Bob's Conspiracies about the Prop 8 Ruling

Bob, like every right-wing paranoid, demands his listeners believe in conspiracies. These aren't elaborate or fantastical conspiracies, they are simple, unsubstantiated claims that demonstrate that everyone except Christian Republicans have ulterior motives.

This is Bob talking about the recent ruling from the Federal District Court, in which the court overruled California's Proposition 8:



Bob makes 3 points:

1) The will of the people is the final determination of what is "constitutional."
2) Judge Walker, placed on the Federal bench by George H. W. Bush, isn't a proper Republican because he is "liberal."
3) Finally, because Judge Walker is a homosexual, he has an inherent conflict of interest.

Did you notice that Bob provided absolutely no evidence for any of his claims?

Beyond the fact that Bob provided no evidence for any of his points, he's also wrong on all three points. Let's examine them in order:

First, Bob asserts that the will of the people is the final word on what is Constitutional. If this is true, then all rights are determined by mob rule. Think about it: Could a popular vote revoke your First Amendment right to Free Speech? Could slavery be reinstated by a majority that votes to revoke the Thirteenth Amendment? Could a majority of Americans pass a Constitutional amendment that requires the death penalty for all red-headed people?

If you answered "no" to any of these questions, then human rights are not determined by popular vote. Bob provides no reasons why it's proper for rights to be determined by the mob.

Second, how does Bob know that Judge Walker is not a proper Republican? And, more importantly, what authority does Bob have to determine what the correct Republican position's is? What standards does he apply? Apparently, it's as simple as Bob not approving your point-of-view. If Bob doesn't like your position on a particular issue, you don't get to be in his club. This puts Bob on a witch hunt for the party disloyal, and he gets to play judge, jury and executioner.

Finally, why does Bob assume that because Judge Walker is homosexual he is incapable of properly applying the law? Why does sexual orientation give rise to a conflict of interest? Further, has Bob presented any evidence to support his accusation of a conflict of interest? No, Bob provides no answers. He just makes accusations and draws wild conclusions.

And note the rhetorical trick that Bob is using: Bob doesn't comment on the substance of the ruling. Bob doesn't examine the Court's finding of facts or legal conclusions. In fact, Bob fails to take up the actual issues that the parties to the suit presented. Bob would rather convince you that Judge Walker is corrupt, and, that because "the people" voted on Proposition 8, it is now sacrosanct.

Conspiracy theories work in a particular way: The proponent of the theory laces a few facts with unprovable conclusions to convince you of some absurdity. For a guy who insists that he provides scads of evidence, Bob's reasoning is sloppy, worthy of an uneducated, paranoid mind.

Bob and The Straw Man

So there I was on Friday, sitting down for lunch at my desk. It was noon, so I turned on the Bob Dutko "News Hour." As I was taking a bite of my sandwich, Bob announced that he was upset about "liberals" using the straw man fallacy. I nearly choked on my sandwich, since, as a long time listener, I know that the straw man fallacy is one of Dutko's very favorite rhetorical techniques. I quickly turned up the radio, so I can learn about the straw man from the Master.

But before I get into what Bob said, let's review a little about the straw man fallacy. The Wikipedia presents several techniques for setting up a straw man argument. One technique is to "[p]resent a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted." Another is to "[i]nvent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical."

This prior technique is essentially what Bob explained to his audience. Bob then complained that a USA Today editorial (which I have been unable to find) mischaracterized the conservative position on immigration. According to Bob, the editorial stated that conservatives were against immigration. Bob says that conservatives, such as him, are only against illegal immigration. Okay.

But then Bob went on one of his patented rants and, in the process, invoked the latter straw man technique described above. Bob claimed that the straw man fallacy was used "by many of the political left"; by "the liberals"; by "the pro-evolutionists"; and by the "pro-abortionites". Of course, Bob named no names and gave no concrete examples. Bob said it, so it must be true.

But Bob is no stranger to the prior technique of misrepresenting an opponents position. In fact, he did it at least twice on the prior Friday (5/18). First, Bob misrepresented scientist's study of abiogenesis, or the origin of life. Bob claimed, and I paraphrase, "that that the evolutionist's position is take a rock, stare at it for a few million years, and it turns into a human being." Of course, this isn't the position of any serious scientist and Bob knows it. Second, Bob misrepresenting the position of climatologists, claiming that they're predicting "the end of the world." While climatologists are definitely alarmed by the consequences of global warming, I have yet to hear anyone say it will cause the end of humanity or of life on Earth.

So, Bob, please do us all a favor. Try practicing what you preach once in a while.

Don’t allow evidence to infringe faith, ever.

Bob’s callers were this afternoon reacting to ABC’s “Nightline” piece featuring Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.

One female caller, gushing enthusiasm for what she hoped had happened but didn't, said Dr. Grady McMurtry would have argued more forcefully than did Comfort and Cameron for the young earth creation position. Bob agreed strongly.

Dr. McMurtry is Bob’s star performer on young earth creation and a literal reading of the bible. While Dr. McMurtry was again holding forth on Bob’s program, September 10, 2002, Lynn from St. Clair Shores called and asked how to resolve conflicts between scripture and science.

My recording of the exchange captured Dr. McMurtry’s reply: “We should never substitute evidence for faith but what we are showing is that we have an evidence-based faith. The apostle Paul said Christians are supposed to have a reasoned, logical evidence-based faith -- that we don’t substitute evidence for faith but we do have a reasonable, logical evidence-based faith in what we believe and this of course is what we are all about -- and our first filter should always be a Breaean filter -- Acts 17:11 -- the accommodation to the Breaeans that they first checked everything against the word of God; if it didn’t line up it was rejected. If it was lined up, it was accepted, and that is our first filter.”

So Grady, the scientist, says, filter it. “...if [evidence] lines up with the word of God,” we are to accept it, if not reject it.

People on the creation side say they want their view presented in the schools. Science types, hard-boiled folks they are, say such adulteration would degrade and damage the discipline of science.

Grady with his "filter” is just what they are talking about.

There's something wrong with Bob's story.

Today, Bob went through his “censorship” mantra in explaining why creation is not presented in science textbooks, claiming that all the evidence should be put on the table. Fine.

Since Bob is young earth creationist and fully convinced evidence supports his view, he should he eager to put the evidence on the table for all to fully examine. He should be able to present unfossilized dinosaur bones and polystrait fossils.

He should be able to demonstrate how the laws of physics show evolution to be impossible.

But the proper place to present evidence is in front of a recognized professional scientific societies.

But the young earth creationists don't present evidence to scientific societies. They simply write op-ed articles, publish books, stage debates, and whine noisily about being kept away from the scientific table.

Hell, the Discover Institute, even hired a PR firm to get it's message out.

This means that creationists haven't earned a seat at the table, they're the intellectual equivalent of a screaming four-year-old.

If their evidence is as convincing as they claim, creationist claims would have withstood the demands of exacting field work, presented experiments that could be replicated, held up to fatiguing peer review. They would be be able to display their findings with pride their findings before 700 hushed members of the numerous scientific societies.

Becuase that’s how science is done. Like it or not, creationists have to play by the rules of science to call the end result “science.”

Think about it this way: In order to play a professional game of golf, one must adhere to the rules of golf.

Suppose Bob claimed to be world’s greatest golfer. We’d say, “Really, Bob? Where are your PGA trophies?” Bob would say, “Oh well, PGA censors me! They won’t let me play in the tournaments, and make me count ALL my strokes. But take my word, I AM the greatest golfer.”

Sorry, Bob if you want to be recognized in a discipline you have to conform to the rules of the discipline. To complain about them is to admit, loudly, that you cannot conform to them.

Remember, Michael Behe admitted to the “Kitzmiller” court that the rules of science would have to be changed for ID to be considered “Science.” Changed so much that astrology would be science.

Bob complains so loudly about the overpowering mass of evidence that shouts “creationism!” yet no one, anywhere, hears it. Simply because there is something very wrong, terribly wrong, with Bob’s creation story.

Bob's outraged. Again.

Last Tuesday, Bob was outraged (outraged!) about some part-time biology teacher in Oregon who was fired. Bob framed the story as this poor biology teacher who was fired for merely referring to the Bible during a lesson on evolution.

Like many things that Bob says, this is patently false. It is clear from this story that the teacher in question, Kris Helphinstine, was not fired for merely mentioning the Bible. Rather, Mr. Helphinstine was fired for a rather stark deviation from the approved curriculum by "teaching" some sort of linkage between evolution, Nazi Germany, abortion, eugenics, and Planned Parenthood. He even used some crazy, incoherent Powerpoint presentations, which you can view here and here (Internet Explorer required). Can any reasonably sane person, after viewing this material, argue that Mr. Helphinstine did not deserve to be fired after a mere eight (8) days on the job?!

Let's keep in mind what's going on here. The religious right is continually trying to discredit evolution and teach the so-called theory of intelligent design (ID) to public school students. They tried to put ID into Kansas' science curriculum, but they failed. They tried to put ID into a Pennsylvania school's science curriculum, but they failed. Finally, they tried to insert their own teacher to tell students that evolution and Nazi eugenics go hand-in-hand, but they have failed.

When will Bob and the rest of the religious right get the message that the vast majority of this country supports real science and does not want creationism taught in science class?

Bob Doesn't Evolve, He Just Re-treads the Same Tired Crap

There's an old aphorism: Repeat a lie enough times and it becomes the truth.

Repeating a lie over and over is, for Bob, a form of "proof."

On Tuesday, Bob spoke with Bruce Chapman of the Discovery Institute. Bob had Bruce on his show to talk about those mean scientists who want to "censor" the Discovery Institute. The reason for this bitch-and-moan session is that the Discovery Institute has been invited by SMU's Christian Legal Society to hold a conference entitled "Darwin vs Design." DI is going put on an event that claims that the universe is too complex to have arise through natural forces and the mean scientists who work at the university don't want the event to occur.

But before Bob and Bruce began bitching, Bob took to reassuring his audience. Bobbo told his listeners of a rule he discovered when it comes to debate. It's simple: If one side wants to censor the other, it's because they censors have weaker arguments than the censored. Evolutionists want to censor Creation "scientists" because they know that Creationism is better science. Bob called it "common sense."

I call it circumstantial ad hominem. Just because scientists are protecting the integrity of scientific ideas doesn't make them "censors." Nor does it invalidate evolution. It means that they are taking a position that Bob, in his ignorant way, fails to understand.

And the ignorance kept flowing, like the waters of the mighty Mississippi.

In starting the conversation, Bob and Bruce asserted that evolutionists are afraid of the Discovery Institute because their motives are "atheistic." And since atheism is an inherently religious idea, creationists should be allowed to counter their claims.

Liars!

Evolution is not an "atheistic" position. It is not a "religious" position. It is a scientific position.

Evolution is the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms. It is the description of a process. Evolution is not inherently anything but a description of the forces through which species survive and adapt to their environment.

So Bob and Brucie are perceiving evolution as atheistic even though it's makes no claim about the existence of God. Bobbo and Brucie are answering a question that evolution doesn't ask.

Which takes us to their second point.

Bobbo and Brucie always "welcome debate." They welcome debate because they claim to be presenting scientific arguments. Should this debate occur, creationists would be victorious, and evolutionists would crumble from the force of their arguments.

Liars!

Why should scientists debate creationists when creationists fail to even understand or represent evolution accurately? Hell, Bruce isn't even a scientist! He's a politician! Scientists can and will debate, provided the debate is scientific. But again, Creationists have to misrepresent their agenda because it's distinctly non-scientific. They want make the argument about religion and then claim that it's science!

But don't be fooled. Creationism has no basis in science.

In the seminal case Kitzmiller v. Dover, the Federal bench had to determine if creationism is, in fact, science. Creationism was found wanting. The Court concluded, "[W]e have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

So if Creationism isn't science, why should scientists debate creationists? The answer is that they shouldn't have to. But if creationists did actual science, I'm sure the scientists would welcome the debate. Until then, real scientists don't owe creationists the time of day.

All of which explains why the scientists at SMU are angry about the Discovery Institutes's campaign of misinformation.

Finally, Brucie and Bob claimed that this issue is, ultimately, about the nature of logic.

I have to say I agree.

The issue is whether people should accept the truth of evolution based upon the mounds of evidence the supports it, or to surrender logic and believe two people who can't be honest enough to represent evolution accurately.

But you should always know, that no matter how many times Bob lies, dissembles, or outright misrepresents evolution, its still true.

Because the science says so.

Talking Points Are NOT Science

It's a simple decision.

It's the obvious decision.

And it's the best decision because it teaches the students of Kansas the cornerstone of biological science.

The Kansas State Board of Education returned to the teaching of evolution.

And because the Kansas Board returned to good, scientific educational standards, Bobbo got his dander up. He pulled out his tired little talking points whined in his own inimitable way. First, Bobbo grumbled that Kansas is no longer allowing debate. Then he puled that Kansas only went back to teaching evolution because "most schools do." Finally, he whimpered that liberals, democrats, and intelligentsia are censoring all the scientific evidence that disproves evolution.

Wrong on all three counts, Bobbo.

First, there was plenty of debate. In fact, you guys started it. You guys made Kansas a joke. But on August 1, 2006 the citizens of Kansas realized that you side is made up of idiots and threw you out on your ass. Deal with it.

Second, most schools teach evolution because it is factual. Although Bobbo doesn't believe it, evolution is supported by observation. On the other hand, creationism is supported by the Genesis account, none of which is testable by the scientific method. Once creationists produce something that can be confirmed through testing and observation, scientists will be more than happy to talk. Sure, it will be prefaced with pointing and laughing, but they'll still talk.

Third, the liberals, democrats, and intelligentsia are censoring nothing. Because creationism is nothing more than an attempt to interject religion into the science classrooms. Don't believe me? Here's the Honorable John Jones, author of the now famous Kitzmiller opinion:

[At trial] scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator. To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

So there you go. All of Bob's little talking points debunked.

It's simple, really.

Obviously, Bob doesn't know what he's talking about.

Dinosaurs Co-existed with Man and Rode on the Ark with Noah

Bob is a young earth creationist (YEC) who believes in a literal interpretation of the Genesis story. The only way to correlate Genesis and the fact that you can go to the Field Museum and see assembled bones of a dinosaurs is to rationalize that man and dinosaurs co-existed.

When Bob gets on one of his YEC rants, he likes to rattle off a laundry list of so-called "proof" that dinosaurs didn't die out millions of years ago, but rather thousands of years ago. One rant goes something like this: A "creation scientist" sent some dinosaur bone fragments to the University of Arizona for carbon-14 testing; the "creation scientist" didn't tell the folks at Arizona that these were dinosaur bones, because then they wouldn't agree to test them (y'know, cause mainstream scientists are all in on the "conspiracy" to suppress the "truth"); Arizona performs the test and finds that the samples are only about 10,000 years old and sends a letter back to the "creation scientist"; therefore, evolution is a lie. Bob always likes to mention that he has this letter from Arizona right in front of him. (I'm pretty sure that this is the letter Bob is referring to.)

Unfortunately (for Bob) this whole story has been debunked long ago. Bradley Lepper, an Archaeologist with the Ohio Historical Society wrote a research paper detailing the intentional deception of these "creation scientists." Here's the Cliffs Notes version: "[t]he so-called “dates” [provided by Arizona] are meaningless numbers which give the age of a mixture of organic detritus and preservatives which contaminated the fossils. They have nothing whatsoever to do with the age of any dinosaurs."

There's a Roman legal principal that goes falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything). Basically, if someone willfully falsifies one matter, then they're not credible in any matter. This fits Bob to a tee.