My last entry concentrated on showcasing the ignorance and general dim-wittery of Casey Luskin, a contributor to the Evolution News & Views ‘Blog’ (which is not the correct term, really, since they never allow comments or feedback of any kind which indicates to me certain kinds of intellectual cowardice). My last entry showed quite clearly why Luskin was incredibly wrong and there were others across the blogosphere who did the same; there was even one good chap who caught onto the fact that Luskin got his people hopelessly confused. Anyhow, Luskin is still on that same bandwagon so I guess that once again he will have to be shown for the IDiot that he is…
Stanford Medical School Dean Indulges Intelligent Design Theocracy Fantasies While Projecting Charges of Viewpoint Suppression
Multiple choice quiz. Where did the following words first appear?
“We need to move forward in our human evolution and not regress to the flawed passions of the crusades, the suppression of science by religion, or the intolerance of theocracy over freedom of the human spirit.”
Was it:A. The latest rant of PZ Myers?
B. The bumper sticker on some 1968 VW Bus owned by a hippie commune?
C. The manifesto of the Allied Atheist Alliance?
D. The Dean’s newsletter of Philip A. Pizzo, Dean of the Stanford University School of Medicine?
I can not truthfully I say I care where that quotation comes from but it does make a lot of sense and I support it fully. I also note that Luskin utterly fails to actually make any sort of coherent rebuttal of that statement, instead going on to create strawmen and froth at the mouth as you will clearly see.
On a side note, I am now tempted to actually get that quote put ON a bumper sticker and drive about with it. I kind of like it.
As I reported recently, Dean Pizzo’s latest December 1, 2008 newsletter extols those who would make scientific research “free” by keeping it “protected from non-scientific influences such as … ‘Intelligent Design.'”
Good on Dean Pizzo, then. Why should scientific research be burdened with the idiotic weight of completely unscientific things such as Intelligent Design? Which, as might need to be pointed out, has yet to be shown by anyone to be actual science and hold up to any sort of criticism. Science belongs science, Creationism in a funny hat clearly does not just like Astrology, Numerology and slapping people with fish to cure cancer does not.
Dean Pizzo’s tragically common Darwinist blindness of his own intolerance piqued my interest, so I decided to search his newsletters for other statements. What I found is that Dean Pizzo has all kinds of fantastical fears about intelligent design (ID) and theocracy.
Oh, this ought to be good. But before we begin readers should be informed of one thing. ID was formed as a part of the Wedge Strategy which clearly states it will use ID not as a valid method of scientific inquiry but instead as the first step to wipe out all traces of the Theory of Evolution completely. As the Wiki linked supplied informs you, the Wedge Strategy/Document includes such theocratic phrases as “reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions” and “affirm the reality of God“.
In his November 14, 2005 newsletter, Dean Pizzo expresses his fear that interest in teaching intelligent design is a sign that some communities “increasingly see[m] to be promoting theocracy over democracy.” He plays heavily on the theocracy theme, charging that “Evangelical Christian groups” allegedly “ignore or dismiss other religious or faith based beliefs or traditions,” and then reminding, “When potential religious oppression becomes politically based, the fine line is crossed between democracy and theocracy.” Pizzo closes his newsletter with the fascinating quote at the beginning of this post, which is worth repeating here: “We need to move forward in our human evolution and not regress to the flawed passions of the crusades, the suppression of science by religion, or the intolerance of theocracy over freedom of the human spirit.’
Now you can probably see why I included the above information from the Discovery Institutes own Wedge Document, which rather nicely proves that Dean Pizzo correct despite what the DI might otherwise say. That’s right, if you start allowing religious views (and that is solely what ID is) into science then you are indeed starting to attack the foundations of scientific inquiry and enforcing upon it a type of theocracy.
Thus, we can see that the same Dean Pizzo who three years ago lamented the “the suppression of science by religion” and “intolerance” is now, in his latest newsletter, expressing the intolerant view the scientific community should suppress the science of intelligent design.
The obvious problem with what Luskin is saying here is, of course, that Dean Pizzo is not being intolerant; he is merely stating that science is science and that something that has nothing to do with science should influence it which is quite correct. The other problem with the above paragraph is that Luskin uses the phrase ‘the science of intelligent design’ when, of course, it has nothing to do with science in the least. It is a religious viewpoint and nothing more; one of IDs most noted proponents, Michael Behe, was even forced to admit in court that for ID to be science then astrology would have be counted as well. Absurd.
That seems to be Luskin’s (and the DI’s) main problem; they continually fail to grasp the simple concept that intelligent design is simply not science.
Luskin then goes on to create a strawman statement by introducing some hypothesis made up by a Thomas Woodward which I won’t even bother to reproduce here since it has absolutely nothing to do with what Dean Pizzo was saying anyhow (and also has no evidence to back it up either).
If only Darwinists would stop inventing fantasies that ID will lead to “theocracy,” and stop projecting fears about viewpoint suppression (as they try to suppress pro-ID viewpoints), perhaps this could become a fascinating and fruitful scientific debate.
Maybe Luskin resides in an alternative Earth where the Wedge Document does not exist or something, it seems to be the only viable explanation of this particular ‘fantasy’ argument he seems to be attempting. Maybe there is a Bizarro Earth where the Discovery Institute actually practice proper scientific studies…
In the meantime, if you’re a pro-ID medical student at Stanford, you might want to lay low: Dean Pizzo fears he must “protect” science from the “influence” of your ID views, because you’ll bring theocracy, intolerance, and of course, “suppression of science by religion.” What tragic irony.
And this would be the paranoid part of Luskin’s entry, conjuring phastasmic images of a monstrous Dean Pizzo out to hunt down any one who might hold an alternative theory to his own.