Antievolution Wesley R. Elsberry on 29 Jan 2006 10:40 am
An “ID” Survey in the Blogosphere
I got a request to respond to a survey, the survey group being those who run pro-science websites and weblogs (though not referred to in quite that way), the particular answers to remain anonymous, and the results to be posted to an “intelligent design” weblog when completed.
The survey has but one question:
On which points are intelligent design and creationism identical? [...] (Please check all that apply.)
The options given are, as often happens in amateur surveys, wretchedly incomplete. Here they are:
A. Both creationism and intelligent design require one to have a particular interpretation of the Biblical creation account.
B. Both creationism and intelligent design require one to accept a particular age of the Earth and of the universe.
C. Both creationism and intelligent design require one to reject evolution.
D. Both creationism and intelligent design identify the Christian God as the creator.
E. Both creationism and intelligent design hold that there is an intelligence behind certain features of nature.
F. There are no points of similarity between creationism and intelligent design.
G. None of the above options accurately describe the relationship between creationism and intelligent design.
I hope that others responding to this question, if sticking with the options above, simply respond with “G”.
If nothing else, the author of this survey has managed to overlook the option recently taken by Judge Jones in the decision for the Kitzmiller v. DASD case:
“Intelligent design” (or other labels on the same argument content) is a sham designed to insert the same arguments that were ruled impermissible in previous cases.
Another live option that encapsulates the same relationship without bringing in the legal term “sham” would be:
“Intelligent design” is a subset of the arguments previously labeled “creation science”.
Consider Henry M. Morris of the Institute for Creation Research, who criticized “intelligent design” thus: “It is not really a new approach, using basically the same evidence and arguments used for years by scientific creationists but made to appear more sophisticated with complex nomenclature and argumentation.”
I think that people who answer within the current framework, but don’t take option “G”, are likely to respond with option “E”. And I think that the useful rhetoric for “ID” to be gained thereby is to say that even pro-science people don’t see overlap between the religious content of “ID” and SciCre. For various other options given, the “ID” rhetoric is likely to be that the respondents simply “don’t understand ID”, and “how can they make such false criticisms?” The option likely to be touted as the “honest” answer would be “F”, though anyone picking that would have to be pretty much completely ignorant of the argument content of the two labels.
As given, the whole thing looks phonier than a street game of three-card Monte. And like that venerable con, the mark either cannot give the right answer, or is likely to get mugged for doing so.
<> 8576 3443 >
CafePress Shop
on 29 Jan 2006 at 11:20 am 1.PZ Myers said …
I got the same thing, and thought about posting my response (which was about the same as yours) on Pharyngula…but then decided nah, it wasn’t worth the effort, and did the virtual equivalent of crumpling it up and tossing it in the trash.
I think that, in addition to being a rhetorical tool that would be publicly diddled by the surveyor to meet whatever conclusion he had predetermined, it was a ploy for attention.
on 29 Jan 2006 at 12:36 pm 2.Austringer said …
PZ, I considered that, and decided that a bit of public education was worthwhile nonetheless, as I suspect that any received responses will be spun. Hopefully, the issues are now clear to other webmasters and bloggers.
on 29 Jan 2006 at 1:08 pm 3.john m. lynch said …
Yup. Me too. My reaction was the same as PZ’s, but it may none the less be worth sending people in this direction.
on 29 Jan 2006 at 3:29 pm 4.afarensis said …
I did respond with “H. ‘Intelligent design’ is a subset of the arguments previously labeled ‘creation science’.”
on 29 Jan 2006 at 4:27 pm 5.Pharyngula said …
Just say “no” to stupid surveys
I was not alone in receiving a silly survey from an ID creationist: Tara, Mike, John, and Wesley all got it, and all rejected its premise. I’m joining in the universal dismissal. If you’re curious, I’ve put the “survey” below…
on 30 Jan 2006 at 4:57 am 6.Telic Thoughts » Activism and the problem with blog polls said …
[...] Unfortunately, some ID critics didn’t like the scientific method to be applied to themselves. Within 27 minutes, one of the respondents, Wesley Elsberry of The Austringer, had posted the contents of my letter, advising others to reply by choosing “G”. And within hours, other blogs had followed, including the higly popular Pharyngula. As another respondent, Tara Smith, said, “If you received [a mail], check out their comments before sending your answer back.” Predictably, all of the respondents who replied either chose “G” or refused to participate in the survey (as it was of course their right to do, the survey being voluntary). [...]
on 30 Jan 2006 at 8:05 am 7.Austringer said …
That’s funny… since when is a survey whose sole question leaves out the main real relationship in question out of the listed options for an answer a part of the “scientific method”?
Like I said, it was just a setup for a mugging. Thanks for confirming my prescience, Krauze.
on 30 Jan 2006 at 9:31 am 8.Austringer said …
There is a sociologist’s analysis of the survey as stated. He didn’t like it much.
on 31 Jan 2006 at 4:47 am 9.analyysi said …
Wesley Elsberry, why did you see it necessary to notify your fellow bloggers immediately after receiving the poll?
on 31 Jan 2006 at 9:35 am 10.Telic Thoughts » Responses to the blog poll said …
[...] But this attempt was quickly dashed, as a few critics used their blogs to tell others what to reply. Within 27 minutes of having received his email, Wesley Elsberry of The Austringer had posted the contents of my letter, advising others to reply by choosing “Gâ€. Later, he said, “Hopefully, the issues are now clear to other webmasters and bloggers.” John Lynch of Stranger Fruit was hot on the heels of Elsberry, assuring his readers that “The answer is, of course, ‘G’ and ‘G’ alone.” Tara Smith of Aetiology linked to Eslberry’s and Lynch’s post, advising people to “check out their comments before sending your answer back.” And Paul Myers of the widely read Pharyngula quickly linked to all of these posts, making sure to get the news out to anyone who might have received a poll. [...]
on 31 Jan 2006 at 11:08 am 11.Austringer said …
What, do you have a problem with discussion of controversial topics? Do you have a problem with having the “survey” being shown to be radically incomplete and misleading as given? Do you have a problem with letting others know that accepting the options stated overlooks the answer given in recent legal proceedings?
Should I simply stand by and let others perhaps be misled? I don’t think so.
on 31 Jan 2006 at 1:43 pm 12.analyysi said …
No.
I didn’t see anything “radically incomplete and misleading” with it. I would understand you better, if Krauze HAD published the results, and his/her results had lied about bloggers real position. But I dont’t understand: “why the rush in criticizing a poll that hadn’t been published yet?”
) If someone had choosed (for example) C, why he/she would have been misled? (Especially, if he/she himself/herself thinks that C is correct)
on 31 Jan 2006 at 6:49 pm 13.Austringer said …
It did not include in the stated options, “‘Intelligent design’ (or other labels on the same argument content) is a sham designed to insert the same arguments that were ruled impermissible in previous cases,” which is the import of the ruling in Kitzmiller v. DASD. If you can’t see that leaving that out is a major omission, I doubt there’s anything further that can be gained by discussion. It is an indication of either base incompetence in survey design, rank ignorance of the relevant topic, or a deliberate attempt to mislead. I think those alternatives cover the live possibilities.
on 11 Feb 2006 at 4:07 pm 14.Uncommon Descent » Conspiracy as a Way of Life said …
[...] 37 ID critics were asked to answer the question below the fold. Within 27 minutes of receiving the poll Wesley Elsberry contacted everyone he thought might’ve received the poll advising them how to answer it. Wesley, for those of you who don’t know, is a leading member of the National Center for Selling Evolution Science Education. The NCSE is an organization the U.S. Office of Special Counsel says conspired with the Smithsonian Institution to discredit Rick Sternberg in response to Sternberg allowing an ID sympathetic paper to be published in a biology journal connected with the Smithsonian. [...]
on 13 Feb 2006 at 11:58 am 15.Austringer said …
See http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/sternberg_compl.html
First, what OSC flack McVay reports NCSE did, then Nick Matzke’s brief response: