More drive-by "reporting" from Cornelia Dean

Her take on the Minneapolis screening from today's New York Times. Note how she creates the illusion of balance by quoting both sides. But what she is actually doing is setting up the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed folks as targets and then using PZ, Dawkins, and Eugenie to knock them down.

Comments

[John]

wnelson wrote:
"I'd advise making yourself familiar with the study of philosophy."

Why? Isn't the central claim of the film that ID is science? If ID is science, shouldn't we be making ourselves familiar with all the DATA?

But since the ID movement produces no new data and you are handwaving about philosophy, aren't you implicitly admitting that Kevin is selling a lie in the film?

"If you don't have the patience to begin with Plato, begin with Hume/Pascal, move to Kant, Kierkegaard, etc. It might be helpful to also study the deists -- especially founding father Thomas "Creationist" Jefferson."

Why wouldn't we begin with all the data produced by the entire ID movement? That requires a lot less time. Then we could contrast that pile of nothing with the gigabytes of data--for example, the sequence data--produced by us eeevilutionists.

"Materialism is only one philosophical position among many."

Science is materialistic. You can't take something that rejects a materialistic approach and claim that it's science.

[Norman Doering]

Kevin wrote:
"I put reporting in quotes b/c Cornelia Dean doesn't know the meaning of the word objectivity."

My irony meter just blew up.

[Kyle]

Interesting that you haven't answered probably 50% of the questions in this thread. I see at least 4 questions you haven't answered as well as a few comments that have called you on your dishonesty.

Are you going to answer to those instead of dodging?

[wnelson]

"But ID, as dealt with by Expelled? It's anti-evolution in a form designed to appeal to a specific theological viewpoint. That's been proved beyond doubt."

If simple Bulverism is the route you want to take, I understand -- but inoculating yourself against a particular position doesn't protect you from the future.

If people who hold with anyone from Kant to Wittgenstein are willing to leave off their _rational_ judgements about ultimate causes, why should you care who gets the credit for "apparent" design?

It's "not scientific" to attribute a creator -- I guess -- but who put you in charge of binding people's consciences?

This all assumes that darwinism has made it's statistical case -- and it has in no way, shape, or form, gotten in the same hemisphere with statistical viability.

[Unysmpathetic reader]

Kevin writes (to Allen McNeill): "You're looking for a conspiracy where there is none."

That Kevin experiences no cognitive dissonance while making this statement highlights the problem.

[factician]

I thought she went rather gentle on you. After all, your people acted like total asses, expelling someone from a movie ostensibly about expelling people from debates.

Hypocrisy much?

[Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD]

"Note how she creates the illusion of balance by quoting both sides."

Yeah, you're right, it is a typical "he said, she said" treatment. She didn't investigate any of the readily verifiable facts, which would have supported the Dawkins/Myers side. For example, she could have looked into the online reservation system for the screenings, which you have admitted Mathis lied about, and which the folks associated with Expelled have suddenly tried to cover up:
http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2008/03/expelled_in_tempe.php

[Rupert Goodwins]

There's not much doubt that ID (as is currently pushed by the Disco Institute) is a form of creationism. It may (or may not - try getting a straight answer on this from IDers) be entirely congruent with seven-days creationism, but when you get people like Dembski saying that ID is "is just the Logos of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory", the Dover court saying that ID is creationism, _and_ cdesign proponentsism... what's a man to think?

There are any number of definitions of creationism, and doubtless quite a few of ID, and many historical strands of philosophy that deal with such ideas, which wouldn't be so conflated.

All Christians I know are creationists in that they believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and most are perfectly happy with standard evolutionary theory, in that they see evolution as much a part of God's universe as any other natural phenomenon.

But ID, as dealt with by Expelled? It's anti-evolution in a form designed to appeal to a specific theological viewpoint. That's been proved beyond doubt.

[wnelson]

"Sorry, but Kierkegaard and the other philosophers you mention are quite beyond the point."

No, it's not beyond the point.

Fundie Creationists don't have high hopes or any real love for ID. What you people have succeeded in doing is barring the door, and have left out the theists, agnostics, etc.

You don't understand your own philosophy and you have made a hypocritical hash out your position. Somehow a person of Jefferson's intellect is supposed to stand mute while you dogmatically assert what may or may not exist.

You might fly that one past the those living a jackbooted, philosophically unexamined existence, but that will never wash with the truly curious.

[Kevin Miller]

Wow, this is getting really petty and ridiculous. Sorry to rain on your little witch hunt, Allen, but Will Provine has a very prominent role in our film. As for your interview, perhaps boring was too strong of a word. In making this film, I sat through dozens of hours of footage. Some of it stood out, and most of it didn't. Yours was in the latter category. Who knows, it may end up somewhere in the DVD extras. You're looking for a conspiracy where there is none.

[Dan Styer]

Kevin Miller writes:

"Hey rich, what is your full name? Let's start by at least putting that on the table. As for your buddy McNeil, he got cut from the film b/c it was a boring interview."

Questions for Kevin: If you don't know Rich's name, how are you sure that Allen MacNeill is his buddy? If you don't even know how to spell the name "MacNeill", how do you know Allen's circle of friends? And since you wrote the questions for the interview, why did you make the questions so boring?

Kevin continues:

"No offense to Alan."

Questions for Kevin: Why don't you learn how to spell Allen? Why do you think you can be offensively blame Allen MacNeill for the poor interview questions you wrote, and then get out of it by saying there is "no offense"?

[Allen_MacNeill]

Interesting: I was expelled from "Expelled" because my interview was "boring." Surprising, then, that my students have twice nominated me as the outstanding lecturer at Cornell University and that I was given a special award for my teaching by the Cornell Learning Skills Center.

But maybe I was a little boring in that interview. After all, I didn't use ad hominem attacks against my opponents, nor did I try winning a Godwin Award (for most egregious application of Godwin's Law), nor did I lie from the beginning to the end of the interview the way the film makers did. Silly me!

And all of that beside the point, it still doesn't explain why Will Provine's interview (with essentially the same content, but probably a little more pizazz) was also omitted. It couldn't possibly have to do with the fact that he and I invite IDers and YECs to make presentations in our evolution courses, and that this fact totally undermines the basic premise of "Expelled"?

Oops, sorry, I forgot: as Ben Stein (a towering intellect in political history, philosophy, and science) has said repeatedly, "No Darwin, no Hitler."

Or, to put it even more succinctly,

"No integrity, no audience."

[Lee Harrison]

Kevin said:
"I put reporting in quotes b/c Cornelia Dean doesn't know the meaning of the word objectivity. Sure, she has quotes from both sides (well, one from our side and several from the other), but the article is a complete spin job."

Which article did you read, Kevin?

First she correctly and fairly states a key position of the movie (3rd paragraph); reports a statement from Walt Ruloff (without directly quoting - are you saying she misrepresented Walt's words? 'Cause it sure doesn't look that way); and gives three direct quotations from Mathis.

So did you read the article, or just skim it because you've already decided you don't like the writer?

Also, this idea that news reporting is simply, "He said... then she said..." is unbelievably pathetic. Reporters are expected to do some basic fact checking of their own, you know. I'd say congratulations to Cornelia Dean for remembering what news reporting should be.

[Reed]

It's good to see an NY times reporter who understands the issue. The ID movement is undeniably a creationist movement. Politically, historically, and philosophically. It's creationism in a cheap lab coat, trying to look all sciencey.

Judge Jones Dover opinion says it well:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html#p46
An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About "Gaps" and "Problems" in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism

I encourage you to read the whole decision, it is a lot more relevant than the philosophers you mention.

[micketymoc]

Sorry, but Kierkegaard and the other philosophers you mention are quite beyond the point. I'm only responding to your insinuation that creationism and Intelligent Design were conflated, perhaps "unfairly", and my point is that conflating the two is entirely fair.

Intelligent Design as part of the wedge strategy is definitely Creationism rejiggered to attempt to pass muster in a secular teaching environment.

Raising Intelligent Design's philosophical heritage does nothing to negate this fact.

[wnelson]

I'd advise making yourself familiar with the study of philosophy. The history of the various positions on ultimate causes is diverse.

If you don't have the patience to begin with Plato, begin with Hume/Pascal, move to Kant, Kierkegaard, etc. It might be helpful to also study the deists -- especially founding father Thomas "Creationist" Jefferson.

This study will serve you infinitely better than repeating what you have heard. Materialism is only one philosophical position among many.

[micketymoc]

wnelson, google "cdesign proponentsists"; I believe that is pretty strong proof of a link between Intelligent and Creationism. Indeed, it's the same thing but for a cut-and-paste job.

[wnelson]

I just received this reply to the NYT reporter's take:

"Hello and thank you for your note. But -- what are you talking about? Are you in doubt that ID is a creationist idea?
Cornelia Dean"

Apparently the "creationist" Kierkegaard wasn't available either for comment or in the nearest bookstore.

Oh well.

[Reed]

Kevin:
What specifically would a "balanced" account do different in your mind ?

Wnelson:
Re conflating ID with Creationism:
Let's see, ID is the same people, pushing the same bogus arguments. Dembski even admitted that he believes the "designer" is "ultimately the God of the bible." (how the **** does he know it isn't Loki or Shiva or FSM ? Got me!)

Now you might complain that his opinion has nothing to do with the science of ID, but that would require the ID movement to produce some science.

[micketymoc]

her opinion *and* nothing else :)

[micketymoc]

Cornelia Dean's article is "opinion all the way through"?

OK, I've read through the whole article you linked. Maybe I missed it, but what part of the article is purely her opinion or nothing else?

Or is "opinion all the way through" just a rather odd application of hyperbole?

[micketymoc]

"She's merely pushing an agenda, not attempting to give an accurate account of events."

Pot, meet kettle.

[Rich]

My name is Richard Hughes. You may find me in the creobot "most disliked" database.

The charge of hypocrisy stands. You are (self admittedly) partisan, yet you would level being partisan as a charge at others. No amount of special pleading will change that.

But that is not the extent of your dishonesty in my opinion:

You lied about the title and premise of the film despite already have procured a domain with the real title.

Then there's Allan's omission. And the dubious and very miss-informed linking of "Darwinism" / Hitler / Eugenics.

[Kevin Miller]

Sorry, Rich, but only your username shows up.

As for objectivity, Expelled never claimed to be a news piece. It's clearly an editorial with a well-defined position on the subject matter. So I think your accusation of hypocrisy is unfounded.

Cornelia Dean, on the other hand, is a journalist who supposedly specializes in writing news stories. As far as I understand journalism (and I actually worked as a journalist for the better part of a year), the goal is to provide a clear, unbiased depiction of events without injecting your opinion into the piece. You should strive to equip the public with multiple points of view so they can make up their own opinion on a given topic. So far, I've seen nothing of the sort from Cornelia Dean. It's opinion all the way through. That wouldn't be a problem for me if she were writing editorials. But I get the sense we're supposed to think her pieces are news stories.

[Rich]

My full name is my email address, which you presumably have? I wont put it on a web page as I get offered enough v1agr@ as it is!

What an unfortunate coincidence that Allan who is religious and regularly invites IDists to speak gave a boring interview.

And it's to "L"s in both Allan and MacNeill, which also has an "A".