Merged Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham/Science smack-down!/What Bill Nye Doesn't Know

[RecoveringYuppy]

Either way, having a fundamentally different worldview is not really evidence of pathological lying. Weak evidence for other things, potentially, but not much more than that.

Fundamentally different worldview? A "worldview" that they use to construct their own facts not just their own opinions. I'm sorry, I don't see the point in making excuses for people who lie at every turn. Some of them can be excused by ignorance, but certainly not all of them.

 

[Aridas]

Fundamentally different worldview? A "worldview" that they use to construct their own facts not just their own opinions. I'm sorry, I don't see the point in making excuses for people who lie at every turn. Some of them can be excused by ignorance, but certainly not all of them.

Excuses? There's no excuses being made by me. Whether they're being made by you to try to continue making inaccurate claims may well be a different story. What I generally seek is accuracy and for points to be valid. With that said, none of the viable options are good ones for them, including the one that I pointed out. That "pathological lying" isn't the most likely option given the information available doesn't excuse anything, either, it just means that other conclusions are better supported.

Frankly, I have no problem at all with accepting that the YEC leaders are flat out liars who lie for the sake of money, a rather easy life, and fame and think that that's the most likely of the options.

 

[PossumPie]

A while back I did some calculations...Even assuming the Creationists theory that the animals could fit on the ark, the seas were a hot mess of saline, mud, and putrid dead carcasses of every animal and human on earth. They couldn't drop a bucket over the side and get a drink, they HAD to carry water. Some quick calculations show the amount of water needed would exceed the size of the ark. AND after drinking that water, they would have to urinate, turns out the urine would be a foot deep in a matter of weeks...Yuck.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Excuses? There's no excuses being made by me. Whether they're being made by you to try to continue making inaccurate claims may well be a different story. What I generally seek is accuracy and for points to be valid. With that said, none of the viable options are good ones for them, including the one that I pointed out. That "pathological lying" isn't the most likely option given the information available doesn't excuse anything, either, it just means that other conclusions are better supported.

Frankly, I have no problem at all with accepting that the YEC leaders are flat out liars who lie for the sake of money, a rather easy life, and fame and think that that's the most likely of the options.

I think then you should consider the proposition that you didn't say what you meant when you first talked to me. The sentence you took issue with was "Somebody's got to be lying". If that's not necessarily true, as you said, then the alternative is nobody is lying. And you specifically extended your reasoning (I'd say "excuse") to the YEC leaders.

I still think there is plenty of reason and appropriate places to call them out for lying, and, in some cases, pathological lying since the lying is rampant (and that seems perfectly appropriate non clinical use of the phrase).

This is less true amongst the uniformed masses of their followers and more true at the top. It's especially true for people like Walt Brown who fabricate quotes. It's also true for large organizations like "Answers in Genesis" which are ongoing concerns with a staff of employees. They should be held to journalistic standards of fact checking. It's also called for since these guys claim to be the source of all things moral.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I still think there is plenty of reason and appropriate places to call them out for lying, and, in some cases, pathological lying since the lying is rampant (and that seems perfectly appropriate non clinical use of the phrase).

If you aren't using the term clinically, why are you defining it clinically? The common definition of a lie implies knowledge that you are telling a falsehood. Lacking that knowledge is known as just being wrong. In this case, my money's on a simple case of willful, stubborn ignorance. They realize at some level that if they ever really examined the facts of their statements they might have to conclude they're wrong, so they simply never question themselves that closely. This is a very common response to cognitive dissonance, not limited to sky pilots. As Upton Sinclair puts it,

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I don't see myself defining it clinically anywhere. In fact, in the quote you chose I simply defined it as "rampant lying" which isn't the clinical definition, it's the casual one.

In this case, my money's on a simple case of willful, stubborn ignorance.

For all of them? I only said some of them are lying in my first comment that started this. And since pointed out I think most creationists are simply ignorant.

 

[Aridas]

I think then you should consider the proposition that you didn't say what you meant when you first talked to me. The sentence you took issue with was "Somebody's got to be lying". If that's not necessarily true, as you said, then the alternative is nobody is lying. And you specifically extended your reasoning (I'd say "excuse") to the YEC leaders.

I did. Again, for something to be "lying," more needs to be the case than just being wrong.

I still think there is plenty of reason and appropriate places to call them out for lying,

Plenty of reason and appropriate cases? Certainly. Whether it's accurate? It's possible that it's not technically accurate in some number of those cases.

and, in some cases, pathological lying since the lying is rampant (and that seems perfectly appropriate non clinical use of the phrase).

Which is you moving the goal posts, given that you specifically brought up the version described on the wikipedia page.

They should be held to journalistic standards of fact checking.

I quite agree, much as I would hold them to significantly higher standards than that when it comes to claims about science.

It's also called for since these guys claim to be the source of all things moral.

Generally, no, they really don't.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

For all of them? I only said some of them are lying in my first comment that started this. And since pointed out I think most creationists are simply ignorant.

Frankly, yes, or at least enough that they should merit the benefit of the doubt about being honestly wrong. Even the people at the very tippy top. Look up cult beliefs and practices sometime; you'll run across things worthy of a stundie that just make you stop and think "no, they can't possibly actually believe this," but they do. Cognitive dissonance is a very powerful thing.

You're also doing yourself a disservice by assuming that anyone who promotes falsehoods are lying liars: it'll only turn them against you. Consider the rhetorical hopscotch you've been doing here, because you can't stomach the thought of someone thinking you're wrong on the Internet. How much more antics would you expect to see if you accuse someone of lying and being generally dishonest about something that actually matters a great deal to them?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I did. Again, for something to be "lying," more needs to be the case than just being wrong.

Right. That was true of my first case. They weren't just wrong. They were wrong repeatedly even after the correct information has been pointed out multiple times.

Plenty of reason and appropriate cases? Certainly. Whether it's accurate? It's possible that it's not technically accurate in those cases.

I have no idea why you'd want to give these guys so much benefit of the doubt. Plenty of reasons and appropriate seems good enough for me.

Which is you moving the goal posts, given that you specifically brought up the version described on the wikipedia page.

How is it my problem since I moved the goal posts in your favor? You claimed it was necessary that person know they were lying to be labeled a liar. I went to the strictest definition I could find to give your claim the best possible chance of being true and found it wasn't true.

I quite agree, much as I would hold them to significantly higher standards than that when it comes to claims about science.

Then what's your issue in this case?

Generally, no, they really don't.

Huh? Creationists don't claim to be source of all things moral? How in the world do you justify that? Creationists routinely claim their side to be source (literally even) of morality and evolution to be the source of evil.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Frankly, yes, or at least enough that they should merit the benefit of the doubt about being honestly wrong. Even the people at the very tippy top. Look up cult beliefs and practices sometime; you'll run across things worthy of a stundie that just make you stop and think "no, they can't possibly actually believe this," but they do. Cognitive dissonance is a very powerful thing.

How much would you grant that? Take the creationists in the Dover case that filed documents saying they didn't know who donated the books when it was they themselves that did it? Would you argue that's not lying? "Sorry your Honor, my clients (both them) suffer from a form of cognitive dissonance that means they don't know that donating books is donating books".

You're also doing yourself a disservice by assuming that anyone who promotes falsehoods are lying liars: it'll only turn them against you.

I don't assume that "anyone" is. I said "somebody" at first and have repeatedly acknowledged they are not all liars. Cognitive dissonance and simple ignorance means >most< of them aren't liars. What is the problem here?

And then it's a separate issue whether it's productive to point out the lying in any particular specific case.

Consider the rhetorical hopscotch you've been doing here, because you can't stomach the thought of someone thinking you're wrong on the Internet. How much more antics would you expect to see if you accuse someone of lying and being generally dishonest about something that actually matters a great deal to them?

Again, what you say in any particular instance can vary. Say what will motivate your particular audience.

 

[Aridas]

Right. That was true of my first case. They weren't just wrong. They were wrong repeatedly even after the correct information has been pointed out multiple times.

And if they don't believe that the correct information is correct, regardless of how many times they hear it?

I have no idea why you'd want to give these guys so much benefit of the doubt. Plenty of reasons and appropriate seems good enough for me.

What benefit of the doubt, exactly, am I giving or have I given them? That "liar" may or may not be technically accurate, however wrong they are, when there's other possibilities?

How is it my problem since I moved the goal posts in your favor? You claimed it was necessary that person know they were lying to be labeled a liar. I went to the strictest definition I could find to give your claim the best possible chance of being true and found it wasn't true.

Care to point out where, exactly, I claimed that? I have no memory of making such a claim, it's not a claim that I'm likely to make in the first place, and I simply don't see it, despite a doing quick review of the discussion up to this point. Perhaps you're having difficulty separating what one is and what they can be labelled?

With that said, no. You didn't "move the goal posts in my favor" at all. Were you lying when you makes each of the claims in the quoted that or just wrong?

Then what's your issue in this case?

You're seriously asking, even after it's been directly explained repeatedly? Unless you're limiting what you're talking about to the directly quoted bit, where I directly said that I agreed with that section? If that's the case, then I must ask, does directly saying "I agree" now mean "I disagree?"

Huh? Creationists don't claim to be source of all things moral? How in the world do you justify that? Creationists routinely claim their side to be source (literally even) of morality and evolution to be the source of evil.

No, they don't claim to be the source of all things moral. The closest to your claim that they come is by claiming that their deity is the source of morality, with their holy book and sometimes revelations from their deity as the means by which it communicates what is and is not moral. Evolution is very rarely "the source of evil," either, for that matter. Satan or some other "evil" entity may be "the source of evil," with evolution as one of its tricks, certainly, but again, that's significantly different than the claims that you're trying to make.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

And if they don't believe that the correct information is correct, regardless of how many times they hear it?

Because, after having looked up the definition for lying and pathological lying, I'm simply not buying the claim that one has to know they are lying to be lying. It's simple not true in all cases. And I'm especially not buying it in the case of Answers In Genesis which has the resources to do fact checking and is an ongoing institution.

What benefit of the doubt, exactly, am I giving or have I given them? That "liar" may or may not be technically accurate, however wrong they are, when there's other possibilities?

Right. There is certainly ample evidence to support the case that "some is lying".

Care to point out where, exactly, I claimed that? I have no memory of making such a claim, it's not a claim that I'm likely to make in the first place, and I simply don't see it, despite a doing quick review of the discussion up to this point. Perhaps you're having difficulty separating what one is and what they can be labelled?

Of for crying out loud. What a nitpick. OK, take out the word "labeled" if you like. Doesn't matter to me because I think it's fine to believe AiG (and others) are liars and to label them as such.

With that said, no. You didn't "move the goal posts in my favor" at all. Were you lying when you makes each of the claims in the quoted that or just wrong?

I did move them in your favor, I went to the strictest definition. Cite a source that supports your claims if you want to change my mind.

You're seriously asking, even after it's been directly explained repeatedly? Unless you're limiting what you're talking about to the directly quoted bit, where I directly said that I agreed with that section? If that's the case, then I must ask, does directly saying "I agree" now mean "I disagree?"

I asked you a simple question to explain yourself.

You said you agreed with me on that point. You agreed that they should be held to journalistic standards of fact checking. I said that in part of my explanation for why it's justified to say they are lying. So if you agree with the statement in context you should be agreeing with me that they are lying. Or maybe you just agree with that one sentence out of context. Or maybe just tell me what you meant. After all I thought it would better to ask you what you meant rather than assume

No, they don't claim to be the source of all things moral. The closest to your claim that they come is by claiming that their deity is the source of morality, with their holy book and sometimes revelations from their deity as the means by which it communicates what is and is not moral. Evolution is very rarely "the source of evil," either, for that matter. Satan or some other "evil" entity may be "the source of evil," with evolution as one of its tricks, certainly, but again, that's significantly different than the claims that you're trying to make.

Another nitpick. OK. They claim their deity and holy book are the source morality. That doesn't change the argument a bit. It's still another reason they should be held to a "higher standard". And I put that in quotes because I'm not arguing for a higher standard. I'm asking that obvious and egregious lying be called out as such.

This has gotten too silly.

 

[PossumPie]

I grew up in a Baptist house. I went to Christian High School, College, and continue to attend church. The problem with YECs is that they start with a premise: Genesis is literal. The earth is 6,000 years old and once covered by a flood. They then take every new discovery and twist it to fit the premise. We know that in science, you observe and make a hypothesis. YECs refuse to do this. They twist and distort every new discovery, sometimes to the point of absurdity, to fit. They have been accused of "Lying for Jesus" but I have not seen this. I HAVE seen their convictions be so strong that they actually convince themselves that absurdities are true. It would be laughable if it wasn't so detrimental to science and a hindrance to discovery.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I grew up in a Baptist house. I went to Christian High School, College, and continue to attend church. The problem with YECs is that they start with a premise: Genesis is literal. The earth is 6,000 years old and once covered by a flood. They then take every new discovery and twist it to fit the premise. We know that in science, you observe and make a hypothesis. YECs refuse to do this. They twist and distort every new discovery, sometimes to the point of absurdity, to fit. They have been accused of "Lying for Jesus" but I have not seen this. I HAVE seen their convictions be so strong that they actually convince themselves that absurdities are true. It would be laughable if it wasn't so detrimental to science and a hindrance to discovery.

You think that's funny, wait until you see how they contort history when you show them that most of the early old testament stories (the flood, Job, Moses) are just repurposed Babylonian myths.

 

[Aridas]

Because, after having looked up the definition for lying and pathological lying, I'm simply not buying the claim that one has to know they are lying to be lying. It's simple not true in all cases.

Sure, for the pathological lying diagnosis. However, you're ignoring the rest of the conditions that need to be met, though, and the stated conditions where it would not count as such, even if those other conditions are met.

Right. There is certainly ample evidence to support the case that "some is lying".

That was never in question.

Of for crying out loud. What a nitpick. OK, take out the word "labeled" if you like. Doesn't matter to me because I think it's fine to believe AiG (and others) are liars and to label them as such.

At no point could my words even be reasonably interpreted as an argument against it being fine to believe AiG and others are liars and to label them as such. As I've said, my interest is in accuracy. You've been... sloppy, if I were to be very kind.

I did move them in your favor, I went to the strictest definition.

Meanwhile, it looks like you did the exact opposite to me, while claiming that I said things that I very much didn't. I'm not particularly convinced.

Cite a source that supports your claims if you want to change my mind.

Which claims, specifically? That you specifically referenced the wikipedia page on pathological lying and that I pointed out that it did not actually support your position that they are "pathological liars," because it doesn't? Yes, the article does say -

The individual may be aware they are lying, or may believe they are telling the truth, being unaware that they are relating fantasies.

Which does support your claim to an extent. However, unless one wants to try to make the difference between honest mistakes and lying non-existent, it doesn't end there. I'll quote two statements from further in the article to help clarify what's being said.

It has been shown through a lie detector test that PF patients exhibit arousal, stress, and guilt from their deception. This is not the same as psychopaths who have none of those reactions. People affected by antisocial disorder lie for external personal profit in the forms of money, sex, and power. PF is strictly internal.

Lying is the act of both knowingly and intentionally/willfully making a false statement.

Adding these statements into the picture demonstrates that the pathological liar actually does know that they're lying.

I asked you a simple question to explain yourself.

One which demonstrates that you really haven't been paying attention to what I actually said, which is exasperating and makes me doubt that any explanations will actually be paid attention to, either.

You said you agreed with me on that point. You agreed that they should be held to journalistic standards of fact checking. I said that in part of my explanation for why it's justified to say they are lying. So if you agree with the statement in context you should be agreeing with me that they are lying. Or maybe you just agree with that one sentence out of context. Or maybe just tell me what you meant. After all I thought it would better to ask you what you meant rather than assume

For the nth time, at no point have I claimed that it's not alright to say that they're lying. I've pointed out reasons why it may not be technically true that they're actually lying instead of simply being absurdly wrong, yes, and I've also said that it's quite reasonable to consider them liars and that I do tend to consider them to be as good as liars, regardless of whether they technically count or not.

Another nitpick. OK. They claim their deity and holy book are the source morality. That doesn't change the argument a bit. It's still another reason they should be held to a "higher standard". And I put that in quotes because I'm not arguing for a higher standard. I'm asking that obvious and egregious lying be called out as such.

This has gotten too silly.

It's really not a nitpick when you're dramatically misrepresenting another side's position. If they are claiming to have morality on their side, certainly, they should at least be held to the standards that they try to hold others to.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

At no point could my words even be reasonably interpreted as an argument against it being fine to believe AiG and others are liars and to label them as such. As I've said, my interest is in accuracy. You've been... sloppy, if I were to be very kind.

Then start over again at post 753 (your first to me) and explain what it means.

 

[Aridas]

Then start over again at post 753 (your first to me) and explain what it means.

As if it wouldn't be crystal clear already. Fine, though. You speak of -

They keep making that mistake over and over but never correct their mistake after it's pointed out. Somebody's got to be lying.

Not necessarily, on something of a technicality. Lying involves telling someone something that one believes is not true. The YEC leaders may indeed believe the worthless arguments that they present and are resolved not to let Satan lead them away from the Truth.

As I stated then, it's not necessarily true that someone's got to be lying, even if there are people pointing out what they think is a mistake over and over. There have been more than a few cases where "mistakes" that have been pointed repeatedly aren't actually problems or valid, regardless. That lots of "microevolution" cannot lead to "macroevolution" is a frequent criticism made by creationists, for example. That doesn't mean that either many of the creationists or the scientists are liars, though it does generally does mean that there's misinformation being spread by at least one of the sides. With that said, "not necessarily true that they actually are lying" is very much not the same thing as saying that either that "they aren't lying" or that it's not reasonable to call them liars. All creationist leaders and organizations have engaged in deceptive rhetoric and made numerous fallacious arguments, yes. Again, if they actually believe what they say, it tends to be them simply being wrong, ignorant, foolish, and so on, rather than "liars." If they don't believe what they're saying or are "lying for Jesus," sure, they're unquestionably liars. Do you have direct evidence that either of those is definitely the case, or simply evidence that they're wrong and biased in ways that make them utterly untrustworthy sources of information on the topic? Certainly, there is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence which leads one to believe that they actually are liars, yes, but, based on the quite a bit that I've seen, it's still quite hard to rule out the effects of frankly, blind faith in their dogma and what may even be intentional ignorance. Thus, it certainly is reasonable to consider them liars, but it is distinctly possible that it's not quite the case.

You brought up "pathological lying" as a way to try to get around what is generally considered "lying" to make *your* claim that they are lying, even if they actually do believe what they're saying, and cited the wikipedia article. On actual examination of the article in question, the condition described does not match what you've argued makes the creationist leaders definitely liars, regardless of whether they believe what they say. Some of them may be pathological liars, yes, but you haven't remotely demonstrated it.

 

[PossumPie]

You think that's funny, wait until you see how they contort history when you show them that most of the early old testament stories (the flood, Job, Moses) are just repurposed Babylonian myths.

I'm in a tough spot. I've not given up all of my beliefs, yet as a rational person I cannot continue to believe that the earth is only 6000 years old. "GODDIDIT" is not a viable explanation. When I was in Christian high school, a teacher told me that inside an atom, protons and neutrons SHOULD push each other away. A nucleus should not stay together. God was the force that held all atoms together. Even at that tender age, I thought that that explanation was a lazy cheat. I did some research and it was just being presented by a few that strong and weak forces worked at very small distances like a nucleus. With a modicum of work I found a solution. That is when I began questioning other things they were saying...

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

As if it wouldn't be crystal clear already. Fine, though. You speak of -

As I stated then, it's not necessarily true that someone's got to be lying, even if there are people pointing out what they think is a mistake over and over.

???

But you just said "At no point could my words even be reasonably interpreted as an argument against it being fine to believe AiG and others are liars and to label them as such." And those words can reasonably be interpreted as an argument that they are not lying. If they are not lying wouldn't it be unreasonable to believe they are lying?

And as I said before your whole argument seems to hinge on the idea that people have to believe they are lying in order to be lying. That precision you are expecting from the word "liar" does not exist in the languages. You are unnecessarily cherry picking a definition that gives them an out. There is no need to do that, especially in this case.

Then you say this:

With that said, "not necessarily true that they actually are lying" is very much not the same thing as saying that either that "they aren't lying" or that it's not reasonable to call them liars.

And reading back I can't see any reason to think you were thinking this. And it's not an obvious conclusion to me. If I thought there was any doubt they were lying I wouldn't call them liars. As I said earlier I give most creationists (I think I said "most", it could actually be "overwhelming majority") the benefit of the doubt.

So what was the point of all this since you apparently agreed with what I actually said? It sounds like you object to me not tacking on something like:

"Somebody is lying. (but keep in mind it's a circumstantial case. And keep in mind despite the obsessive and unnecessary nature it can't literally be used to support a diagnosis of pathological liars.)".

And then maybe cite the appropriate dictionary definitions: "I'm invoking definition 3 of "lie" from Webster's and the colloquial use of "pathological liar" according to Random House".

What, I just needed to add an appropriate legal disclaimer?

So somebody is lying at Answers in Genesis. And the Discovery Institute, and in the Dover trial, and Walt Brown.

 

[Aridas]

???

But you just said "At no point could my words even be reasonably interpreted as an argument against it being fine to believe AiG and others are liars and to label them as such." And those words can reasonably be interpreted as an argument that they are not lying. If they are not lying wouldn't it be unreasonable to believe they are lying?

If the evidence at one's disposal seems to point towards a conclusion fairly strongly, it's generally reasonable to accept that conclusion provisionally and act as if it were true until such time as evidence to the contrary comes to light. There's little shame in being wrong, as long as one can back up why they were wrong with reasonable logic and are willing to change their provisional conclusion in light of new information.

And as I said before your whole argument seems to hinge on the idea that people have to believe they are lying in order to be lying.

And you've failed, quite horribly, at disputing even that.

That precision you are expecting from the word "liar" does not exist in the languages. You are unnecessarily cherry picking a definition that gives them an out.

Actually, you're the one who tried to cherry pick an "out" from what is generally accepted to constitute a "lie," and so far, you've failed badly, having presented one potential exception to the general rule which does not appear to be applicable to the situation at hand or to actually say what you wanted it to say, which you've completely failed to address.

And reading back I can't see any reason to think you were thinking this. And it's not an obvious conclusion to me.

Except for context like -

Was Austin intentionally trying to deceive people, or merely an inept moron who didn't even know enough about geology to realize how little he knew?

There's a third option, much as it's practically the same as the second. He may simply have bought into the YEC claim that radiometric dating is highly flawed and was just trying to demonstrate how flawed it was, having pointedly ignored the actual relevant scientific information available for, frankly, terrible reasons.

We both responded to the same bit of halleyscomet's post, which is more accurately the start of this, not my first response to your post right after. Of course, then, one could continue on to other bits of my posts like -

Frankly, I have no problem at all with accepting that the YEC leaders are flat out liars who lie for the sake of money, a rather easy life, and fame and think that that's the most likely of the options.

if there was any actual doubt.

If I thought there was any doubt they were lying I wouldn't call them liars. As I said earlier I give most creationists (I think I said "most", it could actually be "overwhelming majority") the benefit of the doubt.

"Any doubt" may mean something a bit different to you than it does to me, then.

So what was the point of all this since you apparently agreed with what I actually said?

Some of it. You've made numerous inaccurate claims in addition to what I've agreed with, though.

It sounds like you object to me not tacking on something like:

"Somebody is lying. (but keep in mind it's a circumstantial case. And keep in mind despite the obsessive and unnecessary nature it can't literally be used to support a diagnosis of pathological liars.)".

No, and you still seem to be having a fair bit of difficulty comprehending what the wikipedia article on pathological lying that you referenced actually describes. You're exhibiting behavior much like creationists have shown on numerous occasions on these forums as they reference resources that don't actually support their case, seemingly for similar base reasons.

And then maybe cite the appropriate dictionary definitions: "I'm invoking definition 3 of "lie" from Webster's and the colloquial use of "pathological liar" according to Random House".

As it was, you DID cite a specific use of "pathological liar" (ETA: and rested your case on that specific use, which means that you don't just get to try to change what you're claiming the term means willy nilly, even if it was somehow acceptable to try to conflate concepts otherwise). Is being held to the specific use that you cited that difficult for you?

So somebody is lying at Answers in Genesis. And the Discovery Institute, and in the Dover trial, and Walt Brown.

Likely so, for the first two. For the third, "was" would be more appropriate, much as they seemed to be reasonably truthful there with the admissions like ID being on par with astrology by Behe. The attempted funding of the books dodge didn't look like it came from a person who's generally considered a creationist leader, at last check, I think, incidentally. "Walt Brown" or, if convention is followed, "at Walt Brown," is an odd addition, though, given that that's a specific politician and thus significantly categorically different than the others. Frankly, a politician being a liar isn't exactly breaking stereotype, regardless.