Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

If the Jackboot Fits . . .

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

It has been more than a year since I posted Nick Matzke – Book Burner?  Which I reproduce here:

Nick Matzke famously got the publishing company Springer to suppress the publication of the papers of a conference held at Cornell.  See here. He did this without having seen, much less read, any of the papers.  Obviously, his motivation could not have been the content of the papers.  He was motivated by the mere fact that several of the conference participants were well-known ID proponents.

Let us do a little thought experiment.  Suppose that Nick had published his famous piece on Panda’s Thumb a few days later, and the head of Springer had called him up and said, “Hey, Nick, I’ve got some bad news and some good news.  The bad news is that it is too late to stop publication of the book.  The printer has done his work and the first printing of the book is finished.  The good news is that not a single copy has left the printer’s warehouse, and they are all in a pile that has been drenched in gasoline.  Nick, all you have to do is come over and toss a match on the pile of books and it will be as if they were never published in the first place.”

Nick follows UD and posts here from time to time, so I have two questions for him:

(1) Nick would you have tossed the match?

(2) If the answer to (1) is “no,” are you not a hypocrite?  After all, the ultimate outcome from tossing the match would be identical to what you actually did – i.e., no book out there for people to buy.

Matzke was certainly aware of the question I posed at the end of my post and even alluded to my post at Panda’s Thumb (see here).  But for over a year now he has studiously avoided answering the question.  I suppose we should not be surprised.  My question put Matzke between the Scylla and Charybdis, and there was no way he could answer the question without coming off as either a book burner or a hypocrite.

I was reminded of this episode this morning when Mark Frank attempted to wrap himself in the cloak of Copernicus and Galileo, to which I responded:

You don’t get it do you? When you invoke Galileo and Copernicus you are condemning those, like yourself, who cling to the old orthodoxy in the face of new developments that make that orthodoxy all but untenable. As you know, I am a connoisseur of fine irony, and this particular dish is especially delicious.

I could have added that the tactics of those who cling to outdated orthodoxy in the 21st century are similar to the tactics of those who persecuted Galileo, including attempting to suppress the publications of those who challenge the prevailing orthodoxy.  So I say to Nick and his fellow travelers, “If the jackboot fits . . .”

Comments
Of course I doubt the statistics. Not only that you haven't even said what you mean by "accepting evolution". YECs accept evolution- they argue the extent evolution can change a population and the starting point of the evolutionary process. And the genetic code pretty much gives it away, ie an intentionally designed program inside of living organisms.Joe
August 1, 2014
August
08
Aug
1
01
2014
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT
Joe @ 24 Feel free to doubt the statistics, Joe; nevertheless they're reasonable evidence that my version of evolution is shared by many hundreds of millions including a majority of Americans. So how do you propose to check whether the genetic basis of life is an intentionally designed program?CLAVDIVS
July 31, 2014
July
07
Jul
31
31
2014
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
I doubt your numbers and I am sure no one went to each and every Christian, properly explained the debate and asked them what they accepted. The programming came from the designer, duh. It is immaterial information similar to the software that runs today's computers.Joe
July 31, 2014
July
07
Jul
31
31
2014
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
Joe @ 21
And Catholics and Protestants are all over the map wrt evolution.
Catholics - 1.2 billion, 60-70% accept evolution = 800 million Protestants - 800 million, 50% accept evolution = 400 million Like I said.
What’s guiding evolution? The internal programming of organisms.
Duh. Where did the programming come from?CLAVDIVS
July 30, 2014
July
07
Jul
30
30
2014
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT
Your attack on girls wouldn't have come from a female. And Catholics and Protestants are all over the map wrt evolution. What's guiding evolution? The internal programming of organisms.Joe
July 30, 2014
July
07
Jul
30
30
2014
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT
Joe @ 20
So CLAVDIVS has its own special brand of evolution. Perhaps some day he will share it with the rest of the world.
Yes, my own special brand of evolution shared by only 800 million Catholics, 400 million Protestants and 62% of Americans. You still haven't said what you think is guiding evolution. And what makes you think I'm male?CLAVDIVS
July 30, 2014
July
07
Jul
30
30
2014
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT
CLAVDIVS- Darwin, Dawkins, Mayr, Coyne et al., all say evolution is unguided. That is what is being taught- natural selection is blind, mindless and without purpose- no guidance there. Genetic drift- no guidance there either. As for checking against objective reality, natural selection has been and it doesn't do anything. Neither does genetic drift. So CLAVDIVS has its own special brand of evolution. Perhaps some day he will share it with the rest of the world. As for guided evolution and reality, well "Evolution: A View from the 21st Century" covers that rather well. So does "Not By Chance". BTW nice of you to show your sexismJoe
July 30, 2014
July
07
Jul
30
30
2014
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT
Joe @ 18
CLAVDIVS- when evos are asked for supporting evidence for unguided evolution they always run away like little pansies. So go soak your head.
So nice of you to join us, Joe. I see you have brought your very special blend of wit, sophistication and class by way of random vituperation completely unrelated to the subject at hand. ... I don't think evolution is "unguided" anyway. How about you tell me what you think might be guiding evolution, and then we'll see if we can check your idea against objective reality. Maybe we'll both learn something.CLAVDIVS
July 30, 2014
July
07
Jul
30
30
2014
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
CLAVDIVS- when evos are asked for supporting evidence for unguided evolution they always run away like little pansies. So go soak your head.Joe
July 30, 2014
July
07
Jul
30
30
2014
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
Nick Matzke is one of the kind Devil's Chaplain.kevnick
July 30, 2014
July
07
Jul
30
30
2014
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
Mung @ 15 Your pathetic quibbling does not detract from my original point: A private company deciding not to publish a book is not the same thing as the state banning the book, so all this talk about jackboots and book burning is absurd, unwarranted rhetorical hyperbole. When Springer received the complete manuscript - i.e. the actual contents of the book, not an "initial proposal" - they called for "additional" peer-review, whereupon the authors ran away to another publisher. Like little girls. Like I've been saying all along.CLAVDIVS
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT
CLAVDIVS:
... once the complete manuscript had been submitted, the series editors became aware that additional peer review would be necessary
Additional: added, extra, or supplementary to what is already present or available. In context: added, extra, or supplementary to [the peer review] already present or available. Your claim, CLAVDIVS, is that no article from the manuscript, prior to it's submission to the publisher, had been submitted to peer review. What's your evidence?Mung
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT
Mung @ 12 No, Mung. Stop lying. From Inside Higher Ed:
"... once the complete manuscript had been submitted, the series editors became aware that additional peer review would be necessary,” Merkel-Sobotta said. “This is currently underway, and the automatically generated pre-announcement for the book on Springer has been removed until the peer-reviewers have made their final decision.”
But before the peer-review by Springer could be completed, the authors ran away like little girls and had the book published by a different publisher, World Scientific.CLAVDIVS
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT
CLAVDIVS:
There’s no innuendo, Mung. I was quite explicit – the authors ran away from peer-review like frightened little girls.
So you were lying earlier:
In any case, it appears that the publisher did not refuse to publish the book; rather they delayed publication pending further peer-review.
CLAVDIVS:
instead of subjecting the book to peer-review, they ran away and had it published by somebody else.
Make up your mind.Mung
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT
Mung @ 9
Who enforces contracts, if not the state?
Enforcing a contract between private parties is not the same thing as the state banning a book. Obviously. In any case, you're blindly assuming that the publisher was contractually bound to publish the book before reviewing it - which is a ridiculous proposition on its face.
In any case, it appears that the publisher did not refuse to publish the book; rather they delayed publication pending further peer-review. Apparently the prospect of peer-review terrified the authors so much they ran off to another publisher.
Ah, innuendo. The certified friend of jack-booted fascism. Nice touch.
There's no innuendo, Mung. I was quite explicit - the authors ran away from peer-review like frightened little girls.CLAVDIVS
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT
Sorry Mung. But if CLAVDIVS' claim is correct, there is no censorship. Or suppression. So, which is it?Acartia_bogart
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT
CLAVDIVS:
So its a contractual dispute between two private parties. This makes talk of jackboots and book-burning, which conjure up images of fascist state suppression, look absurd and hysterical.
Who enforces contracts, if not the state? CLAVDIVS:
In any case, it appears that the publisher did not refuse to publish the book; rather they delayed publication pending further peer-review. Apparently the prospect of peer-review terrified the authors so much they ran off to another publisher. Ah, innuendo. The certified friend of jack-booted fascism. Nice touch.
Mung
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT
This was very educational. I never knew Copernicus and Galileo shared a cloak.rich
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT
Mung @ 6
Are you saying the publisher should have been forced to publish the book?
Absolutely! There was a contract, after all.
So its a contractual dispute between two private parties. This makes talk of jackboots and book-burning, which conjure up images of fascist state suppression, look absurd and hysterical. In any case, it appears that the publisher did not refuse to publish the book; rather they delayed publication pending further peer-review. Apparently the prospect of peer-review terrified the authors so much they ran off to another publisher.CLAVDIVS
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT
OldArmy94 @ 5
A private company deciding not to publish a book is not the same thing as the state banning the book. Are you saying the publisher should have been forced to publish the book?
Of course he isn’t. The point is that this type of activity is one hundred percent inconsistent with science as it should be done. No one is arguing that constitutional rights were violated; rather, it was the privilege of discourse that was interrupted by someone who is afraid that the light of truth will illuminate his folly.
If this is not about constitutional rights, then the OP's inflammatory rhetoric about jackboots and book burning is just ridiculous hyperbole. From Inside Higher Ed:
Eric Merkel-Sobotta, executive vice president of corporate communications at Springer in Germany, said in an e-mail, that the initial proposal for the book was peer-reviewed by two independent reviewers. “However, once the complete manuscript had been submitted, the series editors became aware that additional peer review would be necessary,” Merkel-Sobotta said. “This is currently underway, and the automatically generated pre-announcement for the book on Springer has been removed until the peer-reviewers have made their final decision.” He said Springer was unaware the role the editors of the book play in the intelligent design movement...
So it is the authors who are being one hundred percent inconsistent with science ... instead of subjecting the book to peer-review, they ran away and had it published by somebody else.CLAVDIVS
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
Are you saying the publisher should have been forced to publish the book? Absolutely! There was a contract, after all.Mung
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
A private company deciding not to publish a book is not the same thing as the state banning the book. Are you saying the publisher should have been forced to publish the book? Of course he isn't. The point is that this type of activity is one hundred percent inconsistent with science as it should be done. No one is arguing that constitutional rights were violated; rather, it was the privilege of discourse that was interrupted by someone who is afraid that the light of truth will illuminate his folly.OldArmy94
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
These are not isolated cases of intimidation against prominent ID proponents, but is a general, systematic, trend in Academia by Darwinists for censorship of any opposing views to Darwinian orthodoxy:
“In the last few years I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the above-referenced statement regarding the examination of Darwinism. (Dissent from Darwinism list)(I will comment no further regarding the specifics of the actions taken upon the skeptics; I love and honor my colleagues too much for that.) I never thought that science would have evolved like this. I deeply value the academy; teaching, professing and research in the university are my privileges and joys… ” Professor James M. Tour – one of the top ten most cited chemists in the world https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-world-famous-chemist-tells-the-truth-theres-no-scientist-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/
etc.. etc.. Many times Darwinists simply ‘EXPEL’ anyone who disagrees with them:
EXPELLED – Starring Ben Stein – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-BDc3wu81U Slaughter of Dissidents – Book “If folks liked Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” they will be blown away by “Slaughter of the Dissidents.” – Russ Miller http://www.amazon.com/Slaughter-Dissidents-Dr-Jerry-Bergman/dp/0981873405
Even atheists themselves, who break ranks with the Darwinian ‘consensus’ party line, are severely castigated by Darwinian atheists. There was even a peer-reviewed paper in a philosophy journal by a materialist/atheist that sought to ostracize, and limit the free speech of, a fellow materialist/atheist (Jerry Fodor) who had had the audacity, in public, to dare to question the sufficiency of natural selection to be the true explanation for how all life on earth came to be.
Darwinian Philosophy: “Darwinian Natural Selection is the Only Process that could Produce the Appearance of Purpose” – Casey Luskin – August, 2012 Excerpt: In any case, this tarring and feathering of Fodor is just the latest frustrated attempt by hardline Darwinians to discourage people from using design terminology. It’s a hopeless effort, because try as they might to impose speech codes on each another, they can’t change the fact that nature is infused with purpose, which readily lends itself to, as Rosenberg calls it “teleosemantics.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/blind_darwinian063311.html
The atheistic response to atheist Thomas Nagel’s ‘Mind and Cosmos’ was anything but clam and rational,
The Heretic – Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? – March 25, 2013 http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html
As well, in the court system, we find the same systematic pattern of censorship of Darwinists trying to suppress free speech:
On the Fundamental Difference Between Darwin-Inspired and Intelligent Design-Inspired Lawsuits – September 2011 Excerpt: *Darwin lobby litigation: In every Darwin-inspired case listed above, the Darwin lobby sought to shut down free speech, stopping people from talking about non-evolutionary views, and seeking to restrict freedom of intellectual inquiry. *ID movement litigation: Seeks to expand intellectual inquiry and free speech rights to talk about non-evolutionary views. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/on_the_fundamental_difference_050451.html
bornagain77
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT
As to censorship in general, instead of free intellectual inquiry, censorship would be the typical Darwinian modus operandi to suppress dissent. Disagree??? Well,,
Wikipedia's Tyranny of the Unemployed - David Klinghoffer - June 24, 2012 Excerpt: PLoS One has a highly technical study out of editing patterns on Wikipedia. This is of special interest to us because Wikipedia's articles on anything to do with intelligent design are replete with errors and lies, which the online encyclopedia's volunteer editors are vigilant about maintaining against all efforts to set the record straight. You simply can never outlast these folks. They have nothing better to do with their time and will always erase your attempted correction and reinstate the bogus claim, with lightning speed over and over again. ,,, on Wikipedia, "fact" is established by the party with the free time that's required to wear down everyone else and exhaust them into submission. The search for truth (on Wikipedia) yields to a tyranny of the unemployed. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/wikipedias_tyra061281.html An Interview with David Noble – Peer Review as Censorship by SUZAN MAZUR – 2010 Excerpt: SUZAN MAZUR: I’ve been focusing on abuse inside the peer review system in recent articles for CounterPunch. The system seems to have spiraled out of control – to the extent that at the low end we now find virtual death squads on Internet blogs out to destroy scientists who have novel theories. They pretend to be battling creationism but their real job is to censor the free flow of ideas on behalf of the science establishment. The science establishment rewards bloody deeds like these by putting the chief assassin on the cover of The Humanist magazine, for example.,, http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/02/26/peer-review-as-censorship/
The censorship against ID many times will even extend, past internet blogs and Wikipedia, down into peer review and academia itself. The following is very informative for exposing that ‘systematic bias’ by Darwinists within peer review:
“The Problem With Peer-Review” – Casey Luskin – February 2012 – podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-02-28T10_10_16-08_00 How the Scientific Consensus is Maintained – Granville Sewell (Professor of Mathematics University of Texas – El Paso) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRLSwVRdNes ID theorist Mike Behe was refused a response in Microbe – September 22, 2013 https://uncommondescent.com/irreducible-complexity/id-theorist-mike-behe-was-refused-a-response-in-microbe/ The Letter that Science Refused to Publish – November 8, 2013 Excerpt: Stephen Meyer sought the opportunity to reply, in the pages of Science, to UC Berkeley paleontologist Charles Marshall, who reviewed Darwin’s Doubt in the same publication. Without explanation, the editors refused to publish the letter. We offer it for your interest. See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/the_letter_that078871.html Censorship Loses: Never Forget the Story of Biological Information: New Perspectives Casey Luskin – August 20, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/censorship_lose075541.html
bornagain77
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT
A private company deciding not to publish a book is not the same thing as the state banning the book. Are you saying the publisher should have been forced to publish the book?CLAVDIVS
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
Personally, I think you are being too hard on those who hold on to religious orthodoxy.Henry Crun
July 28, 2014
July
07
Jul
28
28
2014
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply