Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Is Biologics part of the DI?

Someone dropped me a line to tell me that the Biologics Institute is a separate organization from the Discovery Institute and that implying differently wasn't fair.

So I guess this line from their own about page ( was just my imagination:

"Its founding was made possible by Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and
Culture, which continues to support its ongoing work."
And here is another one from their contacts page (

Press inquiries should be directed to:
Robert L. Crowther, II
Director of Communications
Center for Science & Culture
Discovery Institute
206.292.0401 x107

All other inquiries can be made to:
Biologic Institute\
16310 NE 80th Street
Redmond, WA 98052 USA

I am just imagining this, right? Anyone else remember how Doug Axe, the current director of the BI, was featured in the Wedge Strategy Document? The playbook of the Discovery Institute? And how the his 'work' was featured in The Edge of Evolution by Michael Behe, and Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer. If those names look familiar, look over at the DI website and their list of folks.

Their information on ID is identical to the DI, including a link to the DI's own Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture's Intelligent Design website (

So on paper the two organizations may be different, and I am sure they are separate on the tax paperwork. But the DI handles their PR and funds them. In my opinion a difference that makes no difference is no difference.


  1. It depends on what you mean by "different."

    IMO the best way to view this situation is through a simple analogy ... the Discovery Institute is to the Biologic Institute, as Edgar Bergen is to Charlie McCarthy.

  2. LOL, oh I wish I had thought of that! Thanks.

  3. Biologic is an exercise program. It consists of running backward.

  4. Remember that the Biologic Institute is a turtle of productivity. Over the past 18 months or so, I've seen exactly two papers from this "lab." Neither of these even mentioned "intelligent design," let alone provided any research guided by the idea.

    One may argue that the BI is poorly funded. To test that idea, all we need to do is see copies of the grant requests generated by the BI scientists. A lack of such requests is a strong indicator of the puppetry to which I alluded earlier.

    IMO the explanation is much simpler. ID is a poor paradigm for conducting scientific research. It simply doesn't work.

  5. Hey you, just catching up on your blog. As usual, an excellent post.