Reflectorites
This is my inaugural "SEJ FAQ" . I chose these distinctive acronyms to help
my index and search programs locate them more easily in the future.
The aim of these FAQs is to answer allegations and issues that tend to
come up repeatedly, as newcomers arrive on the Reflector. I will download
these post from the Reflector archives with its URL and point to them if
and when the same issue comes up again.
The latest is Tedd's erroneous charge below that I am claiming an "atheist
conspiracy" (I am not and never have). This charge is made by
evolutionists from time to time, usually as a counter-attack against
creationists' claims that evolutionists have a united front and show
concerted action against creationists.
The evolutionists interpret this as the creationists claiming that they are
acting out a "conspiracy". Maybe some of the more extreme YECs do
claim this (I am not aware that they do), but I don't.
My understanding of a "conspiracy" is in the following Webster's
Dictionary sense of "a group" who "join in a secret agreement to do an
unlawful or wrongful act":
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=conspiracy ...
conspiracy ... 1 : the act of conspiring together 2 a : an agreement among
conspirators b : a group of conspirators synonym see PLOT ...
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=conspire ...
conspire ... 1 a : to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or
wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret
agreement b : SCHEME 2 : to act in harmony toward a common end
<circumstances conspired to defeat his efforts> ...
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=plot ... plot ... 4 :
a secret plan for accomplishing a usually evil or unlawful end : INTRIGUE
... synonyms PLOT, INTRIGUE, MACHINATION, CONSPIRACY,
CABAL mean a plan secretly devised to accomplish an evil or treacherous
end. PLOT implies careful foresight in planning a complex scheme <an
assassination plot>. INTRIGUE suggests secret underhanded maneuvering
in an atmosphere of duplicity <backstairs intrigue>. MACHINATION
implies a contriving of annoyances, injuries, or evils by indirect means <the
machinations of a party boss>. CONSPIRACY implies a secret agreement
among several people usually involving treason or great treachery <a
conspiracy to fix prices>. CABAL typically applies to political intrigue
involving persons of some eminence <a cabal among powerful senators>...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a secondary definition of "conspiracy" which is "to act in harmony
toward a common end." But then every organisation would be involved in
a conspiracy! So this presumably is not what is meant.
I do not therefore believe that it is meaningful to speak of evolutionists as
involved in a "conspiracy" when they are actually *in power*, with all the
force of the law and government backing them.
I do not therefore claim that because evolutionists have a united front
against creationism and often act in concert against creationists, that the
evolutionists have a "conspiracy" in the sense of secretly meeting and
unlawfully/evilly plotting to overthrow creationism. Evolutionist groups
like the NCSE no doubt meet secretly to plan strategies to counter
creationism (and ID) but I would not call that a "conspiracy" because what
they are doing is perfectly legal in a democracy.
I can't answer for all creationists but *my* position is that the evolutionists
(theistic and atheistic) have a united front against creationism and often act
in concert against creationists because they share a common naturalistic
*philosophy* which they sincerely believe to be the *truth*.
This is Johnson's (and AFAIK the ID movement's position too:
"It would be inadequate and misleading, however, to account for
modernist rule as if it were a kind of plot by agnostics to rule the
United States by employing deceptive techniques. Modernism is not a
conspiracy, but a way of thinking that is taken for granted not only by
agnostics but also by millions of people who consider themselves
theists but have to some extent adopted modernist ways of thinking
about theism. In fact, the authority of modernism rests largely on
theists' tacit acceptance of modernist premises. It is possible to make so
strong a case for modernism that it may seem futile and self-destructive
for theists to challenge modernism as a public philosophy." (Johnson
P.E., "Reason in the Balance," 1995, p.45)
and
"Johnson is quick to point out that there is not some giant conspiracy,
but simply a way of thinking that dominates the culture, even the thinking
of many Christians." (Bohlin R.G., "Why Does the University Fear Phillip
Johnson?" Probe Ministries, 1999. http://www.probe.org/docs/philjohn.html)
I presume the reason that evolutionists (theistic and atheistic) claim that
creationists like me are accusing of them of a "conspiracy" (despite repeated
clarifications that we are not), is that evolutionists (theistic and atheistic)
seem to be particularly unaware (or unwilling to admit) that they even
*have* a common naturalistic philosophy?
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 11:12:01 -0700, Tedd Hadley wrote (Re: A
Question of Abiogenesis):
[...]
TH>Now I think most creationists have a different explanation for
>the quantity of abiogenetic research out there and that is:
>
>"It's an atheist conspiracy to make it *appear* to the public
> like much progress is being made when in reality the work is
> mostly fraudulent."
I regard this counter-attack by Tedd as probably just another red-herring.
I have *never* claimed there is "an atheist conspiracy". In fact in the past I
have always made it clear that when people all share the same basic
philosophy there is no need of a "conspiracy".
TH>I think, Stephen, this is fairly close to your own belief as
>well, is it not?
See above re red herring.
But to answer Tedd's question, the answer is *No*. It is *completely
different* from my "own belief*. I have always made it clear that I believe
the "atheists" (and other evolutionists) are not mounting a "conspiracy"
but are completely sincere in their beliefs and simply doing what they
all think is *right*. That is the tragedy of it all.
Here are excerpts from past posts over the last 4 years on the
Reflector where I have made it clear that I do no claim (or even believe)
there is any atheist or evolutionist "conspiracy":
2000:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 22:35:24 +0800, Stephen E. Jones wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 17:24:25 -0500, Susan Brassfield wrote [Re: A Baylor
Scientist on Dembski 2/2]:
[...]
>CH>This rejection of publication would lend credence to their belief in a vast
>>naturalistic conspiracy against them in the scientific community.
SJ>No. It simply means that those who believe in philosophical or
>epistemological materialism-naturalism, would all tend think the same
>about an ID theory, without the need for any pre-arranged
>"conspiracy".
[...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, 10 Jun 2000 22:43:20 +0800, Stephen E. Jones wrote [Re: macroevolution
or macromutations? (was ID)]:
On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 01:39:53 -0700, Cliff Lundberg wrote:
[...]
>>>CL>Please, discuss real design vs apparent design, in your own words,
>>>>without the conspiracy theory.
>
>>SJ>There is no "conspiracy theory". People who have the same general
>>>philosophical assumptions think and act the same way without having to
>>>coordinate it.
>>>
>>>The fact that Cliff just assumes there *has* to be a "conspiracy theory" just
>>>shows that he cannot conceive of there being any such thing as "real
>>>design".
[...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 02 Feb 2000 05:30:55 +0800, Stephen E. Jones wrote [re: Behe by
Palevitz]:
On 31 Jan 2000 18:24:53 -0000, amka@vcode.com wrote:
[...]
>>AC>I am of the opinion that the scientific "priesthood" is not like a
>>conspiracy or anything of that sort. But it is a group of people who
>>learned while they were young and impressionable that evolution was
>>a completely natural process and needed no intellegent intervention.
>>They took on faith the answer to many problems facing naturalistic
>>evolution: Science will eventually find the naturalistic answers to
>>these questions. More knowledge will prove our theory.
SJ>Agreed. No "conspiracy" is stated, implied or needed. Once a common way
>of thinking (materialistic-naturalism) is in place and then enforced, the
>only answers that are possible are materialistic-naturalistic ones.
[...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1999:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 15 Oct 1999 20:19:52 +0800, Stephen E. Jones wrote [Re: information
creation and promissory materialism (was Especially for Bertvan) #1]:
On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 22:29:29 -0700 Chris Cogan wrote:
[...]
>>CC>I agree. If it isn't naturalistic (ultimately), then it's simply not
>>scientific. Why? Because, even if evidence of a designer was found,
>>scientists would have to assume it was a *naturalistic* designer (i.e. an
>>alien or some such) rather than God, at least until someone can propose a
>>means of distinguishing the works of an alien being from God-as-designer
>in >a scientific way. What do you have in mind?
SJ>This just proves my point. Now this might seem perfectly reasonable to the
>10% (or less) of the population who are convinced philosophical
>materialist-naturalists like Chris. But it seems absurd and close-minded to
>the 90% of the population who aren't.
>
>NS knows this and has been very successful at controlling the terms of
>discourse (no conspiracy is implied or required) so this problem is kept
>hidden from view. It is part of the ID movement's "wedge" strategy to
>make NS philosophical assumptions public.
[...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1998:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sun, 08 Feb 98 23:21:59 +0800, Stephen Jones wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 1998 09:07:39 -0800 (PST), Greg Billock wrote [Re: Conspiracy?
(was DIFFICULTIES OF DARWINISM 1.4-)]:
[...]
>GB>The current Gould/Dawkins debate of which you are simultaneously claiming
>>that its publicity is exactly what we should expect since it is hopelessly
>>crack-papering, and its privacy is what we should expect since there is
>>some conspiracy to stifle debate has been going on for a few decades
>>now, but hardly comparable to the QM debate.
SJ>I have never claimed (nor do I believe) that there is a "conspiracy" (that
>is your word not mine).
>
>My claim is that evolutionists have tried to keep their disagreements
>private, but the divisions have become so bitter, that they were unable to
>prevent it spilling over into the public arena.
>
[...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, 14 Feb 98 15:44:26 +0800, Stephen Jones wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 1998 08:31:09 -0800 (PST), Greg Billock wrote [Re: Conspiracy?
(was DIFFICULTIES OF DARWINISM 1.4-)]:
[...]
>>>GB>Ahh, but these are signs of a vibrant and advancing theory, right, not
>>>>the leaks of some conspiracy of silence covering up complete
>>>>disillusionment on the part of the principals.
>
>>SJ>Again, I do not claim that this is a "conspiracy"-this is your word, not
>>>mine. And time will tell whether "these are signs of a vibrant and advancing
>>>theory" or the death rattle of Darwinism.
>
>GB>You've claimed that Darwinists have 'tried to keep their disagreements
>>private' but that they are severe enough to have broken out anyway. You
>>perhaps didn't use the word, but if this isn't a conspiracy, I'm not sure
>>what qualifies.
SJ>Who are they supposed to be conspiring against? Conspiracies are usually
>(if not by definition) by those out of power against those in power. In
>this case the Darwinists are already in power and have almost total
>control of education, government, the law and the media. My Oxford
>Dictionary defines "conspiracy" as "combination for unlawful purpose":
>
>"conspiracy n. Conspiring; combination for unlawful purpose; plot.
>conspirator n. conspiratorial adj. conspirator ads.
>
>conspire v. Combine privily for unlawful purpose, esp. treason,
>murder, sedition; combine, concur (to do); plot, devise."
>
>(Coulson J., et al, eds., "The Oxford Illustrated Dictionary", Book
>Club Associates: London, Second Edition, 1980, p181)
>
>Since Darwinists have the full power of the law behind them, it is
>difficult to see how you can claim that trying to keep their disagreements
>private is a "conspiracy".
>GB>The thing that catches me off guard, though, is that you
>>are using the very public debate as evidence that there is a conspiracy!
SJ>No. I am not claiming their is a "conspiracy" at all-that is *your* word,
>not mine.
>GB>That is, the arguments are SO bad that they got out anyway. It is a
>>hallmark of conspiracy theories that any evidence--even counterindicative
>>evidence--can be used to support them.
SJ>Sorry, but I am *not* claiming any "conspiracy"! How about debating what
>I actually claim-not what *you* imagine that I claim.
>
[...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1997:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 24 Jun 97 05:55:58 +0800, Stephen Jones wrote:
On 14 Jun 97 12:33:32 EDT, Jim Bell wrote: [Re: Why Argue?]:
[...]
SJ>Why? Because I believe that evolution is false and that creation is
>true! That the Neo-Darwinist `blind watchmaker' is in slow but sure
>retreat and there is nothing even in principle (thanks to Dawkins for
>making that point!) to take its place. That in the near future the
>tiny minority of atheists who lead the scientific establishment (no
>conspiracy is implied), will be forced to allow theistic voices to be
>heard. That once the materialists power to silence dissent is
>broken, a great many scientists will "come out" and declare their
>belief in an Intelligent Designer. It is *exciting* and a priceless
>privilege being here close to the centre of a debate that will see
>those historic changes take place. And I might just be able to help
>the process along. And I might even be able to help someone in
>that process. That's why!
[...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1996:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 20 Mar 96 22:02:52 EST, Stephen Jones wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 1996 00:08:41 -0500 Brian Harper wrote: [Re: Re: Is it
soup yet? #2]:
[...]
>BH>Now I know you are going to like this part :-). It is the
>>"materialist-naturalist"'s who Yockey accuses of violating the
>>rules of information theory [another conspiracy?]
SJ>I don't know why you keep going on about me allegedly believing in
>"conspiracies". For the umpteenth time I don't believe that
>materialist-naturalists are engaged in a "conspiracy". Please take
>this on board and let's move on, shall we? :-)
[...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 25 Apr 96 19:50:47 EDT, Stephen Jones wrote:
On Mon, 15 Apr 1996 10:48:22 -0400 Brian Harper wrote: [Re: Alternatives:
Chance & Design (was Is it soup yet? #1)]:
[...]
>>BH>I take it then that we'll here no more insinuations about cover-ups
>>>or conspiracies?
>
>SJ>I have *never ever* said anything about "conspiracies". This is
>>your own word which perhaps reflects your own jaundiced view of me.
>>And my "cover-up" remark was on a spectrum from "paradigm blindness"
>>to "cover up" as a worst-case scenario. Moreover, it was based on a
>>>misunderstanding, for which I have apologised.
>
>BH>You may not actually say the word "conspiracy" yet your posts are
>>full of unfounded insinuations of such, for example you recently
>>wrote in another thread [How the Leopard...? (was Brian Goodwin
>>on the web), April 12]:
>>
>>
>> The point is that "a scientist" would not be prevented
>> from arguing "his own case in court". He might lose
>> his case, but he would still be allowed to argue it.
>> What the rulers of science are trying to do is, as it
>> were, stop the case from being heard at all, on the
>> grounds that only scientists (who share the same
>> philosophical commitment to the "fact" of evolution)
>> can judge whether that same "evolution" is true. This
>> is caesar judging caesar, and it is a hot topic down
>> here in Australia, with demand by the public to gain
>> access to these cozy self-regulatory clubs, like doctors
>> judging doctors, lawyers judging lawyers and police
>> judging police. This is why Phil is arguing that in the
>> absence of an official "opposition party" someone from
>> outside of science should be allowed to "audit the books":
SJ>I do not claim the above is a "conspiracy". If naturalists believe
>that naturalistic evolution is a "fact" , then it is understanable
>that they try to prevent anti-evolutionists from getting a hearing.
>Johnson says:
>
>"It would be inadequate and misleading, however, to account for
>modernist rule as if it were a kind of plot by agnostics to rule the
>United States by employing deceptive techniques. Modernism is not a
>conspiracy, but a way of thinking that is taken for granted not only
>by agnostics but also by millions of people who consider themselves
>theists but have to some extent adopted modernist ways of thinking
>about theism. In fact, the authority of modernism rests largely on
>theists' tacit acceptance of modernist premises. It is possible to
>make so strong a case for modernism that it may seem futile and
>self-destructive for theists to challenge modernism as a public
>philosophy." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance", InterVarsity
>Press: Downers Grove Ill., 1995, p45)
>
>and
>
>"But of course the naturalists do not leave theistic enclaves alone
>nor should they. A naturalistic government that regulates everything
>else does not hesitate to reward theistic educational institutions
>with their own tax money if they agree to accept "diversity"
>standards. Secular academic societies understandably withhold their
>approval from faculties that do not meet secular standards of
>rationality. Seminarians trained in naturalistic thinking enter the
>ministry in droves with the mission of saving Christianity by leading
>it into an accommodation with modernism. Granted the metaphysical
>assumptions, none of this is in any way reprehensible. People who
>think they have truth on their side naturally want to share the truth
>with others and to bring enlightenment to private enclaves of
>superstition." (Johnson, 1995, p203)
>
>BH>So, I'll ask again:
>>
>> I take it then that we'll here no more insinuations about
>> cover-ups or conspiracies?
SJ>And I will answer you "again", there never were any "insinuations
>about...conspiracies", on my part! :-)
>
[...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E. (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ Email: sejones@iinet.net.au
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Web: http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Warwick 6024 -> *_,--\_/ Phone: +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, Western Australia v "Test everything." (1 Thess. 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 03:13:01 EDT