Re: [asa] Brownback on evolution

From: David Clounch <>
Date: Mon Jun 04 2007 - 08:11:19 EDT

I don't sense a legitimate question here...just a sideswipe. But the
question must be answered. I didn't answer right away because it was s such
a dirty trick in the way it was done.

The answer is:
No, they didn't quote accurately.

And PvM didn't post the whole thing either. Maybe I'll do that later after
I post the Curtsinger letter.

For example, the Scottsman reporter said:

"However, Judge Jones conceded that advocates of ID "have bona fide and
deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavours" and he did not
believe the concept should not be studied and discussed at all."

Is that accurate?

That is actually pretty much my view, unless one wants to distort my view,
which is easy to do in a 10 second sound bite where one doesnt go below the

But I never wanted ID taught in Dover, and I must have told dozens of
reporters that. But this particular reporter called right after the
Curtsinger event, and I must have injected my thoughts about Curtsinger
into the conversation and the reporter then got it wrong.

[[but lets not bother to look any further, lets just jump to a conclusion ]]

Here is another quote from the Scotsman:
"Which scientist decided there isn't any design and, if there aren't any,
why is this debate happening? There's really something else going on - it's
called anti-religious [feeling]."

Yes, I asked that question in a generic sense. And still do today. Because
I want an answer. But I didnt make the statement that no scientist has
decided there isn't design. James Curtsinger said that. (Maybe not in those
exact words though). He is the one who did the research on ID in scientific
literature. He wrote an editorial about that.

Another quote from the Scottsman:

"The Dover policy required students to hear a statement about ID before
ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. The statement said Charles
Darwin's theory was "not a fact" and had inexplicable "gaps", and referred
students to an ID textbook, Of Pandas and People, for more information."

But Pandas and People is a creationist book, not an ID book. Which is part
of why the judge went the way he did...the sneaking in of a creationist book
was deceptive. My point here is the Scottsman reporter completely missed
that fact and reported the book as an ID book. (Actually I don't really know
if the book is ID related or pure creationist, I've just read in the press
elsewhere it was a creationist book).

[[But, you know, don't anybody look beyond the surface here and find out
whats really going on. That would negate any character assassination from

Whats really freaky is anybody calling, asking a bunch of loaded questions,
and then you wonder if maybe they were a journalist writing an article
somewhere and you will get blamed for something your don't deserve and then
sideswiped by angry mobs who have an agenda.

I can tell you that David Horowitz is scared silly of just exactly that with
respect to the origins controversy. He won't even talk about the subject
with anybody. Because crazy people like PvM tend to blame him...they are
looking to go ballistic on someone. He learned the hard way. As did I,
eventually. I totally stopped talking to journalists because its
impossible to educate them. They have already written their story and just
are backfilling with quotes. There's zero reasoning going on there. But
hateful harmful people want to make the press the centerpiece of most
everything. "Its proof by rumor-mongering".

David Horowitz puts his name at the bottom of his posts. So do I.
But who is PvM?

Thank you,
David Clounch

On 6/2/07, PvM <> wrote:
> <quote>David Clounch, of the US-based Intelligent Design Network, said
> ID had not been disproved and, therefore, it was a theory that should
> be taught to schoolchildren.</quote>
> From
> Is this you Dave? Did they quote you correctly?
> ID has not been disproven thus it should be taught. And yet, Newton
> was wrong to attribute the orbits of planets to a deity, and nothing
> happened to ID, after all, finding scientific answers for our
> ignorance hardly disproves our ignorance now does it? Ignorance will
> continue and ID will find solace in our inabilities to understand
> God's creation.
> But really, ID can hardly be seen as a scientific theory worth
> teaching to school children in a science class. Although I could
> potentially see some reasons why it may be taught in schools, after
> all we do still mention alchemy and witch craft I believe.
> David Clounch again
> <quote>"Are these people saying science has concluded there is no
> design? I think it's completely unscientific to draw that conclusion,"
> he said. "The plaintiffs want to tell everybody's kids if you believe
> there is design in the world, that's irrational and science doesn't
> say that. But science doesn't say anything about that.</quote>
> No these people are saying that 1) ID fails to be a science 2) forcing
> ID to be taught as such is fraught with religious problems, which run
> so deep that it may be impossible to disentangle them. Perhaps David
> is somewhat confused as to what the plaintiffs may believe? Is this
> the miscarriage of justice you are referring to?
> I believe Judge Jones' decision was one of great thought and care and
> he did both science, education and religion a favor by his ruling I
> believe.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jun 4 08:12:00 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 04 2007 - 08:12:01 EDT