Can the Discovery Institute be Trusted?

You know I don't trust anything the Discovery Institute (DI) has to say. I do also believe that I have amply justified why I do not trust them, over and over again. Just in case you missed any of my other 300+ posts that mention the DI, here is another example.

In a post over on the Evolution 'news' and Views site, a site nearly completely dedicated to the views more than any real discussion of news, one of their friends posted this "Why Should Evolutionary Biology Be So Different?". The author is Grant Sewell, and he opens with this:

"In the current debate between Darwinism and intelligent design, the strongest argument made by Darwinists is this: in every other field of science, naturalism has been spectacularly successful, why should evolutionary biology be so different?"

Really? That's the best argument for evolution?  The DI is telling us what our best 'argument' is, does anyone else see a problem with that?  This is why I think the Discovery Institute has never been, is currently not, nor will ever be considered a reliable source for information on any subject.  Does anyone believe that this argument is the strongest argument made in favor of evolution over the non-scientific intelligent design?  Is it an argument?  Certainly! But the strongest?  Not by a long shot!  But if you put even a smidgen of trust in the DI, you probably get your science news from Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly, so you probably buy into this. Thankfully the majority of the world knows better.

As for this specific argument, you might also think about this.  Biology, like all natural sciences, follows the Scientific Method.  Which is explained well from Wikipedia:

" . . . a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning" (Wikipedia:  Scientific Method) 

So let me get this straight, the methodology that has been  . . . to use Grant's words . . . 'spectacularly successful' for every other natural science is somehow lacking when it comes to Biology?  Does he present any basis for that  claim?  Just look at the description?  It applies just as well to Biology as it does to Physics, Chemistry and a host of others.  If Biology actually used a different methodology, Grant and his pals would be screaming bloody murder, but they can't, so they make unsupported claims in religious publications and expect people to agree.

Didn't the DI miss a few arguments?  How about Biodiversity, Punctuated Equilibrium, Paleontology, Climatology, Physics . . . how about Genetics?  Once claimed to be the death knell of Darwin's theories turned out to be the strongest possible evidence in support of evolution.  I changed words there . . . did you catch it? Instead of calling genetics an argument for evolution, I called it evidence supporting evolution. There is a difference, and one I am sure the marketeers from the DI realize.

Which is another reason I distrust the DI is the way they like to spin things.  Calling something an argument implies what exactly?  A disagreement, two sides battling it out.  They want people to believe there is an actual argument going on about evolution vs creationism, as if the two sides were equivalent.  The reality is the scientific examination of the DI and their pet version of Creationism, aka Intelligent Design (ID), was settled a long time ago.  ID is defined as pseudo-science and nothing the DI has attempted -- not their marketing, their pandering to politicians, their anti-science bill authorship, or their testifying in court has changed that.  Which is why they concentrate their efforts on selling to people who already believe the same set religious beliefs.  

There isn't a scientific argument, there is only scientific evidence. Where is the evidence that negates evolution? Creationists of one stripe or another have been announcing the death of evolution pretty much since it was first postulated. Yet they have not bothered to amass any evidence contradictory to science, let alone build a case for any alternative, religious or non-religious.  The second question is where is the evidence supporting Creationism/intelligent Design?  Real evidence, not wishful thinking and conjecture.

If you read Grant's article, which apparently comes out of one of his books, you might wonder why it wasn't published by the Discovery Institute Press (DIP), the DI's internal publishing group.  You should know that there are many other publishers who have the same 'standard' of evidencial support as DIP does (which is none at all), and the publisher, Resource Publications, is one of them.  In fact here is something from their own About page:

"For the first time, scholars within the churches of Christ are producing a complete book-by-book commentary on the entire Bible. Every church library, every Christian school library, and every Christian home will benefit from this reference set."

So you see, we aren't talking about a scientific journal, we are talking about a religious publishing house.  No wonder the DI is referencing Grant's book and giving him space on EnV, it's all about religion . . . again.

I did find it interesting that Grant had to go back to 1888 to find information that he quotes, like this:

"Joseph LeConte, professor of geology and natural history at the University of California, and (later) president of the Geological Society of America, provides an insight into the way most scientists think about evolution, in his 1888 book Evolution."

Aside from Professor LeConte's primary contributions to science were in Geology, not Biology, I have to wonder why Grant couldn't find something more recent.  He goes on to make a pseudo-valid point:

"That's the way science works, if one theory fails, we look for another one; why should evolution be so different?" 

First of all, has evolutionary theory failed?  Has Darwin's contributions been found to be lacking? Has the 150+ years of scientific work supporting and expanding biological knowledge failed?  Grant is making a massive assumption.  In modern times, how many current theories have been replaced wholesale?  None that I can think of.  What happens is the current state of knowledge gets expanded and increased.  It's not like current knowledge lacks support, it's just as we learn more, we can add to it.  That's what's been happening since Darwin first published.  Even if by some miracle Evolution was disproven, that doesn't mean intelligent design would step into it's place.  Any new scientific theory would  scale the same level of evidence that ID has so far failed to address.  Grant also makes another point:

"Many people believe that intelligent design advocates just don't understand how science works, and are motivated entirely by religious beliefs."

Finally he said something I can sort of agree too .  Not completely.  I believe ID advocates do understand science and scientific methodology.  How else do they avoid it so conspicuously?  You do know Grant can't just leave it at that, he goes on a diatribe, including pictures, and makes a restatement of Hoyle's Fallacy, the tornado argument.

"The original context of Hoyle's argument was against abiogenesis, not evolution. Nevertheless, opponents of evolution occasionally use it when discussing aspects of evolutionary biology. The analogy is exceptionally poor when compared to the process of evolution, as one of the main mechanisms of evolution is natural selection which is non-random." (Rational Wiki: Hoyle's Fallacy)

After that, it's strawman time.  Look at this line:

"Anyone who claims to have a scientific explanation for how unintelligent agents like tornados might be able to turn rubble into houses and cars would be expected to produce some powerful evidence, if they want their theory to be taken seriously. "

Since science in no way claims that an unintelligent 'agent' like a tornado can turn rubble into houses, all Grant has done is built a little strawman and then uses it to justify his opposition to evolutionary theory.  I've asked this question before, but if a tornado is such a great analogy of evolution, where is the mechanism for selecting results?  Evolution has such a mechanism, it's called 'Natural Selection'.  When it comes to plant and animal breeding programs, we call it 'Artificial Selection'.  So where is the selection mechanism for a tornado?  Without it, the analogy breaks immediately.  Of course Grant's strawman doesn't go toward supporting any alternative explanation, but that tends to be a constant oversight from ID proponents.

So, in summary, Grant tries to tell us what our strongest argument is -- using a religious publication, then he uses an exceptionally poor analogy to question evolution and finally build an inexplicable strawman rationalization.  Anyone get anything worthwhile from this?

Abiogenesis and Evolution

A poster over on Topix has gotten his head stuck on Abiogenesis and keeps using it to try and bash Science in general, and Evolution in particular.  Funny how the same arguments keep coming around, it's just new people making them as the old posters fade away.  Or maybe it's the same posters simply using different handles.  Makes little difference, their arguments do show a lack of originality.  The most amusing thing to me is how Creationists keep making the same arguments and then coming into places like Topix pretending that it's something new.  You have no idea how often I have heard the breaking news of Darwin recanting on his deathbed, how Pasteur's Biogenesis makes evolution impossible, or that thermodynamics disproves Evolution.  Fun, but pretty foolish!  Fifth-grade science pretty well settled those arguments for me, and that was with a priest and a lay-person as science teachers!

This particular Topix poster called himself 'Blitzkrieg' and usually refers to Abiogenesis as 'Mud to Man', which as anyone who understands what Abiogenesis is knows how foolish a comment that is to make.  He further brags about his misunderstanding by comparing Abiogenesis to other scientific theories, which again anyone familiar with the subjects knows that Abiogenesis is not a scientific theory, but an area of study containing a number of hypotheses.

Like most creationists, he fails to understand what that means.  He refuses to allow anyone to have a dissenting opinion from his own and he constantly refuses to be educated, even to the smallest degree, on the subject.  I will endeavor to express most of his misunderstandings here.

First of all, some terms.  I've written about them before (Arguments XIX -- Hypothesis, Theory, and Law and Words have meanings):

• Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true”. Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
• Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
• Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
• Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

At its heart Abiogenesis is an idea, a concept, and a process.  What it is not is a scientific theory or even a hypothesis.  Look at the terms, do any of them fit?  No, and at this point in time, they shouldn't.  We can't use any of those labels at this point in time.  One day we might have a Theory of Abiogenesis, in other words a well-established explanation of how life began.  We aren't even close yet.  But to offer religious explanations is ridiculous because religion is not science.  It can't be tested, measured, falsified, or predicted.  Religion is a belief without evidence while science is all about the evidence.

Evidence starts with something we observe.  It doesn't have to be absolute, but a known, repeatable observation.  For example gravity started with the observation that things fall down.  Nice piece of evidence.  The questions start with 'Why do things fall down?'  The study of gravity has have a number of hypotheses over time and we formed a theory, complete with some laws (how gravity behaviors under very specific criteria).  

What do we really know that would contribute toward Abiogenesis?  We know that life exists. There's a fact, one even Blitzkrieg cannot dispute.  We can make an assumption that at some point in the past life had a start.  Is it an assumption, certainly.  But since everything else that has occurred had a start, it's a pretty good assumption.  I'm sure Blitzkrieg will disagree, but even he cannot name something that did not have a beginning!  He might offer opinion, but the only things he can name are things that we don't know how it started.  There is nothing to say we won't know how it started someday.  Go back a few decades, centuries, or millenia and you will be able to name many things that the beginning wasn't known at that time . . . but we know much more today -- and not a single one them didn't have a natural process.  What we want to do is figure out how it started.  That's the term 'Abiogenesis' means, that area of study within Science.  Here's the definition from Wikipedia: 

"Abiogenesis or biopoiesis or OoL (Origins of Life), is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. It is thought to have occurred on Earth between 3.8 and 4.1 billion years ago, and is studied through a combination of laboratory experiments and extrapolation from the genetic information of modern organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures about what pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to a living system."(Wikipedia: Abiogenesis)

What Abiogenesis does have is a number of potential explanations.  Yes, the matter is certainly not settled, but there are a number of possible answers, here are a few:

• Chemical Origins
• Clay Hypothesis
• Deep-hot biosphere
• Panspermia
• Extraterrestrial organic molecules
• PAH world hypothesis

Unlike Blitzkrieg, you can do your own homework and check them out for yourself. But the bottom line comes down to as of yet, we do not know how life started on Earth. It is within the realm of possibility we may never know to 100% certainty. But if the history of science has taught us anything it's that tomorrow we will know more than we do today. In one year, in 10 years, even in 100 years we will know considerably more than we do today.

Now what Blitz is doing is trying to use his strawman of 'mud to man' as a way to bash evolutionary theory.  He doesn't do a good job of it.  For one reason his mud-to-man is a strawman and not particularly applicable.  The other reason is while there is a relationship between Evolution and Abiogenesis, the theories are not dependent on each other.  For example I listed 6 potential Abiogenesis explanations above, none of them would have much impact on evolutionary theory.  For when it comes to evolution, it really wouldn't matter which one of them -- or a completely different explanation -- turned out to be true.  So basically Blitz is firing blanks.

In closing, please remember that Science closes no doors, not even the religious ones.  But we also don't spend much in the way of resources addressing religious ideas.  History has once again shown us that they tend not to pan out.  Just ask any honest intelligent design 'theorist'.  What scientific advances have been made using Intelligent Design 'Theory' . . . the silence will say more than I ever could.  I've asked the question before and while there were a lot of words said in their responses, they named absolutely nothing!  Oh they love to cite examples of humans using intelligence to design things -- but that's not what Intelligent Design 'Theory' is all about.

I also asked a number of Creationists what scientific advances have been made using Creationism and their responses like to list scientists in history who also believed in God, but at no time have they ever specified what scientific theories, or what parts of scientific theories, show an application of 'Creationism'. Funny, isn't it?  Well to me, anyway.

Honesty From the NCSE brings out the Foolishness in the DI, but then most things do, don't they?

Do these guys even read articles before responding to them?  I'm talking about the Discovery Institute (DI), of course.  It's somewhat funny.  I read a lot of articles and blogs and am always looking for something that peaks my interest to blog about.  As I look back over my own posts I do see two very common targets, The DI and Answers in Genesis (AiG).  For a few minutes I thought maybe I was targeting them too often and that I was missing other, more interesting, things.  Then they come along and say something so incredibly foolish that I just can't help posting about it.

Case in point "Sleepless in Oakland" is a response to an National Center for Science Education post "The Big Bang is Giving Me Big Headaches".  I really suggest you read the NCSE post before diving into the idiocy of Donald McLaughlin's response.

Reading through the NCSE post was interesting.  It wasn't a precise about the Big Bang, but more a description of Minda Berbeco's emotional reaction to learning more about the Big Bang.  She recognizes that answering many scientific questions isn't about the data, but about dealing with misconceptions that have become rooted in people's emotions.  As she says:

"Although data is powerful, most often the conflicts teachers experience have nothing to do with evidence."

Anyone who has wandered the web and read and responded to some of the wild things being said about such topics as Evolution, The Big Bang, and Climate Change has experienced this first hand.  Here is a very recent example.  I have a Facebook page.  I don't use it for too much but just the other day I saw a Facebook post from the DI from the First of Feb:

It was a link to their self-conducted poll that we talked about in "A New 'Poll' conducted by the DI says what the DI says, what a surprise!"  Well to be honest when I saw the post I nearly just ignored it, but out of curiosity I wanted to see if anyone responded to it.  I was pretty shocked at the responses.  The very first reply I saw was this one:

"Alyson Miller Hi, I'm a biology teacher who teaches a LOT of evolution to a LOT of bright kids - so far, I haven't seen a single piece of quantifiable evidence against the facts supporting Darwin's Theory. Please show me one. Remember - I teach science, so it's got to be a measurable piece of evidence from the natural world, not the supernatural world. :-)"

I wasn't surprised reading her post, it made perfect sense to me. How often we hear the cry to teach both sides, but then no one seems to be able to find things contrary to evolution that are measurable.  It's usually conjecture and wishful thinking that they invest in emotionally.  Often people complain about teaching both sides of a topic as some level of 'fairness', but when the two sides are obviously not dealing with the same context, covering both in order to be 'fair' is actually completely artificial. It was something we previously discussed several times, including "Is it really fair? and Arguments IX - Should students learn arguments for and against Evolution?"

What did surprise me were many of the responses to her comment.  Here are a few:

Benjamin Parker Lori, then you are doing your students a disservice because you are teaching them PSEUDOscience. Evolution is a fraud. There's absolutely no facts or evidence to support it. Any idiot can look at two fossils and FANTASIZE ancestry but that is NOT evidence but pure speculation, lies or wishful thinking.

Michael Norten Do you teach junk science out of ignorance or rebellion?
Lori Bourque Where is the missing link? Why are there still apes? Why do 2 planets revolve counter. clockwise? Who was the master designer? Evolution has a lot of missing data..I opt opt for the heavenly designer....God the father of all creation

Benjamin Parker Evolution IS a religion which is why you evos steadfastly defend it despite the utter lack of evidence to support it. That's why even after being shown all the evidence shown AGAINST it ever occurring, you evos STILL cling to your evolutionary FAITH. That's called brainwashing.

Kenneth Davis Sorry Alyson but the facts you're referring to have only been connected to evolutionary theory with speculation. For example no observed evidence has shown that natural selection changed an organism from one distinctive type to another. In other words, all the bacteria and fruit flies that have ever mutated still remained bacteria and fruit flies and never any new organism. Nat. selection was built into each organism for adaptation but not with any possibility of becoming a new creature. The transitions are totally nonexistent.

Lori Bourque Doug I beg to differ there is mounds of evidence..literal physical and spiritual..what do you think is happening now it is the final battle and it was written thousands of years ago and it is unfolding before our eyes God knew the end from the beginning! This is the final battle

Mory Von Werner I always go back to first life. As of yet no one can explain how a putative first life could start. As you know, the first life would have to been incredibly complex --- thousands, if not millions of amino acid structural, functional tertiary and chiral machines. This Protobiont would necessarily have DNA information storage, and the information able to be read by RNA and move on to the Ribosome for building. All this had to fall together by chance in roiling seas, the chirality thing is off the charts impossible! But there's more! It needs a phospholipid cell wall to protect the functioning cell machinery. So, you need DNA to make a Cell wall, but DNA would not form in a perfect environment, much less the open roiling seas it was purported to have formed---no cell wall. And, not just here, but on billions of plantets--- thus, starting life all over this universe. The whole thing is dead in the water if abiogenisis is not possible (and it's not)

That's just a small sample of the well over 100 responses her single comment received.  Just look at some of the misconceptions people have stated, clearly they have little knowledge of the subject, or I should say subjects.  A total misunderstanding of Evolutionary Theory is about the only way to explain comments like 

• "Evolution is a fraud. There's absolutely no facts or evidence to support it. "
•  "Evolution IS a religion "
• "Missing Link . . ."
• "For example no observed evidence has shown that natural selection changed an organism from one distinctive type to another."
• "The whole thing is dead in the water if abiogenisis is not possible (and it's not)"

What has happened to basic science education?  If you keep reading, it gets even worse.  The most common mistakes made by many of the posters reveals not only a lack of knowledge about evolution, but a totally dogmatic view of any potential alternative, regardless of its lack of scientific support!  

Today's Non-Sequitur is a particularly good one to illustrate these points.  I am posting the image here because many of the comic strip sites remove the images after a while.  I got it here. 

Now McLaughlin is a new name to me, so I decided to check him out just a little before even reading his response.  Here is part of his short bio from the DI:

"Donald McLaughlin joined Discovery Institute in August 2013, as a Development Officer and Regional Representative in the upper Midwest and Northeast regions. His areas of responsibility include cultivating and stewarding major gifts, and planned giving. Donald has had a successful career in development, including 8 years as a Regional Director of Advancement for Prison Fellowship Ministries, 2 years as National Director of Major Gifts for Teen Mania Ministries and 5 years as Regional Director of Advancement for Taylor University."(DI bio)

Now before getting into anything else, please note the following:  Prison Fellowship Ministries, Teen Mania Ministries, and Taylor University (a Christian liberal arts college in Indiana).  I just have to say this, for an organization that keeps trying to distance themselves from any religious connections, this is the type of person you hire?  Seriously?  Who was the past new employee I commented about?  Oh yes, Heather Zeigler.  Do you remember her?  I don't know if she still works there, but when they announced her hiring they tried to hide her religious education and affiliations. (So there is nothing religious about Intelligent Design? Part II)

So just what is McLaughlin's job?  Is he their resident expert on the Big Bang?  On Biology?  On Cosmology?  No, he's their 'Development Officer and Regional Representative in the upper Midwest and Northeast' who seems to be responsible for asking for and collecting donations.  Which obviously qualifies him to defend anything said about the Big Bang and the emotional impact such topics might cause in people!  I guess with little casey luskin's departure, they needed a new second-stringer to pinch hit for the big boys who are still crying over the UMC debacle (The Discovery Institute (DI) Doesn't get Invited to the Really Good Parties, The United Methodists Explain their Denial of the DI, and the DI disagrees . . . Surprise, Surprise!, and The Discovery Institute has named their 'Censor of the Year' for 2016).

So what did little casey's replacement have to say? Not much! He tried to defend the indefensible concerning the DI's poorly-named academic freedom bills, something else we've discussed often (Are Academic Freedom Laws Anti-Science?).  Then he pretty much misrepresents what Minda said in an effort to twist things around . . . in other words typical DI spin.

Here is the one that really cracked me up.  He quotes Sir Arthur Eddington:

"The notion of a beginning is repugnant to me ... I simply do not believe that the present order of things started off with a bang. ... The expanding Universe is preposterous ... incredible ... it leaves me cold." 

So here is an Astronomer who passed away in 1944, who exemplified support for the Steady State Universe concept that was replaced years later by the Big Bang Theory with the advent of such supporting evidence as the cosmic microwave background radiation.  Couldn't find anyone more recent?  Donnie not only used him to justify the DI's religious beliefs, but he then postulates about Sir Arthur's sleeping issues.  

OK, that's enough of that.  Time to close this thing out, and Donnie's closing is pretty funny:

"For someone who has staked her professional career on that insistence that intelligent design is illusory, I see why that would lead to some sleepless nights."

No!  Minda has staked her professional career on science and scientific methodology.  Intelligent Design provides hours of humor, not sleepless nights.  But I guess there is no scientific subject that would give you any sleep trouble.  After all, Donnie, all you need to do is keep passing a collection plate.  Don't worry, as long as there are churches, you'll be employed!