Quantcast

«

»

Aug 09 2013

I can’t believe I shook Eric Hovind’s hand

I also thanked him for being polite, while he interviewed the group. Evolution supporters had gathered to demonstrate in Houston against creationism being taught as science. I consented to Hovind interviewing me on the condition he didn’t cut the video. However, he weaseled out of his promise by posting the entire interview and then cutting my part of the interview in a separate video in such a way to make it look like I was saying something I wasn’t.

This is the cut interview (click on the title of this post if you can’t see the video links)…

He asked me if truth is the same as real or reality. I said I don’t know if truth equals real. He cut it there before I explained that truth is an umbrella term meaning it can’t be simply interchanged with the term real. He then added a part where I said that I am a science teacher.

This is the full interview with what I said about truth in context in the last few minutes of the video…

The way he misrepresented what I said ironically shows that the truth is not really important to him. How about bearing false witness as well?

 

39 comments

2 pings

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    L.Long

    ‘It is OK to kill people’ said the psychotic amoral killer.
    ‘It is bad to kill people’ said the empathic nice person.
    Both statements are true and both people are real.
    So what is the TRUTH? And which is more REAL?

    1. 1.1
      Ender_Z

      What do you mean by both statements are true? Both are true to the individual?” Both are true to the nature of one situation? Both are intrinsically true creating a universal paradox of superposition? If both statements are true due to the nature of the individual then the answer is simplistic: Which truth leads to greater social wellness? Which enhances the well being the greatest? Then couple that with the intentions of the propositioning individual. If you already know the speaker is psychotic and amoral, then listening to them is most likely the least ethical thing to enhance and progress a society.

      Read Sam Harris’ book The Moral Landscape, he is exceptionally good at explaining these concepts, and then maybe you will be able to formulate a feasible argument about the perception of ethics.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Landscape

      1. lilandra

        Again truth is an umbrella term. True and ethical are not always interchangeable either.

        1. Ender_Z

          Exactly, which is why the term “truth” is highly subjective. Countless people know the “truth.” But how often do those supposed “truths” help…

    2. 1.2
      Monocle Smile

      Reducing moral dilemmas to black-and-white dichotomies is asinine, and I think you already know this.

    3. 1.3
      steve oberski

      Which type of society would you prefer to live in ?

      The one where “It is OK to kill people” is the truth or the one where “It is bad to kill people” is the truth ?

      And by the way, is there any commonly used word that religious nutjobs aren’t willing to pervert ?

      It’s gotten to the point where words like “truth”, “theory”, “faith”, “belief” and “knowledge” have been contaminated by godbots to the point that they can no longer be used in normal conversations.

      Give it a rest and stop trying to force your invisible friend into every fucking conversation.

      1. Ender_Z

        I almost resent my social-network-conditioned mind to search for the like button…

      2. N. Nescio

        I don’t see why one has to choose, because they’re both true.

        It’s generally not OK to kill people…except when it is, like lawfully protecting oneself or others against the unavoidable threat of death or grievous bodily harm. I’m opposed to judicial executions, but I wouldn’t be bothered in the slightest knowing a would-be rapist died when its would-be victim defended her right to control what happens to her body.

        1. steve oberski

          I would still prefer to live in a society where in general ““It is OK to kill people” is deemed to be a falsehood and in general ““It is bad to kill people” is deemed to be a truth.

          I’m sure we could sit around all day thinking up exceptions but that would not change my (or I think your) basic position on the matter.

          1. N. Nescio

            Well, actually, I entirely agree with you: I too would much rather live in the society you described. I would also prefer to drive a Ferrari to work, but here we are.

    4. 1.4
      Norman Thorsen

      Both statements are opinion and, as such, are only subjectively true. Each denotes a belief.

  2. 2
    theignored

    PZ Myers has an example of Hovind and another guy being dishonest:
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/05/14/the-bottom-of-the-barrel/

  3. 3
    ashley

    http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3265&p=46683#p46683
    Please see my comment here at 2.43 am BST on 10.8.13.

  4. 4
    No One

    Lilandra,

    That you are willing to confront your fear of public speaking in order to speak of a subject that you consider important points to your strength of character. I find it interesting that Hovind chose to edit out his hesitations and and verbal delivery problems from his edited version. It’s dishonest and cowardly (spits). This group of people who judge on appearance, verbal adroitness, and mode of transportation is indicative of their immaturity. “Judge not others”… their god, if he existed would be disappointed.

  5. 5
    No One

    …. and I should of proof read my post.

  6. 6
    Holms

    Eric Hovind:
    “Science could never examine the supernatural by definition.”

    Lilandra:
    “if there was any evidence of the supernatural, like let’s just go ahead and say god… [rebuttal]“

    To add to this response, I would suggest that if supernatural is defined as something that does not leave evidence of itself – hence the argument that it cannot be examined by naturalistic means – then it also does not leave evidence of its own existence. With no evidence, we have no reason to believe it exists.

    Further, if the supernatural did leave evidence of itself, then it would cease to be ‘super’ natural; the existence of evidence not only gives us reason to believe in it, but also renders it mundane.

    So as far as I’m concerned, supernatural / paranormal / divine / spiritual / etc. are all non extant by definition.

    1. 6.1
      leftwingfox

      Well, I disagree with you, but it gets a little fantasy-fanwanky. I’ll get the disclaimer out of the way first, which is that I don’t think we have any evidence of these versions of the supernatural either:

      1) Intentionalism: This is the Deepak Chopra view that the observer manipulates reality, and can learn to manipulate it. Taken to it’s extreme, this means reality is subordinate to observation; kind of a hard sell when technology works regardless of belief.

      2) Orthogonal Reality: The basis of horror movies: there is a reality with it’s own rules which ignores physics, but there is no observable mechanism linking cause and effect. Dracula changes form in defiance of the conservation of mass, but and only take on certain forms (wolf, bat, fog). Shoot him in the head, nothing happens. Wooden stake in the heart, and he falls to dust. Suitable explanation for alternative medicine and magic spells, if we actually observed effect following cause.

      3) Creator exists outside creation: This is the Christian miracle notion, that God can manipulate the world through miracles, defying the laws of reality which everything else must follow. Of course, that needs actual miracles, not pareidolia of Jesus and Mary in the oil stain in the driveway, or sewage seeping from a statue.

      The fourth is “Obscured Reality”, that is something natural but beyond our current understanding, and unlock-able by Clarke’s “Sufficiently Advanced Technology”, which is what you’re talking about.

  7. 7
    hoary puccoon

    Scientists have tried to examine the supernatural over and over again. It’s just that every time they’ve really looked into it, a natural explanation has emerged.

    Some scientists who used the Linnean system to work out relationships between species truly believed they were studying the mind of God. (I think Agassiz was in that camp. But I’m writing this with my house torn up and a plumber rushing around. So this post isn’t adequately researched.) Paley, writing about adaptations, believed he was writing about God’s design. But when scientists eventually worked out what was really going on, it became obvious the explanation wasn’t the Christian God– or any other god– but the natural process of evolution.

    So it’s not that scientists don’t study the supernatural on principle. It’s that they don’t study it because they’ve never been able to find it.

  8. 8
    Hojo.Jack

    What? A creationist being dishonest? What is next? The sky being blue?

    1. 8.1
      Monocle Smile

      I think water being wet comes first.

  9. 9
    F [is for failure to emerge]

    Wife of Aaron Ra

    Oh, FFS. Because that’s the only way to identify lilandra, right? Creationists: bad at science, good at patriarchy.

    1. 9.1
      Antares42

      Well let’s not get carried away. I think it’s not entirely unreasonable to say that more people know Aaron, so introducing her as “that guy’s wife” is not necessarily patriarchal malice.

      Remember the story about the Norwegian girl facing jail time in Dubai for (being drunk and) getting raped? Her employer who dropped her like a hot potato instead of supporting her was identified as “Janet Jackson’s husband”. If I cried “misandry” now, you’d kick me in the nuts, and rightly so.

      TL;DR: This is more likely about “celebrity scores” than about gender.

      1. lilandra

        Actually more creationists that he and Ham know about me than Aron. Ham has been blasting me for months for criticizing him on his blog. The story was picked up by the Christian Post. Ham has also played a video of me at this conference and others.

  10. 10
    Brony

    I do not believe that truth is the same as reality.

    When I look back at all the times that I have encountered the word reality used and the word truth used I see a particular pattern. Truth is used more often when one is in politics, religion, and other arenas where there is a highly emotionally subjective element to what one thinks of reality. The word truth is just more rhetorically useful in a lot of areas and a religious audience likes truth better than reality because it “stokes their feels” better. To me truth seems to be the word we use when we want to speak of reality, but have no data or other evidence we can point to, but have a lot of other people who think the way we do. Truth is reality for tribalists.

  11. 11
    Brony

    Actually I should mention that I’m not using tribalism in a derogatory way there. We are humans and all act tribal. I think we should just be tribal with knowledge of what we are doing. A better way of saying what I mean might be a that things are real when they are independent of humans(minerals, temperatures, chemistry), and true when there needs to be a human for their realness (philosophy, comedy, favorite flavors).

  12. 12
    gwen

    I can’t believe you trusted him to be honest. He’s never been honest before, why would he grow some integrity just for you?

  13. 13
    lanir

    it’s really difficult to be witty enough and facile enough with words to out-maneuver someone who has prepared a trap for you beforehand. And even with that huge advantage, he still had to toss several interviews into a blender and piece them out a sentence or even a phrase at a time to make them sound disjointed. It occurs to me this practice is very similar to how they pick and choose the phrases they like from their holy book, plaster them everywhere, and willfully ignore the rest.

    So basically, you got the Bible treatment. You just happen to be an inconveniently intelligent female with the bad grace to be living in modern times rather than an ignorant tribesman from thousands of years ago focused on upholding his patriarchy and doing some rather obnoxious “Get off my lawn!” business with the other local religions.

  14. 14
    Lothars Sohn

    Hovind might be hopelessly irrational, but the question he posed was a profound philosophical one.

    The truth of evolution, for example, must be real, but what is its nature?

    It seems far-fetched it could be identical to a bunch of particles somewhere in the universe, and I find more likely it is some kind of platonic idea but this would show that materialism is false.

    Sorry to get too philosophical, but I find this question a very perplexing one.

    How many joints of pure weed did Hovind smoke before he asked you this?
    I cannot belief his brain alone would have been able to produce it.

    Regards.

    Lothars Sohn – Lothar’s son

    http://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com

    1. 14.1
      M can help you with that.

      The truth of evolution, for example, must be real, but what is its nature?

      One of my favorite quotes — “Malkhut is Malkhut, and that’s that.” No reification necessary.

    2. 14.2
      Monocle Smile

      M nailed it. There’s no need to mentally masturbate over some higher teleology that evidently doesn’t exist.

      From your blog, it’s rather apparent that this kind of masturbatory practice is a hobby of yours. That’s fine, but you won’t find much traction here.

  15. 15
    Strewth

    Is the true vs. real question really that complex? Present Hovind with a copy of the Qu’ran. Ask him if it is a real object. Then ask him if it is true.

  16. 16
    Dave Mabus

    groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.prophecies.nostradamus/Czf7l8637ow

    for the lying MENTAL CASES at FTB….

    ////.//..//../

  17. 17
    swestfall

    Oh I thought Eric was too afraid to mess with you guys.

    He actually was, but he’s such a coward that he had to play editing games to make you look stupid.

    Thing is, no one has to do that with any of his or his daddy’s talks.

    Just watch them straight!

  18. 18
    swestfall

    BTW, Goebbels would fire Eric Hovind for being such a shitty propagandist!

  19. 19
    Bevis

    Your fault for taking him at his word.

  20. 20
    cyberweez

    I just left a nasty comment on his Creation Today video at YouTube. Don’t beat yourself up L…these people have got some serious problems, psychologically speaking of course. There will come a day when Hovind, Bruggencate, VenomFang, and the rest will realize that they have wasted the only life that they have. And believe me, IT WILL COME! The only question is, WHEN? CWz.

  21. 21
    lilandra

    I can’t believe you trusted him to be honest. He’s never been honest before, why would he grow some integrity just for you?

    and

    Your fault for taking him at his word.

    The responsibility for his behavior is his own not mine. His dishonesty is his decision nor did I force him to be dishonest. It is acceptable for me to point out his lack of accountability.

  22. 22
    Cephus

    The problem is, you know you can’t trust these idiots, no matter what they say. If they ever wanted to interview me, the first thing I’d do is pull out my phone and tell them I was going to record the entire conversation and post it online to keep them from editing or playing games. Then, when they refused to interview me, I’d follow them around for the rest of the day, recording every other conversation they had, with the same proviso.

    How people ever consent to talk to the likes of Ray Comfort and Eric Hovind, I don’t know.

  23. 23
    stefania

    Excellent post, take care of the hard work, you’re doing the work right!

  1. 24
    This week in science: Who you gonna believe? | Ediary Blog

    […] is in business. This week the Ace of Clades shook Hovind’s hand in good faith and promptly got video edited by the esteemed […]

  2. 25
    This week in science: Who you gonna believe? - Online Political Blog

    […] is in business. This week the Ace of Clades shook Hovind’s hand in good faith and promptly got video edited by the esteemed […]

Comments have been disabled.