this. Before this case landed on your lap, did you have any thoughts about creationism or evolution, or the debate?

      Jones: The precursor to my answer is that it doesn't matter. A judge could be an avowed creationist, but he's got to rule based on the facts and the law. In that event, he'd have to hold his nose and do his duty as a judge.

      Delete
    2. Oleg: Let's recap. Cornelius Hunter has stated, on a number of occasions:

      When asked about his education for the Dover case, Judge John Jones explained that “I understood the general theme. I'd seen Inherit the Wind.

      When asked about his education for the Dover case, Judge John Jones explained that “I understood the general theme. I'd seen Inherit the Wind."

      How could a federal judge be so profoundly naïve? It would be like saying I understand the general theme of lung cancer because I’ve seen a Phillip Morris video.

      That reminds us of how after the 2005 Dover trial, kangaroo-court Judge John Jones explained that his education for the case came from popular culture.


      Oleg: I summarize the above as "everything Jones knew about the creation-evolution controversy came from watching Inherit the Wind."

      Oleg: To which Hunter responds: "Except that I didn't actually say that. In fact, I said the exact opposite."

      Oleg: You did actually say that, Cornelius. The quotes confirm that.

      CH: Jones' expertise and knowledge of the creationist cases is not in question. The point is much more important. Jones suffered from evolutionary brainwashing. The cultural memes and underlying evolutionary worldview, as portrayed in *Inherit the Wind*, are subtle and powerful. The fact that Jones bought the evolutionary lies at face value, your feigned ignorance notwithstanding, reveals an unbelievable ignorance, false preconception and potential bias, about the very case the federal judge would be presiding over.

      Oleg: So, your theory is that creationists lost in Dover because the judge saw Inherit the Wind? What's your advice to the next creationist lawyers? Destroy all the copies of the film?

      Oleg: You make me laugh so hard, Cornelius.

      CH: No, my theory is there is a great deal of ignorance regarding evolution. This has nothing to do with the Dover case, per se, which I think was meaningful merely for the misrepresentations and continuing ignorance that were showcased. Like the 1925 Monkey Trial, I don't think the ruling itself is a big deal. And I'm not a proponent of teaching creationism or ID. More important, I think, are the ways these trials are represented, portrayed and perceived in the culture.

      - - - -

      So, apparently, we’re ignorant because we don’t realize that evolution is religious and we all suffer from evolutionary brainwashing. Yet, I’ve pointed out the flaws in this theory, including the assumption that it’s impossible to criticize the beliefs of others in the case of God, rather than, say, Superman, without personally holding that belief, there is no philosophy of science which methodology suggests we should adopt biological darwinism, etc.

      Delete
    3. Nonsense. He wanted to see the movie for a reason. Plus he did not have the evidence to judge the case. The evidence presented, a pre-version of the Jones paper, was a cobbled together Frankenstein that didn't even touch the science of the Axe paper. The probability of a single useful and stable protein fold is statistically zero, much less the mechanisms needed to use it. The reason that it's zero is that for every unguided attempt, a misuse of the word attempt which assumes a mind, is the same, 1x10/37.

      Delete
  5. Notable examples in recent years include Judge John Jones of Dover fame hilariously revealing that he actually wanted to see Inherit the Wind a second time in preparation for the Dover case because, after all, the film puts the origins debate into its proper “historical context” (Jones later unbelievably explained that “I understood the general theme. I’d seen Inherit the Wind”), and legal expert Andrew Cohen not only giving high praise to Inherit the Wind, but absurdly calling it “one of the great trial movies of all time.”

    In my view, Inherit The Wind is a great film with fine performances, just like A Man For All Seasons or Becket. No, it is not a documentary account of the Scopes trial but it is actually a good primer on the "general themes".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. but it is actually a good primer on the "general themes".

      There you have it Ian. We need not rely on quotes from judges and legal experts. Ian, you yourself are providing the same sentiment right here. Evolutionists rewrite and contrive a false history, and then say it does a good job at capturing the "general theme."

      Delete
  6. Reposting this here for your convenience.

    CH: No, I'm not. If you do not believe that the species spontaneously arose, then by definition you must believe in some external help. From what you have said, I can't tell if you are saying you do, or do not, believe in some external help.

    Scott: My point is, you haven't defined exactly what you mean by “external help”, what form it takes, or, if when taken seriously, it would itself have spontaneously arose itself in a given design scenario.

    In other words, having the quality of “external help”, as you appear to be using it, is similar to having the quality of "dryness".

    This is why I keep asking you where you start to disagree and where your view differs, in detail.


    Given your repeated claim that “evolutionists think species appeared spontaneously”, here's your chance to take your own objections seriously. Where exactly in the below do we diverge? Please be specific.

    My point is that I think we would both agree that it’s not *necessary* for a human fertilized egg to “phone home” to a unseen, biological equivalent of Microsoft Windows Update Service before it had the instructions of how to build another human. At the time they are needed, the instructions already exist in each cell, rather than arrive via direct intervention from some kind of external designer.

    With me so far?

    […]

    Biological organisms represent adaptations of chemicals, etc into unique, concrete, complex features. They can “take advantage of them” because they contain the instructions of which specific transformations will result in specific eyes, limbs, brains, etc. This is in contrast to some other instructions that will result in some other eyes, limbs, brains, etc. or even a failed organism.

    So, the origin of the unique, concrete biological adaptations in our biosphere is the origin of those instructions.

    Still with me? If not, please indicate where your view differs, in detail?


    How is this relevant? ID and creationists claims about the origin of organisms potentially imply the spontaneous generation of knowledge.

    In case it's not clear how this is relevant to your question, one's explanation for the origin of those instructions, or the lack there of, would indicate whether they actually thought those features spontaneously arose. This is because the origin of those biological features is the origin of those specific instructions.

    If some transformation isn’t prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing that would prevent it from happening is knowing how. In the case of biological organisms, “knowing how” includes the instructions of how to transform chemicals into entire copies of organisms.

    For example, if some designer wanted particular organisms to have those particular features, it would have had to put those instructions - how to build those very same features - in those organisms when it created them, so they could build copies of themselves without “phoning home” when they reproduced.

    Right?

    If the designer didn't posses the knowledge of what instructions were needed and put them there, those instructions would have spontaneously appeared when the organism was created.

    With me so far?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scott: With me so far?

      CH: No, I'm not. If you do not believe that the species spontaneously arose, then by definition you must believe in some external help. From what you have said, I can't tell if you are saying you do, or do not, believe in some external help.

      Ok, then where are your follow up questions? Where do we diverge in the above?

      You've got an "evolutionists" ready and willing to discuss exactly what form this “assistance” would have taken, given what we know about biology, yet you’ve grown strangely silent when pressed for details.

      Perhaps I was mistaken when I assumed your question was sincere?

      Delete
    2. In the absence of follow up questions on exactly what form this "external help" would have supposedly taken, I'd expect you to retire the claim that evolutionists think organisms formed "spontaneously."

      But that expectation assumes your objections are based on genuine criticism, rather than just throwing "mud" on a theory you personally find objectionable in hope that other's mistakenly think some of it "sticks."

      Delete
  7. Dr Hunter is partial to " To Kill A Mockingbird" which doesn't claim to be an documentary either. Interestingly Dr Hunter does not object to the fact that it was based on an historical event just like "Inherit The Wind".

    Notable examples in recent years include Judge John Jones of Dover fame hilariously revealing that he actually wanted to see Inherit the Wind a second time in preparation for the Dover case because, after all, the film puts the origins debate into its proper “historical context”

    Not legal context, if you can't argue the law claim prejudice , why wasn't the decision appealed if it was such a slam dunk case of Rampant Movie Induced Prejudice Syndrome ?

    and legal expert Andrew Cohen not only giving high praise to Inherit the Wind, but absurdly calling it “one of the great trial movies of all time.”

    Nothing absurd about it, it clearly is. And since the trial was about freedom of speech after all, the use of it to mock McCarthyism seems logical. In my opinion if anything the friendship between Drummond and Brady shows that the conflict the movie is interested in isn't between science and religion but between reason and fanaticism .Added to the fact that anything about monkeys is sure to be a hit. Perhaps we should decide what are the top ten monkey movies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. V:

      Not legal context,

      Not historical context either, don't forget.

      Nothing absurd about it, it clearly is. And since the trial was about freedom of speech after all, the use of it to mock McCarthyism seems logical.

      V you are really trying to avoid the issue aren't you? The high praise comes not in reference to the script's critique of McCarthyism (which evolution has embraced), but in reference to film's portrayal of the origins debate -- the part that is a false history!

      In my opinion if anything the friendship between Drummond and Brady shows that the conflict the movie is interested in isn't between science and religion but between reason and fanaticism.

      The Warfare Thesis, in a nutshell. Couldn't have said it better myself.

      Delete
  8. velikovskys February 11, 2014 at 8:35 PM
    Dr Hunter is partial to " To Kill A Mockingbird" which doesn't claim to be an documentary either. Interestingly Dr Hunter does not object to the fact that it was based on an historical event just like "Inherit The Wind".


    Agree absolutely with To Kill A Mockingbird. I was also reminded of Twelve Angry Men and Witness For The Prosecution (the Charles Laughton version).

    ReplyDelete