So You Want To Know What's Wrong With Religion? (6)

The other night we had a horrific event occur in Las Vegas.  You don't need me to go into any details, they are being covered in the news.  At last count 58 dead and over 500 injured.  So what does this have to do with religion?

Immediately after the news broke, several of the more right-wing Conservatives groups had already decided that Muslim Extremists did it.

"Conservative media personality Wayne Allyn Root tweeted to his nearly 110,000 followers that there were shots fired at multiple hotels in a "coordinated Muslim terror attack."

Twitter has exploded with all sorts of hoaxes concerning the shooting, including posting photos of a soccer player, porn star, and comedian as the culprits.  The right started pointing at the left, the left started pointing at the right, White Supremacists cheered for some reason, while the rest of the Nation wept and NRA supporters started huddling on how to mitigate new calls for any form of gum control.  But what does this have to do with religion?

Well, once again people like Pat Robertson saw the news, you know he couldn't let the opportunity to get his face in front of a camera. "Pat Robertson Blames Vegas Shooting on Lack of Respect for Donald Trump and God".  Of course you have to ask yourself what about all the mass shootings before a certain hamster-haired serial lying and misogynist got him self elected, but that would be like asking for Robertson to provide facts, and we know how little he likes facts.

Remember when he 'warned' residents of Dover PA:

"that disaster may strike there because they 'voted God out of your city' by removing school board members who favored teaching intelligent design. (Fox News, 2005)

Or how about when he and Jerry Falwell said that

"liberal civil liberties groups, feminists, pagans, homosexuals, and abortion rights supporters bear partial responsibility for the terrorist attacks on the USA because their actions have turned God’s anger against America." (I couldn't find the original link, but this link works: Snopes confirmed this story is True)

From little kennie ham's Facebook page:

"Tragic massacre in Las Vegas, extended adolescence, churches affected by hurricanes banned from receiving Federal Aid, and more in this week's episode of Answers News hosted at the Creation Museum in front of a live audience." (Facebook video)

Yes, they are using this, and other tragedies, for a pseudo-news.  I have no plan to watch or listen, but how much would you like to wager that it's all the fault of people who refuse to buy into his spiel?  Any takers?

This isn't limited to Pat Robertson or little kennie -- other religious mouthpieces are, or soon will be, blaming the declining church attendance, support for marriage equality, abortion and/or any other thing narrow-minded theists whine about for the shooting in Las Vegas, hurricanes, floods, wildfires -- or any other natural or man-made disaster that strikes their fancy.  It's just another platform for them to try and build support, get more followers, and take in more donations so they can continue to live in a lifestyle denied to the majority of their followers.

And you wonder what's wrong with religion? These are pretty bad, but here is the one that I agree with The Friendly Atheist, is the worst . . . yes, even worse than Robertson.

"This Mormon Wrote the Worst Response (So Far) to the Las Vegas Shooting"

The response was posted on the Facebook page of a practicing Mormon, shared only with his friends, but screenshots of the comment were posted on other pages. Check this one out:

Yes, blame the victims for not believe in the exact same way you do!  How incredibly pathetic is that?  So does anyone believe that if the concert had been scheduled for a different day of the week, the shooter wouldn't have attacked?  Neither do I!  We don't even know if the concert on that particular day was his deliberate target, or simply just one of opportunity.  You know, now that I think about it, I would have been very wary tweeting something like this, it means that the shooter was a member of your particular religion -- is that a connection you want? 

I think we need to let the investigation go forward and reserve blame judgments until we have an idea of what drove this attack.  In the meantime, offer your thoughts to the victims and their families, and if you can, offer other forms of support.  I donated platelets and plasma today.  I don't know if they will help anyone in Vegas, but I do know if a Las Vegas hospital called, my local community blood center will respond.  They have in the past!

So, my final message is ignore these religious nut-jobs and go do something concrete, like donating blood!

Little Kennie Ham is Having a Tantrum (Again!)

Apparently little kennie is upset because someone connected his words with Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.  Here's one of the many articles that offended him: "Hurricanes punish us for gay rights? Who decided that?"  There are a number of Christians who have been blaming the recent hurricanes on many of the things they have decided are sinful, particularly homosexuality.  According the little kennie, he was unfairly lumped in with that group.  Here's the offending quote:

"Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell Jr., Pat Robertson, Mike Huckabee and now Ken Hamm of Answers in Genesis and the Ark Park state without reservation that disasters like Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma are God’s punishment for homosexuality."

To be fair, kennie didn't specifically say that Harvey and Irma were caused by homosexual behavior.  Not in those precise words.  However, what has he said about hurricanes just a couple of weeks ago (My underlining for emphasis):

"Devastating Hurricanes-reminder we live in a fallen groaning world as a result of our sin against a Holy God-it's our fault not God's fault" (Sep 6, 2017 tweet)

So what is kennie's opinion of Homosexuality?  

• Well back a few years ago two men were denied entry into a AIG event because they were assumed to be gay.  They weren't as the multitude of articles can attest, but that didn't stop kennie and his folks at one of his ministries from denying them entrance to an event for which they bought tickets.  
• There are a huge numbers of posts and articles about Homosexuality on his many websites and blogs.  Boiled down, he tries that old trope about love the sinner and hate the sin.  In other words people can be as gay as they want, as long as they don't perform anything that can be construed as a homosexual act, that's the sin according to little kennie.
• Here are a couple of quotes from little kennie, again I underlined the most interesting parts:
• "Homosexual behavior is sin. All sin is evil. People need to understand what sin is, and not justify it and dress it up as something good and acceptable." (United Methodist Church Showing More Support for Gay Marriage)
• "Corinthians 6:9–10 lists homosexual behavior as a sin that will bring judgment by God on the unrighteous." (Kentucky Baptist Church Allows Its First “Gay Marriage”)

So if kennie views homosexual behavior as a sin, and hurricanes are the result of sin, doesn't that lump kennie in with those pseudo-Christians who claim Harvey and Irma was caused by such sins?  So while he may not have used those specific words, he is certainly a member of that group.

This certainly isn't the first time religious zealots have used natural disasters to drum up support and, more than likely, donations.  I recall Pat Robertson tried something similar about Haiti in 2010 when a devastating earthquake struck the country.  I'm not sure if you will remember, but Robertson even predicted a disaster for Dover PA in 2005:

"Conservative Christian television evangelist Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them yesterday not to be surprised if disaster struck." (Robertson Says Town Rejects God)

So it's a pretty common theme. I recall a post from 2010 about an Iranian cleric claiming "Women's promiscuity and revealing clothing causes earthquakes".  I guess Iran being located in an Earthquake prone region has nothing to do with it.  Anyone else remember Jen McCreight's "Boobquake"?

I'm a little surprised kennie is trying to separate himself from the group, it's not like he's suddenly changed his mind on sin?  While it would be fun to claim his Rainbow lights on his ark park ministry is a sudden show of support for LGBT rights, it's not, he's trying to re-claim the rainbow for his version of evangelical pseudo-Christianity.

Bottom line is simple, anyone actually believe little kennie doesn't belong in the same group as the rest of the pseudo-Christians who want to blame natural disasters, like hurricanes and earthquakes, on sin and homosexuality?  I didn't think so!

So There is Nothing Religious about Intelligent Design (Part XII)

I have to wonder, if there is nothing religious about ID, why this:

"On a new episode of ID the Future, author J. Warner Wallace talks with Center for Science & Culture research coordinator Brian Miller about the role that Wallace’s work as a cold-case detective played in his first analyzing the evidence for intelligent design. 

. . . 

That evidence played a key role in Wallace’s own spiritual and intellectual journey. He says he was attracted to the story and person of Jesus. However, in the course of exploring religion questions, he asked himself whether science and reason allowed for any view inconsistent with philosophical materialism." ("A Cold-Case Detective Weighs the Evidence for Intelligent Design")

Aside from the idea of the DI even has a 'research coordinator', a question we sort of already addressed in "The Discovery Institute has Opened an ID Center in Brazil! Quite Possibly the Perfect Retirement Job!", I underlined a couple of points to illustrate things that make it harder and harder to separate Intelligent Design from its religious roots.

No, I haven't listened to the podcast.  You might think I am remiss is not doing so, but when the description is so obviously theistic, do you really need to put yourself through it?  I don't believe so.  Like the DI's pseudo-scientific writings -- where they use lots of scientific-sounding language, I would expect this pseudo-detective to use lots of investigatory-sounding words and phrases, but at the heart of it is his personal spiritual journey -- which makes it all suspect from the start.

Now you might think I am overstepping things by calling him a pseudo-detective, after all, he is a detective, or at least he was one at one time.  However, is he acting as a detective when using his 'spiritual journey' as a basis for this conversation?

This is similar to a question we've dealt with before, "Whether or not a Creationist can be a Scientist?"  We've answered it simply that Creationists can be scientists -- but only if they are able to set-aside their creationist-beliefs and look at the world in a more objective fashion.  Those that cannot will forever be known as 'Creation Scientists' and their impact on real science will be marginal.

Those who are acting as scientists, especially those recognized for their work as scientists are those who are produced scientific work that is not based on their beliefs, but on supportable, falsifiable, and explainable science.  Little kennie ham himself once identified such an individual a few years back.  Of course kennie focused on his beliefs -- but never seemed to find a tie between his beliefs and his work.  We talked about him in "Documentary vs Documentary-Style -- aka Reality vs Fiction":

"A Renowned Creation Scientist, Inventor of MRI".  No one has ever pointed to any part of the theories behind magnetic imaging and said "and here is where God did such-and-such." or "here is the part that is based on creationism".  The celebrated work was not based on any religious belief, but on actual science -- supportable, falsifiable, and explainable science.  

So I am sure this detective has had success as a detective, but I am equally sure his religious beliefs were not mentioned in any report when he actually closed a case, much in the way Raymond Damadian's beliefs were not part of his MRI work. Therein lies the difference between a scientist, or a detective, who is a Creationist and a 'Creation Scientist/Detective'.  So when I refer to him as a pseudo-detective, that's the point I am trying to make.  He's no longer acting as a 'detective' when he starts using his religion, but as a pseudo-detective.  But back to my main point.

If there is nothing religious about Intelligent Design, then such a discussion wouldn't be based on his spiritual journey.  But since you cannot intellectually separate the two, listening to this podcast would be a waste of time. This is nothing more than another believer couching his belief in terms that try and mislead the listener into thinking they are some sort of objective investigator, when you already know from the start that it isn't true.

In my opinion anyone who can separate the two is lying and doing their best to mislead people.  If you disagree, just look at the words and 'tactics of mistake' the DI has been using for years.  They try and try to divest themselves of Creationism and Religion, not because they don't believe in it, but because they know it places a huge legal roadblock in worming their way into the classroom.  Look at their marketing efforts and who they keep targeting.  Are they doing the scientific legwork to gain actual acceptance within the scientific community? No, they are marketing to religious groups for support and politicians for legal assistance in pushing their religious agenda.

Of course you can read all their denials, and then they post something like this which makes the ties that bind them tighter and tighter to Creationism.    They whine and bitch about the metaphorical noose that spelled such disaster for them in Dover, and then tighten it even more with posts like this.

Is Intelligent Design Creationism?

The Discovery Institute must be feeling more than the normal amount of heat recently on the connection between Intelligent Design (ID) and Creationism.  I recently read two posts that firmly try and separate the two -- and while each post pretty much addresses the same things, neither of them can answer something incredibly simple, why do the majority of Americans equate the two?

Yes, their posts (Latest Gallup Polling on Evolution Fails to Enlighten and  Correcting Disinformation on Academic Freedom Legislation) try and make a similar argument, things like this:

"ID is not “rebranded” creationism – the ideas are worlds apart. Teaching creationism in public schools has indeed been rejected, but ID is not creationism."

And yet:

• Why does the DI receive nearly all of its funding from religious sources?
• Why is the DI's only audience religious groups?
• Why does its own people play up their religious connections?
• Why does their own guiding document connect the two to tightly?

The answers to this first set are simple, it's because they are nothing more than a religious ministry despite their protestations.  If they aren't a religious ministry, but a scientific organization like they claim, there are some different questions they might try answering:

• Where is their scientific work?
• Where are their scientific discoveries?
• Where are their scientific peer review papers showing their research, methodologies, and results?

The answers to the second set are equally simple, it's because while they like to portray themselves as a scientific organization, they are not.  Therefore, there is little scientific work, there are no discoveries, there are no peer reviewed papers -- and I am talking actual peer review, not the sham 'peer review' set up by the DI to fake it.  Yes, that all might sound harsh, but when you only submit your papers to fellow Creationists and they pat you on the head and say 'nice job', that's not actual peer review.  What scientific work there is never seems to get around to mentioning Intelligent Design.

If you disagree, check out how often the papers from the DI are referenced in actual scientific papers.  I haven't been able to find any.  The only sites that seem to come close are . . . . wait for it . . . other Creationists organizations.

I know we are talking about only my opinion, after all it's my blog.  But when anyone objectively looks at the DI, they see a religious ministry.  I admit to not being objective, but that's after well over a decade of reading their publications and blog posts.  Prejudice is when you 'pre-judge' something without any actual experience . . . I can honestly say after the past decade, I have lots of experience with their marketing machine.  I keep hoping for actual science and are regularly disappointed.

As Judge Jones wrote in the 139 page Dover Decision:

• For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (page 24)
• A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. (page 26)
• The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)
• The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)

So, I see ID proponents as Creationists wearing ill-fitting lab coats  . . . while giving a presentations to various religious groups . . . in front of green-screens that have lab pictures on them . . . and hiding behind the screens are the rest of the Creationists.  They might as well have a sign "Pay No Attention To People Behind the Screen!"

When Does Opinion Trump Evidence?

Several researchers used the word 'perfect' in their paper "Perfect chemomechanical coupling of FoF1-ATP synthase" and you know what that means to the Discovery Institute (DI), here is the DI's last paragraph on the topic:

"If you can think of any machine in your experience that is perfect yet flexible, it probably did not come about through blind, aimless natural processes. Let’s stop allowing Darwinians to get away, unchallenged, with saying they “have evolved” to perfection." (Evolution 'news' and Views: Molecular Machines Reach Perfection)

Because the researchers have shown a transfer of energy without loss and used the word 'perfect', that should immediately discount Evolution.  Now, what evidence does the Discovery Institute offer to discount the possibility of this molecular construct having evolved?  None what-so-ever!  What they are offering is their opinion, nothing more.

You see, whenever anyone doing real science offers results of any kind, the Discovery Institute tries to take it and either casts it as support for Intelligent Design or a negative against Evolution -- or both -- but they keep missing a key point, evidence.  Where do the researchers, not the DI talking heads, but the researchers discount evolution?  They don't!  In fact, did the study include how such a system came about?  It doesn't look like it.  But the DI takes the abstract for a spin and lo-and-behold it supports an anti-evolution argument.  Imagine that?  When all you have is a nail, everything looks like a hammer!

Yes, the energy transfer in this example appears 'perfect', that is 'without loss', but nothing in the research discounts evolution.  Look at the footnotes, look at the references and tell me where evolution is discounted.  Don't look in the 'minds' of the DI talking heads because they discount evolution as their default position.  It doesn't matter what they are looking at, it discounts evolution!  Their perspective is 'We don't agree with evolution because of our religion, therefore evolution can't possibly explain anything -- and someday, God willing [pun intended] we will prove it!'

Now, new question, an odds question.  What are the odds of this specific molecular construct not having evolved?  I would say the odds are pretty low.  No, I am not going to bore you with a nonsensical calculation (that's Dembski's job), but I ask that you look at the evidence.  Has anything stayed exactly the same?  Has any current molecular construct been found to have not evolved?  Look at Behe's 'Darwin's Black Box' where he detailed his opinion on a number of biological constructs and claimed they could not have evolved . . . and yet when faced with over 50 papers describing the evolution of those constructs (during the Dover Trial), papers he had not reviewed, he said they were not enough.  The odds of this specific construct not having evolved seem pretty minuscule.

Things are always evolving, changing.  While some organisms haven't done a great deal of changing, there is still evolution in their past right through to the present.  There is absolutely nothing that says they will not evolve as time goes on, just like there is nothing that says humans will not evolve.

One common theme in Creationist circles are examples like the Alligator and how it hasn't evolved in millions of years . . . that is those Creationists who buy into the Old Earth.  The problem is they think too small.  If Alligators didn't evolve, where did Crocodiles come from?  They really need to do their homework a little better.  All they have done here is insert their opinion as if it is a conclusion, all designed [another intended pun] to cast doubt of evolution -- without a single bit of evidence supporting their doubt.  I recently read the term "Merchants of Doubt", which seems extremely applicable.

So if what the DI says is true, then these molecular constructs should stop evolving -- yet once again the evidence is stacked against them.  There isn't anything that we know of that has not evolved nor that does not have the potential to continue evolving, no matter how 'perfect' is may appear to us today.  The best the DI has is things that an evolutionary path hasn't been described . . . yet.  And they get upset when they get reminded that they are nothing but a re-statement of the old god-of-the-gaps argument.

And The Whining and Spinning About Texas Is On!

Now that the March for Science is over, the Discovery Institute (DI) Talking Heads are turning to other things, including Texas.  As I said just a few days ago:

"I'm sure the whining will come eventually, after all the Dover Trial was over 12 years ago and they are still trying to spin it! Who knows, they might be spinning things a different way, like this guy:
Don McLeroy . . . yes, that 'John Donald McLeroy', the conservative dentist, former member and former president of the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) . . . is claiming the changes are a 'victory for science'." (Not as Much Whining As Expected, Maybe a Different Tactic)

Yes, like Don, they are trying to spin it as a win for themselves in this post "Despite Reports to the Contrary, Texas Preserves Language Calling for Critical Analysis of Evolution"  While I will admit it wasn't a complete victory for Science, you really can't call it a win for them.  The amount of time and energy they spent to first get Texas to approve the wording the standards in the first place and then the complaining about what happens to their version of science education if those phrases are removed . . . makes it hard to accept that they consider any re-wording, let alone the removal of many of the key phrases that real scientists and actual science teachers objected too, any form of a victory, especially re-wording that makes it easier for science teachers to teach science without having to bring in pseudo-science just for the sake of 'analyzing and evaluating all side' of one specific theory -- but we are talking about the DI here and spin is what they do best.

The original phrasing, for all the marketing by the DI, had one purpose -- the deliberate undermining of science education.  Don't agree, well from my point of view this whole critical analysis thing reminds me somewhat of some of the things that happened in Dover PA over a decade ago.  What I am talking about was the requirement to read a statement in biology classes.  Remember the statement?

"The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.
As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments." (Wikipedia: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District)

What the statement does, in a nutshell, is tell students that all of science is just a collection of guesses and that religious guesses are just as good as scientific guesses.  Look at the words, before a theory is taught, this statement makes it sound as if a theory is just that, a guess.  The first paragraph mainly says that they are going to learn evolutionary theory because the State mandates it, not because it has any validity.  It denigrates each and every scientific theory out there and then inserts Intelligent Design (ID), unsupported -- unexplained -- never tested -- never even used -- ID as an alternative, an alternative explanation that isn't even a scientific theory.  Don't believe me, you might try reading the Dover Trial Decision for yourself.  It's boring a loaded with legalese, but it gets the point across.

When the biology teachers refused to read the statement, a school administrator read the statement to students.  Seriously, what part of that statement didn't undermine the science students were going to be taught.  While it's loaded with innocuous sounding phrases, the reality is it was contrasting real science with imaginary pseudo-science to an audience ill-equipped to understand the difference.

That's what the wording did, it placed an unreasonable expectation on an audience ill-equipped to handle it. How do you 'analyze and evaluate' without the tools and knowledge needed to do so? By definition Analysis is:

"a detailed examination of anything complex in order to understand its nature or to determine its essential features : a thorough study" (Merriam-Webster: Analysis)

From the science standpoint, think of the amount of time an examination of this sort would take.  To properly 'analyze' evolution would take more time and other resources than any school system can afford.  This level of detail is beyond the scope of any high school not just because of the subject, but the requirements of performing an analysis.  What other subject matter requires an 'analysis'?  None!  Therefor the tools and skills to do such an analysis do not exist in the normal high school curriculum.

The 'all sides' was the part of the Creationist wording that was least able to be defended.  What 'sides' exist within science?  Intelligent Design (ID) is a religious concept and is not, has never been, nor is anticipated ever being science.  so basically without using the phrase 'Creationism' or Intelligent Design', the 'all sides' is an opening to bring those religious ideas into the classroom.  I know the DI will disagree and point to language that says it prohibits religious alternatives -- but when you start looking at the 'sides' what alternative sides to science are there?  ID isn't science, after all, where is the science they have been promising for decades?  Religious books and articles, presentations to religious audiences, and covert declarations as to the identity of their intelligent designer certainly haven't helped them make their case.

Of course an 'analysis' of the DI's pet 'alternative' to evolution would take considerably less time, because there is very little to analyze.  No scientific experiments to replicate, no peer-reviewed papers (real peer review, not the DI's pseudo-peer review), nothing but religious books and articles boiling down to whether or not you want to pretend a Deity created everything around us.  Such an analysis would be fairly quick and  . . . well . . . it has been done a number of times and each time to the detriment of its proponents.  Science has rejected Intelligent Design so many times that its proponents have to try tactics such as these word games because their pet 'theory' cannot stand the light of day.

This was the first whine I saw, they've already put up two more and I am sure more are on the way.  

Not as Much Whining As Expected, Maybe a Different Tactic

I was expecting more whining about the changes to the Texas curriculum ("And let the Whining Begin!"), but most of it seems to be aimed at the March for Science, to which the DI was not invited. (heh, heh)  I'm sure the whining will come eventually, after all the Dover Trial was 12 years ago and they are still trying to spin it!  Who knows, they might be spinning things a different way, like this guy:

Don McLeroy . . . yes, that 'John Donald McLeroy', the conservative dentist, former member and former president of the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) . . . is claiming the changes are a 'victory for science'.  Yes, you heard me, not just a victory, but one for science.  The spin is enough to make one dizzy.

Apparently Don, after causing so much embarrassment that it led to his ouster from the Texas SBOE, reads The Sensuous Curmudgeon, one of my favorite blogs.  He actually commented on the post "Texas Science Standards Are Now Revised".  Here's his comment:

"Science won. Check out the before, the recommendations and the final language here: https://donmcleroy.wordpress.com/2017/04/21/who-won/"

Someone asked him if he was the 'real Don McLeroy', to which he replied he was.  Of course I have no way of knowing if it is the same one, but assuming having a WordPress blog with his name and picture it sure seems to be him.  So I will do something that few people should ever do, take a Creationist at his word.

So what is he claiming?  He's disagreeing with all those who defended and supported the adding of the wording to 'analyze and evaluate' back in 2009.  If memory serves was added during his tenure as the President of the Texas SBOE.  Those same marketing phrases that were used to support the original inserted words are now being used again to keep those words in the standards.  Now he says the words of 'examine', 'compare and contrast', and 'identify' are enough to raise his religious objections to science.

No, they are not the same, Dental Don.  The wording has been changed to something that makes it harder for teachers to bring in supplemental (religious) material into the classroom.  'Examining' a scientific theory is not the same as 'analyzing and evaluating' . . . and if you had an understanding of Education and Educational Objectives you would realize that.  Even the phrase 'compare and contrast scientific explanations' requires the explanations to be from science, not religion.

Don, I think you are doing nothing but trying to spin a defeat into a 'Meh!' moment.  Proponents said over and over again 'Gotta have it . . . it's needed for good science education . . .academic freedom . . . critical thinking . . ." and all the other buzz words of support.  The wording gets changed and Don says pretty much 'It doesn't matter!'

Science did win, but it did it by making it easier to teach real science.  Science teachers across Texas will be able to reach educational objectives without being forced to 'Analyze and Evaluate' -- especially without having been given the time and resources needed to perform an actual analysis and evaluation.  Don, I realize you don't understand that, but that's OK, there are plenty of sites that can educate you on the subject -- if you are willing to learn.

Did you know Doctors can read God's Mind? I Didn't Either!

There is a small group of MD's who support Intelligent Design (ID), although it is hard to track them down.  Originally they called themselves  Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity (PSSI), and they were formed by the Discovery Institute (DI)!  However their website no longer works.  Here is what you get if you click on it:

It's an Internet site selling the domain.  Unless the group changed names, I'm not sure it's still active.  At its last update in Wikipedia, as of 2007 they had 264 signatories.  Yes, 264 over 15 countries -- out of how many MDs, Dentists, Osteopaths, and Veterinarians in the US alone? Over 800,000 MDs, over 60,000 Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine, over 140,000 dentists, and over 50,000 Veterinarians.  So let me get this straight, this PSSI had 264 signatories over 15 countries out of a possible number, from the US alone, of well over 1,050,000 possible signers.  And the Discovery Institute thinks this is brag worthy?  The percentage is approximately 0.025%, is that even statistically significant?  Although if you want to get technical, since the US is only 1 country, I guess the percentage is actually more like 1/15th of 0.025% -- talk about statistical insignificance.

Which I do find sorta funny because in 2006 the DI had a press release claiming that '60% of U.S. Doctors Skeptical of Darwinian Evolution', and yet provided little information about the survey, like what was asked and who the audience was that was asked -- both of which are common tactics used to spin survey results in a specifically-desired direction.  So 60% of US doctors skeptical of Evolution -- but during the same time period only a minuscule amount joined this PSSI.  Don't you just love marketing statistics.

Since this organization is no longer active, why do I bring it up? Well, a post just the other day on the usual site, the DI's Evolution news and Views (EnV): "Why Understanding Intelligent Design Helps Us to Understand Physiology".  You can read it if you want, basically it's nothing more than one doctor's opinion that ID offers an easier way to understand physiology that evolution.  Here is a quote:

"The candidate I was questioning tied himself up in knots trying to remember and explain what factors shift the curve left and what factors shift it right. He had been taught that hemoglobin had evolved by randomly mutating genes and that this amazing molecule was undesigned. But if he had taken a design perspective in physiology, he would have thought, “If I were to design a molecule to do this job, what properties would it have?” He would have known that a designed molecule would have greater affinity for oxygen in a milieu where it is most advantageous for the body to extract oxygen from its surroundings, and decreased affinity in a milieu where it is most advantageous for the body to receive oxygen, despite there being no advantage to the molecule itself. From a design perspective, it would be common sense to know what would shift the curve left or right."

So the key to 'using' design is to put yourself in the driver's seat and play God.  That makes it easy to understand things . . . However . . .

When you look up Physiology on Wikipedia, one line just jumped out at me:

"Much of the foundation of knowledge in human physiology was provided by animal experimentation." (Wikipedia: Physiology)

So, much of what we know about Physiology came from animal experimentation, and why did that help us learn about human physiology?  I'll give you a hint, but I bet you won't need one . . . Evolution.  Common Descent, which is part of Evolutionary Theory, is why we were able to use animals to learn a great deal about ourselves.  To use this example, Evolution taught us the answer, the 'curve left or right'.  But this particular doc thinks it's easier to understand if you think like a designer Deity.

So what is really happening here . . . at least how I see it . . . is the subject at hand is studied, documented, and understood using Evolution and then -- after the fact -- a design proponent comes in and lays claim to everything that is learned.  It's like a mathematician who solves an incredibly complex problem and writes it across three blackboards and circles the answer at the bottom of the third crowded backboard.  Then a design proponent walks into the room and points to the circled answer and says "Look, I found the answer!"

So claiming that you can understand anything better through ID seems a bit of a non-starter.  What has ID done to solve any problem?  What research into the subject was done based on ID? What has ID done to educate and elucidate on a particular subject?  Three questions with three very similar answers:  Nothing, None, and Nada!  No problems solved using ID, no research, no education -- unless you believe that 'thinking like a Deity' is an example of education.  Did this doc learn what he knows about Physiology based on ID or did he learn it through Evolution?  The example here seems to be take what is learned through actual scientific means and then just label it as ID.

What this also shows is that no matter how well educated doctors are assumed to be, you can always find a few that would rather put their religion ahead of their knowledge and training.  There's always a few, but this also shows you how few there really are -- 1/15th of 0.025%.  If you think that number is low, and I admit it might be, let's also remember how long (16 years) the DI has been collecting signatures for their 'Dissent from Darwinism' petition, they've managed to collect a bit over 800 -- with only about 25% in a biology-related field.  Don't forget that it was determined the difficulties these signatories were agreeing too had little to do with science and much more to do with their religious beliefs.

Of course, if we want to talk numbers, don't forget that during the Dover trial (2005) a grassroots effort called 'A Scientific Support for Darwinism' over 7700 signatures were collected in four days! Plus that grassroots effort had a much higher percentage of actual scientists working in biology-related fields (25% v. 68%).

So bottom line is now ID proponents are making claims about research based on real science and trying to somehow claim ID does it better -- and yet we have yet to see an example of ID doing anything at all!  If this doctor's statement were factual, wouldn't there be tons of textbooks and research done from a design perspective?  Wouldn't that have been how he, himself, had learned all about Physiology?  But no, there aren't any textbooks, there is no research.  There are only claims just like the one this doctor makes -- unsupported by anything other than his opinion.  While he might link to think that Evolution had nothing to do with Physiology, nearly everything he learned about the subject can be traced back to Evolution and Common Descent -- he just doesn't like to admit it.

An Alabama State Representative Shows His Ignorance

Reported on the Times Daily, and a number of other sites, "Lawmaker wants intelligent design resolution".  If you read the article I think you will agree with me, Rep. Mack Butler has been taken in by the Discovery Institute marketing material.  Here's a few quotes from the article (my comments after each one):

"“In the development of critical thinking, we need to make it welcoming at least for a student or teacher to bring up another theory . . ."

Rep Butler, what 'other' theory?  Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory; therefore, it should not be presented in science class as if it was.  Didn't you hear about Dover Pa when they tried the same thing?  Or do you want one of your school districts to be the subject of an expensive and embarrassing lawsuit?

" . . .some teachers may be unsure of the expectation concerning how they should present information when controversy occurs on such subjects"

Apparently Alabama teachers are untrained in the teaching profession, at least in Rep Butler's mind.  Teachers should already know how to deal with controversy, especially within their subject specialties.  So if someone brings up any topic that might be controversial, like human trafficking, drug use, or racism -- are teachers in Alabama ill-equipped to deal with such topics?  I seriously doubt that it's a teacher issue.  Rep Butler is using teachers as a kind of scapegoat to justify his actions.  Let's not forget that this same politician tried a similar bill (which failed) and did manage to get a Student Religious Freedom bill passed just last year.  God forbid a politician be honest in his motivations. 

" . . .respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about scientific subjects required to be taught"

Really, differences of opinion, that's all this is?  So on the one hand we have over 150 years of evidence and scientific achievements . . . and on the other hand . . . we have a religious concept dressed up in an ill-fitting lab coat without a single shred scientific supporting it  . . . and this pandering politician thinks it just a matter of opinion.  I think this does indicate what his opinions are worth.

"“I’ve never minded evolution being taught, but I think the door should be open to other theories as well,” Butler said. “… I think it’s a well-rounded person who knows both sides of the argument, whether they believe what I believe or what Darwin believed.”"

Belief is not important, what matters is the evidence, what works, what has support more than conjecture and wishful thinking.  That's what counts.  Darwin didn't simply 'believe' in evolution, he spent decades studying nature and developed an explanation that matched the actual evidence.  Can any proponent of an alternate 'theory' say the same?  Not even close!

Let's take another track.  Can anyone identify a doctor who uses Intelligent Design for diagnosis and treatment?  How about an engineer who uses Intelligent Design to build a bridge?  Can anyone . . . we can play this game all day if we wanted, can't we?  While the DI would like to claim anyone using their brain is an example of Intelligent Design, that's nothing more than another tactic of misdirection.  The training, the experience, the skill did not come with any help from the DI's idea of Intelligent Design!

More 'Knee-Jerkiness' from the Discovery Institute, Emphasis on Jerkiness

Any number of times I have mentioned the 'knee-jerk' reaction of the Discovery Institute (DI) when anyone does one of two things.

• First, if you say something nice about Intelligent Design (ID), the DI falls all over itself to say nice things about you.  It doesn't seem to matter if what you say is pretty well meaningless, even if the bias of the author is well known -- case-in-point the recent posts (here and here) based on a new book by Tom Bethell.  
• The other knee-jerk reaction is it you say anything that can be construed as negative about ID, they immediately jump on their keyboards and denounce you, usually claiming you didn't explain ID correctly and that you aren't fairly representing the official position of the DI.  case-in-point today's post: "In the Public Interest? ProPublica Misrepresents Intelligent Design and Discovery Institute Policy"

Here they hit both things -- but where??  Annie Waldman, the author of the article that offended Sarah so much pretty well hit the nail right on the head.  She [Annie] said:

• ID is an outgrowth of Creationism.  Well isn't it?  It was proven in court, it was all over the DI guiding document, the only audience that the DI ever seems to talk to are religious ones.  Annie stated is clear as a bell, Sarah just wants to keep the religious aspects of the DI amd ID hidden in the dark, just like all the talking heads.
• The DI advocates teaching ID under the guise of "critical thinking."  Isn't that also true?  The whole 'critical thinking' tactic is one of the many campaigns the DI has launched all . . . let me repeat that . . . ALL for their stated purpose of:
  "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." (Wikipedia: Wedge Strategy Document)

Annie's opening line:

"Betsy DeVos, President Trump’s pick as secretary of education, has funded groups that champion “intelligent design,” a sophisticated outgrowth of creationism. Science educators worry that she could use her bully pulpit to undermine the teaching of evolution in public schools."

To me, that sounds like a perfectly reasonable concern, but then, when is the DI interested in being reasonable?  Here we have someone who has supported groups pushing ID, including the Thomas More Law Center -- who, if you recall, defended the Dover School Board.  When DeVos' husband ran for Governor of Michigan, he publicly promoted ID for the classroom.  Plus, when you factor in her her support of privatizing public schools, I think we all have a right to be concerned.  How much you want to bet then when Betsy starts talking sending public school kids to private schools, she isn't talking anything but good old-fashioned Christian schools like the ones she and her kids went to?

Here's another article which also raises the same concern: "Dover ID case plaintiff worries about DeVos"  One of the plaintiffs in the Dover Case sees the same potential problem, DeVos using her new position to push her personal and religious agenda, even though the decision in the Dover Trial should have been the end of it.  Devos got involved with Michigan education, I don't know when, but I have read things haven't been moving in the right direction, for example:

"In 2003, Michigan ranked 28th in fourth-grade reading. In 2015, the state was ranked 41st." (Detroit Free Press)

So, this concern, so easily dismissed by Sarah, is a valid concern.  We now have a Secretary of Education with no background in education and with a very personal agenda concerning education, into which she has pumped a great deal of money and her impact in Michigan at best has been either negligible or horrible, but certainly nothing to build any confidence in her capabilities.  Sarah isn't concerned because she obviously shares that same agenda, but the rest of us should be very concerned.

As for Annie Waldman mis-representing the DI and their position on teaching ID in public schools, I have to refer back to this post from just under a year ago: "Does Anyone Actually Believe the Discovery Institute when They say They are not Advocating Teaching Intelligent Design?"  In case you don't feel like reading the whole thing, and it is a fairly long post, here are a few highlights:

• The DI's Wedge Strategy Document outlining a 'teacher training strategy' aimed to gain acceptance from college and university presidents and faculty.
• The DI was involved heavily in Dover Pa:
• Why did Seth Cooper, a DI attorney, have several calls with William Buckingham (Chairman of the Dover School Board Curriculum Committee) discussing the legality of teaching ID?  (Trial Transcripts)
• Why did the DI send Buckingham DVDs, videotapes, and books? (Trial Transcripts)
• Why did two lawyers from the DI make a legal presentation to the School Board in executive session? (Trial Transcripts)
• Why was the DI one of only two outside organizations consulted by the School Board  (The Thomas More Law Center was the other)?
• DI's IDEA clubs, whose own website described as:
  "The Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to promoting intelligent design theory and fostering good - spirited discussion and a better understanding over intelligent design theory and the creation - evolution issue among students,educators, churches, and anyone else interested.
  Our primary focus is to help students form "IDEA Clubs" on university and high school campuses to expand the dialogue over intelligent design" (http://www.ideacenter.org/)

• In Texas, if the DI is not advocating Intelligent Design, why were they 'advising' the Creationist head of the Texas State School Board on public school curricula and textbooks.
• The DI's own Stephen C. Meyer proposed to the Ohio Board of Education the Institute's Critical Analysis of Evolution that prominently featured intelligent design. It also included a model lesson plan!
• The DI's website featured: Key Resources for Parents and School Board Members  -- They have a ton of material here . . . and all geared to parents and school board members.  

Look at the recurring theme, school boards, individual school board members, teachers, students, school campuses, lesson plans . . . sure, the DI has no interest in teaching ID in the classroom!  If you believe that, I have a bridge over in Brooklyn for sale!  Any takers?

Actions always speak louder than 'official' positions, don't they?  The bottom line should be pretty simple for anyone to see.  Regardless of what they say 'officially', the Discovery Institute is interested in, has set a goal to, and is pursuing tactics to, replace actual science with their version of Creationism.

Their 'official' party-line is nothing but a tactic, and our experience has shown us that there is no tactic too low or too reprehensible for them to grasp and use because, like little kennie ham at Answers in Genesis, they are simply doing God's will, right?  Actually this specific tactic is probably because after all of their defeats in court and in places like Texas Kansas, and Ohio (even after an initial brush with success), they know an official push for ID would fail.  They, the DI, keep trying to disassociate ID from Creationism and also to officially disassociate themselves with their own ongoing efforts to insert their religion into the classroom.  Dover hurt them much more than they will ever admit and another major court failure might do what must be unthinkable for them . . . a loss of donations! 

So while the 'official' position might be not teaching ID in public schools, that is the end goal they are after, make no mistake.  So when people like Annie Waldman speak up and shines the light on their motivations and tactics, they have to quickly cover everything back up and act like they are not trying to push us back into the dark . . . the Dark Ages that is!  

So Who Has their Head in the Sand?

Interesting article, but one that seems to be nothing more than a wonderful example of quote-mining. By now, you are probably more than familiar with the concept of quote-mining, that is taking a quote out-of-context in such a way to change its meaning.  There have been many instances of quote-mining, one of my personal favorites is here with Ben Stein quote-mining Charles Darwin, and doing a pretty poor job.  In any event, my opinion of quote-mining is that it is a reprehensible tactic and one usually used by the loosing side of an argument when they seem to feel they have nothing left to loose.

Here in the new post 'Irony Alert: Michael Shermer on "When Facts Fail" ' from the Discovery Institute's blog, Evolution 'news' and Views.  I had to read through it twice to get the point the author, Cornelius Hunter, was trying to make.  What it looks like to me is he is insinuating that folks like Michael Shermer are engaging in the exact behavior that he [Shermer] was writing about, that is the refusal to change ones mind when confronted with facts that contradict 'beliefs'.

So, instead of listing all the 'facts' about Intelligent Design that Michael Shermer might be refusing to consider . . . oh wait, there are no facts about ID.  So I guess Hunter had to take a different path, in fact [pun intended], the only path open to him.  So what he does is list a whole bunch of stuff, claiming these were all examples of facts failing evolution.  But are they?

One example Hunter uses is, the emphasis is Hunter's:

"Early trilobites show all the features of the trilobite group as a whole; transitional or ancestral forms showing or combining the features of trilobites with other groups (e.g. early arthropods) do not seem to exist."

Since this is from Wikipedia, let's look at it a bit more in context:

"Evidence suggests that significant diversification had already occurred before trilobites were preserved in the fossil record, easily allowing for the "sudden" appearance of diverse trilobite groups with complex derived characteristics (e.g. eyes)." (Wikipedia: Trilobite)

To get the entire explanation, you really should click on the link and read it all for yourself.  Hunter took only one line to try and make his case.  Of course it doesn't present the complete picture -- after all the more complete context doesn't support his contention -- hence quote-mining.

The bottom line, which Hunter failed to mention, is really two-fold.  The first is that the evidence supports that the majority of the evolution of trilobites precedes the time periods when bony structures formed and started leaving detailed fossils.  So, on the one hand Creationists like to claim there are no transitional fossils and on the other when there are not clear transitional forms, they claim that disproves evolution.  Really?  How . . . two-faced.

The other thing you get when you read it is that science is honest about the things we do not know.  Instead of making definitive statements you see terms like 'do not seem' and 'evidence suggests'.  That's how science works.  The things we don't know or aren't sure about are openly identified.  It identifies areas where we need more work.  Look at what we know today compared to what we knew 10, 20, 50, or 100 years ago.  Can Hunter really claim this is some sort of fact failure?  The only failure is in his imagination.

A quick Google of some of his other 'failed facts' show similar issues, Hunter simply is representing them as fact failures, however they really aren't at all.  Some of them are reasonably understood, from an evolutionary standpoint, others less so.  But at no time can you call these failures.  Only a Creationists would call something we don't understand to the nth degree a failure.  I guess having a deity you can rely on to give you all the answers means you have no failures . . . also you have no successes.  After all, how many scientific advances can identify the point where Creationism/Intelligent Design entered and added something to the whole?  Yea, I get the same answer.  There aren't any!  Planes fly not because a deity wills it, but because of our understanding of many scientific theories. 

All Hunter has proven is science doesn't know everything.  Of course the scientific community has never said that it knows all.  That's a lie put forth by anti-science organizations, like the DI.  One of the common anti-science tactics is to build a strawman argument, demolish it and claim a victory.  In this case, the strawman is that science knows all, and then you point out a few things where the science isn't complete and claim science is all screwed up.  So which side is actually being honest in this discussion?

Actually this is a common tactic.  Remember the Dover Trial and Michael Behe?  Unlike Hunter here, who is only a Fellow at the DI, Behe is a 'Senior' Fellow, I'm not sure if that means smarter or simply older. Here's a quote from the decision:

"In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough." (Wikipedia: Dover Decision)

So, I would also like to address this idea of Hunter's from a different angle.  Take any scientific theory, say Light, Gravity, Germs, or even Evolution.  Look back on a timeline and look at the changes to the theory as you go further and further back.  You will see an almost constant evolution [used in the context of 'change over time'] of the theories.  Does this sound like a community of people who reject new ideas and cling to their belief set?  Scientific advances are not made by re-hashing the old!  It would be hard to call them advances if all we are doing is running in place.  Picture the medical community of Darwin's day.  How would you like to be treated by those medical techniques?

So, Hunter . . . who has their head stuck in the sand when faced with fact that refute their belief system?  It sure doesn't sound like the scientific community is guilty here, but can you say the same? 

Does Intelligent Design Do Anything At All?

In a recent post on the Discovery Institute's (DI) Evolution 'news' and Views blog, one of the posters, anonymously, asked whether or not Intelligent Design (ID) does too much or does too little.  Here's the post: "Horns of a Dilemma: Does Intelligent Design Do Too Little -- or Too Much?"

I have a much more basic question, just what does ID do?  Seriously, how many scientific advances have been made as the result of Intelligent Design?  Anyone?  I certainly haven't heard of any.  Is anything published by any ID advocate supporting ID actually referenced by anyone?  Well, other than another ID proponent creating more than a bit of circular logic.  Dembski citing Behe citing Meyer citing Dembski is entertaining, but not worth very much.   I am talking about real science, not the make-believe green-screen stuff the DI calls science.

While most of the post means little, I have to enjoy this:

"ID may be limited, but if it can show that even one feature in living things is designed by an intelligence (no matter when,where, or how), the whole edifice of materialism collapses."

But has ID shown any single feature of living things is designed by an intelligence?  Have they?  Aside from a great many claims to the contrary, they have not.  They speculate, hypothesize, market and self-publish, but at no time have they accomplished, or come near to accomplishing this.  They have a great many excuses, but woefully short of anything real.

I don't know about you, but before ID can claim to have done anything, isn't this the first step?  Until they accomplish this, they have no accomplishments to speak of, because everything they claim all hinges on this one thing, showing that a feature is designed, and not only designed, but designed by an intelligence.  One of my many problems is that no one seems to be working on this.  They write lots of philosophical material, but none of it means anything until they have success in this one area.

So when they ask if ID has done too little or too much, it's a meaningless question until ID has shown itself to be more than just conjecture and wishful thinking.  Even Judge Jones left that door open when he said this in his decision:

"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science." (Wikipedia: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Decision)

It is within the realm of the possible that ID might be an actual answer to something other than an obscure Jeopardy question of "What replaced 'creation science' as an alternative to force religion into the science classroom in the 1990's?"  But until the DI does the actual work to support their conjecture and wishful thinking, they haven't done a damn thing.

Still Pushing Discredited Ideas, I think Sarah Chaffee is Behind on her Homework

The Discovery Institute's Sarah Chaffee doesn't seem to have gotten the message that some of their arguments quit working a long time ago.  In her post "Use Your Brain: Scientific Controversies and Intelligence" she is commenting on a book she hadn't read, but she focused on a review of that book.  So she really doesn't know if it's a good review or not, or one that actually represents the book well.  She just found something she just had to comment about and she actually quotes both herself and . . . get ready for it . . . little casey luskin.

'Over 950 PhD scientists have signed the "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" list, affirming they are "skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." For a summary of weaknesses and links to scientific articles challenging the major mechanisms of neo-Darwinism, read Casey Luskin's article, "The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution.'

Yes, the 'list' is now over 950. but they are still calling them PhD scientists, when not all of them have PhD's and only about 25% of them work in a biology-related field and none of them work in evolutionary biology.

The DI has been collecting signatures now for 15 years and they are all the way up to 950! Can you believe it? Especially when you consider that after this list was used as part of an amicus curiae brief in the Kitzmiller v. Dover intelligent design court case in October 2005, a counter-petition, A Scientific Support For Darwinism, was organized and gathered 7,733 signatures from scientists in four days. Yes, four days, with over 68% of those signatories working in biology-related fields, many were working evolutionary biologists.

Of course while the DI used to wave their list around all the time, even they seemed to cool it on the list for a while.  I had thought they finally learned that a petition doesn't mean that science is settled by a majority opinion, it only shows that real science, like evolution, has passed an incredible number of tests and evaluations and is supported by a huge amount of evidence that finding consensus on actual scientific theories, like Evolution, pretty simple.  So after 15 years of collecting signatures, the DI is all the way up to 950 names, of which -- while the DI claims they are PhD's, not all of them have a PhD -- far fewer of them work in biology-related fields, and . . . according to the NY Times, all of them have a philosophical, not scientific, bias against Evolution.  And Sarah is still using that list as evidence of the great 'scientific' controversy over evolution.  She might take a page out of the rest of the DI who rarely mention the list anymore.  But then she's relatively new to the DI I believe.

But maybe Sarah considers 950 to be a large number.  Maybe like asking a 4-year old if they want a nickle or a dime, they pick the nickle of course, it's a larger coin.  So in order to place Sarah's 950 in an appropriate context, we would have to know how many scientists there are in the world, but that number would be impossible to calculate.  So how about a rough estimate.  According to Wikipedia, approximately 79 out of every 10,000 workers in the United States works in a field and position the meets the definition of a scientist.  According to the US Department of Labor, there are over 150,000,000 workers in the US.  Using those numbers to create our rough estimate, there are approximately 1,185,000 working scientists in the US.  So if we say Sarah's 950 are all US citizens . . . which is an assumption because if you scan the list you can see that many are obviously not . . . but for the sake are our estimate, let's give Sarah the best possible outcome.  So, based on those numbers Sarah's list represents 0.08% of working scientists.

Of course, that estimate goes down the more signatories from foreign countries there are on her list, but even at it's best, Sarah's list doesn't indicate much support for Intelligent Design, but of course she won't say that, she'll keep waving the list around like 0.08% is statistically significant.

OK, enough on Sarah's list and let's keep going.  I do love how she points people to a paper by little casey luskin, a lawyer who used to work for the DI.  I think he might be her predecessor because she started posting much more after casey left.  Since casey isn't a scientists, the DI had given him the job of writing about science.  Sarah's not a scientist either, her background is a BA in Government and a job at Probe Ministries.  So I guess that makes her just as qualified as casey.  But she does need a bit more . . . shall we say  . . . guidance.  Little casey used to quote the ID 'bigs', like Dembski, Behe, and Meyer.  Sarah is quoting herself and little casey.  Definitely not playing for the varsity yet.

But Sarah's main point is nothing new, she's toeing the party line claiming that  . . . well here she says it:

"Origins science, no less than neuroscience, is beset by controversy."

Ah yes, the 'controversy'!  The one that seems to exist only in the minds of the DI and other ID proponents.  I ask very simply, is there a scientific controversy about the Theory of Evolution?  No, there is not.  The 'controversy' is a tactic used by ID proponents.  It's one of their many marketing campaigns.  In 2001 philosopher Robert Pennock wrote:

' . . . that intelligent design proponents are "manufacturing dissent" in order to explain the absence of scientific debate of their claims: "The 'scientific' claims of such neo-creationists as Johnson, Denton, and Behe rely, in part, on the notion that these issues [surrounding evolution] are the subject of suppressed debate among biologists. ... according to neo-creationists, the apparent absence of this discussion and the nearly universal rejection of neo-creationist claims must be due to the conspiracy among professional biologists instead of a lack of scientific merit." ' (Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives Robert T. Pennock. MIT Press, 2001. Page 322.)

Manufacturing a controversy isn't the same thing as there being an actual controversy.  Remember that Sarah's use of the Dissent from Darwinism petition which, at best, only represents 0.08% of scientists.  That's not much of a controversy.

Her final comment asks a question that has been answered, but I am happy to offer my opinion of it today.  She says:

"Is it such a stretch to recognize that products of human creativity (machines and code) have remarkably close parallels in nature (molecular machines, DNA code) and therefore to consider the possibility that they all have their origin in purposeful, intelligent agency?"

The answer is it has been considered and rejected because of a lack of any evidence.  The DI has had the last 20 years to provide something other than their desire for scientific legitimacy and have failed at every turn.  It's time to turn off the marketing machine and put more effort to actual science.  But people have been asking for that for years and the DI continues to prefer marketing to science.  They have to realize that by now, don't you think?

DI is celebrating 20 years of Intelligent Design . . . Why?

Here are the stated 20-year goals of the Discovery Institute (DI):

It's a little blurry, but I think you can make them out.  The reason I bring this up is because of this post from the DI: "Intelligent Design -- The Future! Join Us on August 12 to Celebrate 20 Years of Advancing Science and Culture".  I have to ask, what do they have to celebrate?

Look at the goals again, and it certainly leads to these questions:

• Is Intelligent Design the dominant perspective in science?
• Is design 'theory' being applied in any specific fields, in and outside of the natural sciences?
• Does design 'theory' permeate our religious, cultural, moral, and political life?

Can anyone honestly answer 'yes' to any of these?  I know the DI will be placing some spin about how incredible the last 20 years have been, but have they achieved any of their goals?  That answer is not just no, a resounding No!

So one more question, what are they celebrating?  Twenty years of soliciting money from other people while continually failing?  Twenty years of refusing to perform any actual science?  Twenty years of publishing pseudo-scientific books and articles while failing to understand why no one in science takes them seriously? That might sounds kinda mean, but come on . . . what have they achieved?

Let's take a look at another set of goals, these are their five-year goals:

So now I have to ask:

• Is Intelligent Design an accepted alternative and is there any actual scientific research being done form the perspective of 'design' theory?
• Is design theory influencing any spheres other than natural sciences?  For that matter, is it actually influencing natural sciences?
• Are there major new debates in education, life issues, legal, and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda?

Of these three, the only one you might be able to rationalize a 'yes' to is the second one.  But it would be a stretch.  Because the way 'design theory' is influencing natural science, or any other 'sphere', is in a negative way.  Has 'design theory' been used to develop any new scientific theories?  Has it been used to develop new medicines?  Has it been used in anything other than a continuation of the cultural debate that keeps springing up periodically when theists' religious beliefs feel threatened?  No, not at all!  So what does an organization who failed to reach any of their five-year goals in 20 years have to celebrate?

Here is the future, as I see it.  Since ID has been a failure in everything but raising funds for the DI, it's got to be time to replace it with something else.  Something that sounds even more 'science-y' and might have less of a close and personal relationship with Creationism.  

After all wasn't Creationism replaced by 'Creation Science' in an effort to convince some people that there was some rational basis for their religious beliefs?  Creation Science came around after Creationists started losing court cases (1968 Epperson v. Arkansas being the first big one).  And after 'Creation Science' lost it's big court challenge (1982  McLean v. Arkansas) it gave way to the more modern version of Creationism, Intelligent Design. Now if you look at a calendar, we find that losing a court case in 1982, it was 14 years before the establishment of the DI and the heavy marketing of ID. It's now been 11 years since ID lost it's big court case (2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District), so shouldn't the DI be planning for their next pseudo-scientific idea?

I mean that ill-fitting lab coat has got to be wearing a bit thin, so I would suggest keeping the celebrating to a minimum, you might rip it and expose the priestly garments you try and hide.

Follow up on the Ark Park

Here's a quick follow-up to "The 'Ark Park' is not an Educational Institution! Nor is its purpose Recreational or Historical!"

Kennie Ham has double-downed his whine toward the Freedom From Religion Foundation.  He's offering public school who organize a field trip a price decrease.  Instead of $28 per child, they can get preached at for $1.00 a child and the accompanying teacher can get in for free.  Imagine that, a 96% price decrease.  How incredible, it must be a miracle!

And, yet another bout of discrimination, and this one is against his own believers.  If your parochial school organizes a field trip, you get to pay full price.  Yes, a public school trip of 20 students and two teachers will run $20, but a Christian school trip will run $640, $28 per child and $40 each for the teachers.  I guess you don't need to cut believers a break.  We now know who kennie really, really wants to visit his church, don't we?  Believers get to foot the bill so he can preach to children who don't share his narrow worldview.

Here's what I see happening.  The majority of teachers and schools will ignore kennie's monument to himself.  But a few might get caught up in his delusion.  While you would normally assume teachers would know better, there are always instances where a teacher is also a believer of such fervor, that sense is overwhelmed by their religious beliefs.  Just ask John Freshwater and a pair of teachers  I read about just today concerning a school in Texas:

" . . . complaint alleged that one teacher showed the Christian movie, “God’s Not Dead,” to his ninth-grade health class in the spring of 2015 and other another showed a documentary about the theory of intelligent design to a ninth-grade biology class."
when a science teacher said they didn't believe in evolution and showed their students "Expelled!" and also the Christian movie "God is not Dead!" (source)

At least one parent, probably more, will object and find a lawyer.  The school system could very well end up in a costly litigation, something like the Dover Trial . . . and guess what that would cost little kennie . . . not one damn dime.  Plus he will get hours of airtime and inches of newspaper columns of free publicity.  Hopefully it won't come to that, but some teacher will probably put his religious beliefs ahead of his duties as a public school teacher and not only lower the education standard of their students, but place their school system in a precarious legal position!

I wonder what the DI is going to say about any of this?  I imagine they will be cheering kennie on, after all it won't cost them anything if Kentucky loses.  I wonder how many Kentucky lawmakers are they hitting up with a copy of their 'academic freedom' bill?