One of the common themes the Discovery Institute is constantly rallying against is 'scientific consensus'. Their group complains pretty loudly about how bad it is when scientists agree, because that is the path to intolerance and censorship . . . well you know the whine. However, they also do like to publish claims about 'scientists' who agree with them. Does anyone else find this amusing? Scientific consensus is a bad thing, unless they are agreeing with us then it something to crow about! But, as expected, what we are seeing here isn't really consensus among a group of actual scientists, all we have is typical DI spin.
But here is the kicker, it's not just three . . . it's three who already agree with the DI and their many marketing schemes of the past.
- Michael Behe, who klingy forgot to mention is a Senior Fellow of the DI.
- Marcos Eberlin, Professor of Chemistry at Brazil’s University of Campinas and the author of 'Life and the Universe by Intelligent Design'.
- J. Scott Turner, Professor of Biology, State University of New York and someone previously identified as an ID supporter by none other than casey luskin himself.
- Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig, senior scientist emeritus (biologist) at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research. Isn't he on the editorial board of 'Bio-Complexity', the DI in-house pro-ID journal. He's written often for the DI and even been interviewed by casey luskin! LOL!
- Dr. Mark McMenamin, paleontologist at Mt. Holyoke College and coauthor of 'The Emergence of Animals'. And a long term critic of evolutionary theory.
- Dr. Norman C. Nevin OBE, BSc, MD, FRCPath, FFPH, FRCPE, FRCP; Professor Emeritus in Medical Genetics, Queen's University, Belfast. Currently Nevin is President of the Centre for Intelligent Design in Scotland, sort of a low-rent version of the Discovery Institute. I wrote about Nevin in "Intelligent Design, Sh** or get off the Pot!"
- Dr. Richard Weikart, Professor of History at California State University, Stanislaus; Author of 'From Darwin to Hitler'. Did he forget to put on his resume that he's a senior fellow at the DI?
- Dr. Matti Leisola, Professor, Bioprocess Engineering, Aalto University, Finland (emeritus); Editor-in-chief, Bio-Complexity. Bio-Complexity is the in-house journal of the Biologic Institute, a wholly owned subsidiary of the DI, in other words their pet lab.
- George Gilder, Technologist, economist, and New York Times bestselling author. Who is, among other things a founding member of the Discovery Institute, a Senior Fellow at the DI, and also cited 129 times in the article database.
"First, the scientific community is not uniformly opposed to ID. My recent book on the subject received enthusiastic endorsements from many scientists not previously known as advocates of ID, such as chemist Philip Skell, a National Academy of Sciences member, and Norman Nevin, one of Britain's top geneticists."
"In my humble opinion Stephen C. Meyer is a liar. According to this quote Meyer states that Philip Skell and Norman Nevin were not previously advocates of Intelligent Design. Let's set the record straight, Skell is a Signatory of the very discredited "A Dissent From Darwinism", the list used in Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns in an attempt to discredit evolution and bolster claims that intelligent design is scientifically valid by claiming that evolution lacks broad scientific support. Meyer is a liar, Skell may not have published a pro-ID fluff piece, but he is an advocate. Nevin is a supporter of "Truth in Science" a United Kingdom-based organization which promotes the "Teach the Controversy" campaign. It uses this strategy to try to get intelligent design taught alongside evolution in school science lessons. Meyer is once again, in my opinion, lying!"What I find most amusing is that this time around, klingy could only round-up three? What are the rest of them doing? Trying to teach Donald Trump the intricacies of Intelligent Design? Normally that would take about five minutes, but we are talking about 'the donald'. The DI should be practiced at this, a while back they taught all of it to Ann Coulter, who then screwed it all up in another bombastic book.
In any event, there you have it. The DI is really scraping up support for Doug and his effort to replace rational thought with feelings. But instead of asking real scientists, maybe even objective scientists, they gather 'several' known ID supporters and stack the deck again. And they wonder why real scientific journals don't take them seriously?