Reflectorites
On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 08:33:03 -0500, Susan Brassfield wrote:
SB>This is a portion of e-Skeptic that I found *most* enlightening!
Sorry to disappoint Susan but this was already posted to the other List I
am on and it caused guffaws all around.
The article actually says nothing of any substance, it just is an attempted
McCarthyist-style guilt-by-association smear. When all the smoke has cleared,
the article says nothing about any "money" that went to "Phillip Johnson"
or in fact to *anyone*!
SB>-------------------------------------------------
>FOLLOW THE MONEY TO PHILLIP JOHNSON
>
>The following is from our friends at the Americans United for Separation of
>Church and State.
>
>From Genesis To Dominion
>Fat-Cat Theocrat Funds Creationism Crusade
>by Steve Benen
Note the McCarthyism tactics of applying words like "Genesis" and
"Creationism" to Phil Johnson and the ID movement, in order to give
poeple the false idea that they are crypto-YECs.
SB>Anti-evolution crusader Phillip Johnson, dedicated his 1997 book,
>Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, to "Roberta and Howard, who
>understood 'the wedge' because they love the Truth."
>
>The mysterious reference is apparently a note of thanks to Howard F.
>Ahmanson Jr. and his wife Roberta, a wealthy and secretive Orange
>County, Calif., couple who have generously funded the anti-evolution
>movement and other right-wing causes that advance their fundamentalist
>Christian outlook.
The word "mysterious" and "secretive" continues the McCarthyist tone. If
Johnson wanted to be *really* "mysterious" and "secretive", he would not
have even mentioned their two first names in the dedication of his
book, which clearly identifies the Ahmanson to those who know of them.
SB>Howard Ahmanson, however, is no ordinary fat-cat. The savings and loan
>heir has maintained a long-time relationship with Christian
>Reconstructionism, an extreme faction of the Religious Right that seeks
>to replace American democracy with a harsh fundamentalist theocracy.
>
>Reconstructionists believe conservative Christians should take
>"dominion" over American society. Under their version of "biblical law,"
>the death penalty would be required for over a dozen categories of offenders,
>including adulterers, homosexuals, witches, incorrigible children and
>those who spread "false" religions. They regard the teaching of evolution
>as part of a "war against Genesis."
Do *all* "Reconstructionists" believe *all* of this?
SB>Ahmanson served for over two decades on the board of directors of the
>Chalcedon Foundation, Rousas J. Rushdoony's Reconstructionist think
>tank that serves as the intellectual center of the movement. Ahmanson has
>also generously supported the Foundation's work.
I note it says "served". And it doesn't say how long ago this was.
But assuming this to be true, so what? In a democracy citizens are entitled
to advocate their vision of a better society and try to persuade by lawful
means their fellow citizens to accept it. I don't share that vision and I don't
think they have any hope of realising it.
SB>As for Ahmanson's interests in opposing evolution, his relationship
>with leaders such as Johnson raises a series of questions about how the
>movement to "defeat" evolution is paid for and what the larger agenda
>might be.
Johnson has relationships with a lot of people, including a personal
friendship with the atheist evolutionists Michael Ruse and William Provine.
Interestingly the article does not say that Johnson himself receives any
financial support from Ahmanson, and he wouldn't need it. As a Senior
Professor of Law at Berkeley, Johnson would not be short of a dollar, and
his books have all been best-sellers.
The ID movement is at present reliant on private funding, and if the
Ahmanson's "billions in the savings and loan industry" were made legally,
then the ID movement is quite within its rights to accept donations from
them.
Also, accepting funding from a source does not mean that one endorses all
its views. It only shows that there are areas of common interest. The
article itself says that the area of common interest was "the anti-evolution
movement".
SB>There is little doubt that the Ahmansons have the resources to help
>finance anti-evolution efforts. The family's wealth grew exponentially
>during the 1950s and '60s when Howard Ahmanson Sr, made billions in the savings
>and loan industry. After his death, his estate was divided between his
>son Howard F. Ahmanson and the Ahmanson Foundation, which had $663 million
>in assets at the end of 1996. (H.F. Ahmanson & Co., the parent company of
>Home Savings of America, had over $47 billion in assets in 1997.)
>
>With a vast fortune in hand, the Ahmansons are playing an active role
>in ensuring the anti-evolution movement's success.
Great! :-) If the former Microsoft multi-millionaire, Charles Simonyi, can
fund Dawkins' Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford,
then why cannot another multi-millionaire "help finance anti-evolution
efforts":
"I should like to thank Charles Simonyi, not only for his immense
generosity in endowing the post in Public Understanding of Science
which I now hold at Oxford...." (Dawkins R., "Climbing Mount
Improbable," p.viii).
SB>According to Reason magazine, promotional materials from the
>Seattle-based Discovery Institute acknowledge that the Ahmanson family
>donated $1.5 million to the Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science
>and Culture for a research and publicity program to "unseat not just
>Darwinism but also Darwinism's cultural legacy." In fact, the August 1999
>issue of
>the Discovery Institute's Journal recognizes an Ahmanson outfit for providing
>the Center's start-up funds.
It doesn't say how much these "startup" funds were. But for a billionaire,
"$1.5 million" is not all that much of a donation. It sounds like the
Ahmanson's help fund a number of organisations and the Discovery
Institute is just one of them.
SB>With such high-powered assistance, the Center has quickly become a
>leading anti-evolution organization. The center's senior fellows include
>some of the highest profile advocates of "Intelligent Design" creationism,
>including David Berlinski, William Dembski and Michael Behe. Johnson
>himself is listed among the center's two official advisors.
If Johnson is only an "advisor" to the "Center", why the title: "Follow the
Money to *Phillip Johnson*"? The article does not say that any of
Ahmanson's money went to Johnson.
Also, the mention of "Berlinski" spoils the attempt to link "Center for the
Renewal of Science and Culture" with "Christian Reconstructionism".
Berlinski is a practicing religious Jew!
BTW it's interesting they put the "Intelligent Design" before "creationism"
in quotes. This shows that they realise it is a misnomer.
SB>Additionally, Roberta Green Ahmanson provided the funding for Dembski
>to appear at her alma mater, Calvin College, a conservative Christian
>school in Michigan, to promote his approach to attacking evolution.
This Reflector is hosted by "Calvin College"! If it is the "alma mater" of
"Roberta Green Ahmanson" then maybe "Calvin College" is a "mysterious"
and "secretive" hotbed of "Christian Reconstructionism" and "Genesis ...
creationism"? :-) It just shows how cunning these Ahmanson's are to
provide a forum for atheists like Susan to attack them publicly to make it
look like they are harmless! :-)
SB>Although he claims to be interested only in the scientific "evidence" against
>evolution, Dembski's appearance was listed as part of the college's
>"Seminars in Christian Scholarship."
What is the point here? That "Christian Scholarship" should not be
"interested ... in the scientific `evidence' against evolution"?
SB>Funding from the Ahmansons is not always obvious. For example, the
>Fieldstead Institute is an extension of the Ahmanson empire, which
>frequently provides financial support for creationist causes. Dembski's
>appearance at Calvin was sponsored by a group called Fieldstead and
>Company. (Both appear to derive their name from Howard's middle name,
>Fieldstead.)
Again, not very "secretive" and in fact pretty "obvious" to those who know
Ahmanson. Maybe Ahmanson should have read a James Bond novel and
called the company "US Imports and Exports"! :-)
And helping pay for Dembski's costs to appear at Calvin College is hardly
high finance.
SB>Ahmanson has also taken an interest in providing money for other
>political causes, including support for voucher subsidies for religious
>schools and opposition to gay rights and pornography. In the January/February
>1997 issue of Religion & Liberty, published by the Acton Institute for the
>Study of Religion and Liberty, he argued that the Bible opposes minimum wage
>laws.
This only goes to show that Ahmanson funds a wide range of conservative
causes.
SB>Ahmanson's opposition to evolution remains part of his larger agenda of
>establishing a fundamentalist "Christian nation." In the coming years,
>as different groups and personalities step into the anti-evolution fray,
>Ahmanson's role bears watching.
If that is Ahmanson's goal, then ironically helping the ID movement will
probably make it even more unlikely to be realised! That is because the ID
movement is providing an alternative, other than YEC, for those Christians
who don't agree with evolution.
SB>Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 2000.
>All rights reserved.
>--------------------------------------
>Copyright 2000 by Michael Shermer and the Skeptics Society. Copies of
[...]
So what did all this have to do with the title: "Follow the Money to *Phillip
Johnson*"? Nothing! After the smokescreen has cleared, none of
Ahmanson's "money" went to "Phillip Johnson".
And the only "money" from Ahmanson was a donation to the Discovery
Institute's CRSC "$1.5 million" and his wife paid Dembski's costs to
"appear at ...Calvin College... ... to promote his approach to attacking
evolution."
These pretty feeble attempts to smear by innuendo and guilt-by-association
only show how desperate the evolution side must be getting. In the end, as
it did for McCarthy, such tactics will backfire on those making them.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Much of the problem is that neoDarwinism appears completely invincible
to falsification by observations or by experiments, so much so that many
doubt if it is a scientific theory at all. Partly, the stochastic nature of
evolutionary changes must demand that there should be an unique
explanation for each event, so that any difficulty raised by observations
could be explained or explained away with ease, and partly, the
practitioners of neo-Darwinism exhibit a great power of assimilation,
incorporating any opposing viewpoint as yet another "mechanism" in the
grand "synthesis". But a real synthesis should begin by identifying
conflicting elements in the theory, rather than in accommodating
contradictions as quickly as they arise." (Ho M.W. & Saunders P.T.,
"Beyond neo-Darwinism - An Epigenetic Approach to Evolution", Journal
of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 78, pp.573-591, 1979, p.574)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 30 2000 - 17:35:35 EDT