Does Appearance = Fact? Only If You Refuse to Engage the Brain!

In a recent post I commented on the following quote.  It's from an announcement post by the Discovery Institute (DI) about a new group joining their Intelligent Design Network in Colorado:

"In other words, the fact that the world appears to be designed is a testament to the truth that it is, in fact, designed." (The Announcement)

I wanted to expand on it a bit. One of my peeves about the quote is the idea that if something 'appears', then it must be as it appears. I listed a few examples in my previous post (And There is Still Nothing Religious about Intelligent Design) where that isn't the case.  You cannot reliably assume that the appearance of anything is the fact of that same thing.

This quote is a paraphrase from the guest speaker,Doug Axe, for this new group's first meeting.  I've spoken about Doug before, about his book "Undeniable" (Design Intuition . . . is that really a Thing?), which certainly doesn't live up to its title.  All it takes is one example of someone's intuition not being accurate, that makes intuition easily deniable!  The tack Dougie is on is trying to sell people on the idea that their intuition is as valid and useful a way of making determinations about any subject as anything else, such as scientific investigation.  Here is a quote that states what they want to sell pretty clearly:

"We don't need to rely slavishly on what scientists say because, in an important sense, we are all scientists, capable of judging a big scientific idea like evolution, if not necessarily the technical details, for ourselves." (More Scientists Praise Douglas Axe's Undeniable)

Harvard Business School has an interesting way of raising some issues about 'Intuition'. At this site: (Test Yourself: Are You Being Tricked by Intuition?). The article briefly discusses that people generally use two 'systems' for processing information, they call them System 1 and System 2 . . . I know, silly names, but the point is that System 1 is an intuitive approach, System 2 is when you think about it before making a judgement.  In general System 1 is used when we either don't have time to think things through, or are unwilling -- for whatever reason -- to think things through.  They make this comment:

"Of course, it's easier to simply rely on our intuitions than to bother to check them, but performing that check can improve the quality of our judgments and choices."

So what the DI is really asking you to do is to not think things through.  It's as simple as that.  They do not want you to think, they want you to rely on your intuition about a subject, intuition that can easily be led astray by appearances.

Don't tell me, but think about it, can you think of a situation where your intuition about something or someone let you down?  If you want, go ahead and comment here about it.  I'll tell you one:

One of my favorite people is a lady who I will call 'Mary'.  I didn't work with Mary, but would pass her office two or three times a day.  She looked to be considerably younger than myself, dark hair with a streak of dark red in it, and dressed most often in black and other dark colors.  My intuition said 'goth', or as near as you can get in this particular workplace.  Now this wasn't a negative thing, I just never bothered taking the time to do more than pass by. 

That changed one day when she sneezed.  I know, pretty silly, but you should have seen it.  I was carrying a cup of ice and a soda coming up on a corner.  She was just about to come around the corner from the opposite direction when she sneezed.  There was no warning, no inhalation, no sound telling me someone was there, just this sharp, and loud sneeze.  She startled the hell out of me -- I didn't drop my drink, but it was close.  The two of us laughed about it and talked for the first time. 

What I discovered was a lady older than my estimation, with an incredible sense of humor, a hair trigger on her bullshit meter, and someone who shared a surprising number of the same interests as myself.  I got into the habit of stopping by her cubicle at least once a day to talk for a few minutes, share some news, pass on a joke or pictures.  She even got along with my granddaughter over a shared appreciation for a Gothic version of Barbie called 'Monster High'.  OK, I didn't say we had everything in common, just a surprising amount. 

My intuition failed me when I pigeon-holed her as someone with whom I would have little in common.  What I ended up with is a friend!  I don't work in that area any longer, so we don't see each other that often.  But we do have lunch on occasion and email/text each other often.

That's only one example.  I'm sure you can think of many others for yourself, I know I can!  Anyone reading this a gambler?  I love to play poker and the number of times my intuition has let me down is why I do not make a living as a professional poker player!  One of my uncles likes to play the ponies, in fact he took me on my first ever visit to Aqueduct in NY.  His 'intuition' was also why he didn't make a living picking horses!

Our intuition rarely helps us make good decisions!  Yes, it does sometimes, but not as often as you might think.  I know someone reading this will probably come up with more than one occasion when their intuition was dead on, but I want to raise two points about that.

First of all, how did you know your intuition was right?  It was after you used System 1 and started thinking about things (System 2), wasn't it?  You had to think about things, gain some experience with whatever, or whomever, you intuited about and come to a conclusion based on more than just your intuition, didn't you?  You had to go further to reach a point of deciding your intuition was correct, but do you always get that chance or even take that opportunity?  So in the end, it's not that your intuition was correct, but you had to rely on something other than your intuition, didn't you?  You might remember the times when your first instinct about something was correct, but do you really remember all the times when it was not?  Be honest, at least with yourself!  I know when my intuition fails, I don't blame my intuition, I simply move on and rarely consider it.

My second point is buried in my story about 'Mary'.  If I hadn't gotten to know her, I would have left that job believing that my intuition was correct, if I gave her any thought at all.  I would have no idea how wrong I was because we would have never interacted.  How often do you really get your intuition confirmed or denied?  That's something you have to consider.  Often we never go past our intuitive judgment for any number of reasons, possible time or simply circumstances don't allow it.  You assume your intuition was correct, not because it is correct, but because you have this inflated view of your intuition because it may never had gotten tested.

Have you ever been disappointed in a meal at a restaurant?  Especially trying a dish or a new restaurant for the first time?  You go to a new place because of your intuition.  Maybe you heard some good things, read a good review, or someone you know said something about it.  You have no first-hand knowledge so you go there based on what, a hunch?  Usually it works out OK, not often spectacular, but OK.  Sometimes you are severely disappointed.  You go from your belief to actual knowledge and come to a final decision.  There are a number of places I will never set foot in again!  I'm sure you know a few yourself!  In those rare cases when the results are spectacular, you pat yourself on the back for 'knowing' it was going to be good -- but reaching that conclusion wasn't intuitive, but based on actual experience.  It could have just as easily gone to other way.  Intuition is a crap-shoot.

One last story of how my intuition nearly cost me a terrific job opportunity:

I was working as a government contractor for a small company and the contract was re-competed and awarded to a different company.  I had contact with several people from that company previously and I was less than impressed.  It wasn't their technical skills, but their religious beliefs.  Yes the three I had contact with were very narrow-minded evangelicals who made damn sure everyone around them knew it and kept trying to preach to everyone around them -- often whining about their religious freedom when the government supervisors would basically tell them to knock it off!  I even wrote a little about one of them here.  You can imagine how well that goes over with me!

Well, I very nearly didn't go to my interview because my impression of the company was colored by these three religious nut jobs and because I had already had a couple of other very promising interviews, so I wasn't worried about continuous employment.  However, since I had already made the appointment, I went and it resulted in a pretty terrific job for a pretty terrific company -- I stayed there many years longer than any of the religious idiots!  To give you an idea of how good the interview went, I even raised my concern over the three amigos to the owner of the company, and he handled that part of the discussion in a very professional manner!  I was impressed.  I would have missed out if I let my intuition guide me.

There is my problem with this whole argument from the DI.  They want you to stop thinking, to take everything at face value, because that's all they have.  They have no real science, they have made no scientific advances, they have nothing but their religious beliefs and they certainly do not want anyone 'thinking' about those beliefs.  They want you to make decisions based on your religious beliefs and fight anyone who wants and expects you to think!

Intuition is fine when you have to make a snap judgment occasionally, but as a regular part of your decision making, I would encourage you to think more often.  I would also encourage you to consider careful any calls that want you to stop thinking!  When they want you to disengage the brain is when you should rev it up into high gear and think even harder!  Odds are someone is trying to hide something from you.  In the DI's case, the sheer vacuous nature of their arguments.

I want to toss one more thought.  The DI uses one tactic where they claim to not want to push Intelligent Design, but to engage students with 'critical thinking' to show the weaknesses in Evolutionary Theory.  I believe this whole intuition argument shows you how that critical thinking tactic has failed, because when you think critically about ID, you find there is nothing there!  So now they switch gears and don't want you to think at all.  Interesting, isn't it?

'Everything' Does Not Equal 'Anything', unless you are the Discovery Institute

Enough politics, it's been leaving such a nasty taste in my mouth! I have to turn to something much more entertaining, the Discovery Institute (DI) saying foolish things . . . again.  A post over on their Evolution 'news' and Views (EnV) site: "Evolutionists Could Learn a Thing from Dark Matter Physics".  The DI posted, Jonathan Witt, is someone I don't recall commenting about before.  So new blood!  I guess the regular posters were off doing something important, maybe they are working for  . . . wait I said no politics.

OK, so Johnny keyed in on one quote from Johns Hopkins physicist Simeon Bird:

"When you don't know what something is, you have to consider everything,"  

So the rest of the article is pretty much a whine that if Biologists had the same philosophy, then they should consider Intelligent Design.  I disagree!  Look at the list Johnny himself quoted from Bird:

• Big black holes
• Baby black holes
• Electromagnetically neutral particles so tiny they normally sail right through the empty spaces in atoms like a space ship sailing through our mostly empty solar system
• Ultra-tiny particles tucked away in roly-poly dimensions that curve around themselves.

Bird himself labeled these as pretty wild ideas . . . but did Bird really mean 'everything'?  I don't think so.  Look at the list, do you see them considering any religious propositions?  Come on Johnny, where is the Creation Physics?  I don't see it, does anyone else?

In other words, when Bird said 'everything' he was still framing his everything to include scientific ideas, not actually everything!  Saying 'everything' isn't the same thing as saying 'anything', now is it? 

However; I do believe biologists have considered Intelligent Design -- and they have rejected it for a number of reasons.  One being that it's not science, not matter how many lab coats you try and hide it under.  It's a religious proposition and therefore not a serious contender.  There's a list of other reasons to reject it, including that its own proponents are either unwilling or unable to do the scientific leg work to support it as anything but conjecture and wishful thinking.  

Johnny, if you think it hasn't been considered, you might do a little Googling and see how many actual biologists have rejected it, how many have commented on the various publications from the DI pointing out their many mathematical, scientific, and even philosophical errors and how a Federal Judge determined it to be not science.

If you were new to the DI, you might fall into the trap that they have a couple of in-house biologists who disagree.  They might even quickly waive their 'Dissent from Darwin' petition under your nose.  You might actually try and do more than pay lip service when it comes to critical thinking, I doubt you will, but I can hope . . . especially if you were a newcomer.  But since you are a 'Senior Fellow' at the DI, I doubt you will trouble yourself.

So, bottom line here, Johnny from the DI seems to be grasping at straws and playing word games.  A physicist uses the word 'everything' to include some pretty wild scientific ideas and the DI tried to stretch it to include their favorite religion.  The 'word games' fits into the DI's tactics of deceit and also because Johnny is not a scientist, his Ph.D. is in English and Literary Theory.  Word games from an English major . . . makes more sense than anything in the article itself.

The Very Definition of Irony

Please lower the gain on your irony-meters for this one, you might not want to replace it after you read this post.

 I was doing a little catch-up reading and caught this one over at Larry Moran's Sandwalk blog: "A refreshing admission on Uncommon Descent", without reading his post, I knew it was going to be fun.  The only sanity you get from Uncommon Descent is either unintentional or an attempt at obfuscation.  Unlike most ID Proponents, I will get to the whole article to see the context of the Uncommon Descent post.  If you aren't familiar with Uncommon Descent, it's the blog that used to belong to Wild Bill Dembski, who has since not only left the Discovery Institute fold, but a few years back he turned it over to a revolving collection of apologists.  I can't in good conscience refer to Uncommon Descent as 'UD' because here in Dayton Ohio that's the initials and common reference to one of the finest Catholic Universities in the country, the University of Dayton, and also one that teaches actual science in their biology classes.  In fact, as I mentioned in a previous post, UD doesn't even mention ID on it's website, but it does have classes on Evolution, quite a few of them in fact.

I've written about Uncommon Descent before -- a few times about how my comments on one of their posts or another magically disappears. One time it was because of something one of their posters claimed: "Creationists know more about Evolution?", which was really hilarious to read.  Another time was about something called an 'Intelligent Design (ID) Quiz', which was really nothing more than a survey and made little sense, "An Intelligent Design Quiz . . . not really" and for once my answers did make it on the site, not my direct comment, but part of another post by the 'quiz' author, who thought I was 'sneering and arrogant', (comment posted # 49).  Of course my posted response to him never found it's way onto their site, which is pretty much par for the course.  I find it funny that he asks for my opinion and because he didn't like it, I was sneering and arrogant.  But when I mention how his quiz was little more than a ploy to give those who already drank the DI's kool-aid to stroke his ego, the comment never makes it online.  Yet he was full of self-congratulations from the people who said nice things about ID, who he called thoughtful and kind.  Wonder why? 

As you can tell I have little to no respect for Uncommon Descent, whether it was under Dembski's moniker or one of the other posters.  So once I saw Larry's post, I knew it was going to be good.  I just have to post the opening paragraph from Uncommon Descent:

"Probably one of the most daunting aspects of carrying on debates either about proper critical thinking, theism vs atheism, or intelligent design and its implications is the seeming implacable nature of those we debate here and elsewhere. It most often seems that no amount of logic, evidence or even reasonable discourse makes one iota of difference to our interlocutors; however, I think this is probably because most of those who will take the time to seek our position out and criticize it on its home turf are already fully committed against such positions, and are often emotionally entrenched."(Uncommon Descent: The Benefit of Arguments at UD)

I just had to underline a couple of things to point out, and will address them, but I have to address the irony of the whole post.  If you read just this paragraph, you might not realize it was an ID proponent.  It would be easy to confuse because what you are seeing is a common DI tactic.  They take innocuous phrases and try and spin them for their own purposes.  The words sound so reasonable, but really?  Let's take a closer look.  If you read the rest of the post, William J. Murray, one of the multitude of ID apologists on Uncommon Descent, tells the story of how he 'taught' his granddaughter to a theist by telling why he was one.  Hmmm, sounds fishy to me, how about you?

I recall a book by Ann Coulter, you know the Bill O'Reilly for people who can actually read.  She decided to learn about the whole Evolution vs ID issue by visiting the Discovery Institute.  There she knelt down in front of a few of their usual talking heads and swallowed the kool-aid whole.  Now a reasonable person might have taken a little bit of time to get the scientific view from . . . oh, I don't know . . . actual working biologists, but not Coulter.  She prefers her science of the pseudo-science variety.  Why muddy up the waters with facts.  Like Coulter, Murray, isn't interested in an opposing view, so he tells his granddaughter one side and lo-and-behold, claims she's sold.  Isn't that such a cute story.

More fodder for the irony meter, his last line:

"Every once in a while it’s nice to be reminded that, sometimes, reason and evidence can actually get through to a person."(Uncommon Descent: The Benefit of Arguments at UD)

Reason and evidence? I am almost curious at what he considers reason and evidence? He does list a few things -- cosmological fine-tuning, bio-semiotics and cellular nano-technology, and also first-cause and moral arguments -- but are those things based on reason and evidence or based on wishful thinking and conjecture?  Has there been anything actually resembling evidence presents that supports a theistic position on any of those topics?  Now, remember, claiming to have evidence and actually having evidence are radically different things.

I do want to address a few of the things I underlined in the first quote: 

First of all, Critical Thinking, is the ID community really interested in Critical Thinking?  Has anyone actually seen any evidence of this?  I would like to remind everyone of one of the lines from the judicial decision from the Kitzmiller v. Dover et al:

"ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM [Intelligent Design Movement] is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID." (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, p89)

They use the term all the time, but they really don't want people thinking critically about Intelligent Design, their idea of critical thinking is an effort to damage science education on the assumption that it would allow ID to wedge it's way into the science classroom.  So far, it's been an abject failure . . . primarily because ID proponents haven't managed to support their version of Creationism with anything but wishful thinking.

OK, next up, Theism vs Atheism.  How many times has this come up in a debate about ID, and yet people like those at Uncommon Descent keep claiming that ID is not a form of Creationism.  If that were true, then why should theism vs atheism even come up?  We all know why, because Intelligent Design is Creationism minus any specific reference to the Christian God.  Therefore any debate quickly boils down to one apologist or another defending their religious faith while trying not to use religious terms.  How many times has an ID proponent unofficially identified the 'designer' as the Christian God?  How many times have their denied their religious roots while speaking at religious meetings, organized by religious organizations, and published in the religious press?  So there is a definite 'theistic' side, but then where does the 'atheism' come in?

So here is another example where an ID proponent is using the same sort of 'evidence' they claim supports ID as the support for their religious beliefs . . . Yes, read the whole post for yourself.  An ID proponent is publicly acknowledging that his ID beliefs are based on and the basis for his religious beliefs.  I know it won't impact the DI's constant denial of their religious beliefs, but here it is, again.  And I love the head-patting and sucking up many of the commenters gave Murray.  So they obviously agree! 

Here's one part I will never be able to forgive the ID supporters, the accusation that science is in some way atheistic.  That is a lie and nothing more than another gutter level tactic. They try and sell the idea that if you support science, you are obviously an atheist.  They are trying to create an artificial binary choice as a tactic to push theists into the Creationism/ID side.  But most theists haven't bought into it.  Creationists, like the DI and the posters at Uncommon Descent, are not making much headway against not only actual scientists, but the religious groups and schools where they believe pushing their religion would be an advantage -- but major religious groups haven't bought into their snake oil.  Just check out the Clergy Letter project again to see what I am talking about, over 14,000 signatures of Christian, Jewish, Unitarian, and Buddhist clergy supporting real science over pseudo-science.

The third things I underlined, ID and it's implications.  Just what implications are they talking about?  What has the ID Movement (IDM) actually accomplished?  What implications are their for science?  So far, with the exception of a few politicians pandering for votes, exactly what has the impact of the past 20 years of the DI's marketing campaign been on science and on science education?  Pretty minimal.  They have achieved none of their goals, they have done nothing in the way of actual scientific research, and their collection of tactics and strategies relies on lies and mis-direction.

Finally, no amount of logic, evidence or even reasonable discourse, really?  Scientific theories get changed all the time.  Real scientists working in actual labs and studying biology have updated and augmented the Theory of Evolution since Darwin.  Logic and discourse are two of the tools they use regularly.  Although I have heard that the discourse isn't always considered 'reasonable', and you can always find examples of scientists who are dug in so deep it takes something like dynamite to get them to accept change, but if you look at the changes over the decades, you can see even the most entrenched 'evolutionist' has changed considerably over time.  Can Creationists say the same thing?

How different are the DI's arguments from the William Paley "Natural Theology" arguments of the early 19th century?  While the terminology is different, the basic arguments are the same.  Said of Paley's Watchmaker Analogy:

" . . . creationists revived versions of the argument to dispute the concepts of evolution and natural selection, and there was renewed interest in the watchmaker argument. They related the analogy to the "argument from design," where it was used to support arguments for the existence of God, as well as for the intelligent design of the universe." (Wikipedia: Watchmaker Analogy)

All in all, I was entertained. I hope that Murray's granddaughter takes an actual science class from a school that teaches science, not the pseudo-science that Murray appears to like so much. OK, you can re-set the gain on your irony-meters back to normal. I just didn't want to be responsible for you having to replace them . . . yet again.

Can Anyone from the Discovery Institute be Considered Objective?

Ann Gauger, the infamous Discovery Institute (DI) Queen of the Green Screen, has a new post on the Evolution 'news' and Views (EnV) site:  "Vincent Torley Thinks I Have Egg on My Face"  She starts off on pretty shaky ground:

"Intelligent design states that there is evidence of design in the universe. I think we are in agreement on this point. In terms of biology, how the designer instantiated that design is still subject to debate, based on the strength of the evidence for each position."

Isn't this a little pat?  I mean Gauger presents Intelligent Design as if it's fait accompli.  One very large and resounding 'No!', we are not in agreement that there is evidence of design in the universe. What we are willing to agree to is that there is only the appearance of design!  Gauger makes it sound as if ID is a foregone conclusion, and maybe to her it is, but to actual working scientists and the majority of the rest of the world, it's nothing more than an attempt to inject religion into science. Biology is not debating how the designer instantiated design, Biology has already dismissed her designer as irrelevant to the study of biology.  It is not subject to scientific debate, only cultural and political debate.  ID is defined as pseudo-science, Annie seems to keep forgetting that.

The rest of her post is supposed to describe how objective she is when she's doing whatever it is she does for the DI.  But when she starts off like she did, is she really capable of objectivity?  She even has the temerity of saying:

"About the data being correct and my questioning it: All scientists are (or should be) taught in graduate school to critically evaluate conclusions."

Yet isn't her whole career at the DI predicated on failing to critically evaluate a very specific conclusion--that of an intelligent designer.  You know, the one the DI dislikes formally naming?  Privately it's the Christian God, but publicly it's the 'intelligent designer'.  So much for 'critical evaluation'.  By the way, isn't that a term the DI likes to toss around, but they don't seem to really mean it.  When they use 'critical evaluation', they mean to denigrate actual science but never seem to enjoy it when anyone actually critically evaluate ID, do they?

The last part of her rebuttal to critics sounds more like an effort to justify the whole Intelligent Design Movement:

" . . .whether it is strongly or weakly supported by the evidence, and whether we are justified in considering alternate explanations."

As usual, DI mouthpieces say things that sound so reasonable.  But when placed within the context of their goals for their religious beliefs . . . it takes on a very different meaning.  Does anyone consider Intelligent Design as an alternative explanation to evolution?  No, Gauger wasn't addressing Intelligent Design in this comment, but to me anything she says has to be examined against that whole premise.  At best ID is an alternative premise, an idea, and one based on religion.  It doesn't have any actual scientific support, so it's not an explanation.  Scientific Theories are explanations -- premises, particularly those driven by religious wishful thinking, are not explanations.

Should we consider ID?  I think we already have, certainly in its current state.  Even Judge Jones, in his Kitzmiller v. Dover et al, said:

"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."

ID may one day be considered more than pseudo-science, but not until its adherents get off the marketing campaigns and into the lab, and not a green screen version of a lab either!  Until they do that, they will continue to be relegated to the same bookshelf as Tarot Cards, Phrenology, and Astrology -- and justifiable so!

Discovery Institute Omerta?

I'm a little torn reading this "Creationism Whistleblower: ‘Academic Freedom’ Is Sneak Attack on Evolution" mainly because I don't want to be guilty of one of the things I have said about many others, usually creationists.  One of my issues is that all too often when someone reads something that agrees with them, usually in a philosophical sense, they immediately voice their agreement with it.  Nothing wrong with that.  But all too often the next step is they are willing to say incredibly ridiculous things to defend it for no other reason that the philosophical agreement.

Over on Topix, for example, there is a poster whose main defense of his religious beliefs is the 'Law of Biogenesis' which, according to him, completely disproves the Theory of Evolution and thereby making his religious belief the only possible way life could have formed on Earth.  He conveniently ignores what the 'law' actually addressed, which was the belief in 'spontaneous generation' which claimed that life arises from non-life, addressing things such as maggots 'appearing' in meat, fleas came from dust, molds in bread, and so forth.  Pasteur repeated and expanded upon earlier experiments that proves the source of these forms of life were not inanimate materials.  The poster, who calls himself 'marksman11' co-opted the term and completely changed what Pasteur did in order to rationalize his religious belief in a form of Creationism.

For another example, look at the lengths little kennie ham and his Hamians over at Answers in Genesis will go to support their narrow beliefs . . . I mean 'rafts of trees knocked down by 'The Flood' to transport animals all over the world' as a rationalization for geographical biodiversity?  Seriously?  So when I read this article, I wanted to make sure I wasn't falling into the same trap . . . because I completely agree with every word said! 

If you aren't familiar with Zach Kopplin, he first came into public view fighting the poorly named "Louisiana Science Education Act" as a high school student in Louisiana.  He's been publicly recognized and awarded for his tireless efforts in support of science education and hopefully one day his efforts to have that ridiculous bill repealed will be successful!  In this article on 'The Daily Beast' site he interviews an unidentified former-employee of the Discovery Institute and that employee reveals a number of things that are really no surprise.  I don't normally like unnamed sources, but I also understand why some people wouldn't want to become a public face.  In all honestly I have no idea why anyone would want their  . . . 15 minutes of fame . . . in the first place.  Guess I am not wired that way.  But some of the things they say are things that I, and many others, have been saying for years.  Here is a small sample:

“DI [The Discovery Institute] is religiously motivated in all they do,”

“Critical thinking, critical analysis, teach the controversy, academic freedom—these are words that stand for legitimate pedagogical approaches and doctrines in the fields of public education and public education policy,  . . . That is why DI co-opts them. DI hollows these words out and fills them with their own purposes; it then passes them off to the public and to government as secular, pedagogically appropriate, and religiously neutral.”

Zach closed his article with a great line:

"Real academic freedom is important, but creationists like the Discovery Institute have corrupted its meaning to miseducate children." 

My only addition to the list of words the DI hollows out and fills them with their own purposes is 'Peer-Reviewed', which I discussed in a post just yesterday (Is it Peer-Reviewed?).  Keep up the good work Zach!  Would it be appropriate to say you are a credit to Louisiana High School education?  Or would it be more appropriate to say you are a credit in spite of a Louisiana High School education?

In any event, I do so agree with Zach, and this former DI employee, and not just philosophical grounds.  All of the evidence supports everything they have said.  The Wedge Strategy Document clearly shows the religious purpose guiding the DI.  They use of tactics like "Teach the Controversy" and "Academic Freedom" campaigns are well documented.  So it doesn't look like I am falling into that philosophical trap because unlike folks like 'marksman11' and kennie ham, evidence trumps superstition!

Now the DI has written about Zach many, many times, mostly by one of their shills, davey klinghoffer.  In fact just this past May davey once wrote a post that was an 'Open Letter to Zach's parents'.  In it he pretty much whined about their son being used by the apparently nefarious  'Darwin Lobby' and Zach's apparent refusal to allow the DI to 'educate' him.  Klingy closed with this:

"My suggestion? Have a talk with your son about his education, and about an unfortunate reality of the world, that zealots with a political agenda will try to use an enthusiastic person like himself to their own ends, which may not include a high regard for truth telling. If I were his father, I would want to see my boy buckle down, get his degree, prepare for a career, do something useful with his life, and something honorable."

I feel this was a pretty low point in klingy's career as a DI shill, but I am sure he'll stoop to lower tactics eventually, if he hasn't already.  Obviously Zach has been getting under their skin pretty regularly.  They've written about him over 20 times in the past couple of years.  I don't know if his parents ever saw this particular piece of trash, but I would be curious if they had any sort of reaction.  Back in 2011 Zach's father did have this to say:

"Asked about his son's political initiative, Kopplin called his eldest child "smart, courageous and relentless."

"Every 17-year-old, you know, they are quite independent thinkers," he said. "I'm extraordinarily proud of him. He's a strong-willed young man, and I'm proud of him." (For Kopplins, lobbying in state Capitol will be a family affair)

If Zach was a son of mine I would be proud of him on many levels.  First of all he is standing up for what he believes in, he's supporting actual science and science education, and he's not allowing the marketing efforts of the DI from succeeding in their pseudo-science attempts to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us. 

The fun part will be seeing what kind of response Zach gets from the Discovery Institute.  Will they ignore it or will they play the 'disgruntled employee' card?  I wonder if any other former employees will come forward, or does their employment contract prohibit them from saying anything, sort of a Creationism Omerta clause?  We shall see!

Credit where Credit is due . . .

Credit where Credit is due  . . . is not the same thing as claiming credit for something, especially for something that really doesn't involve you.  The Discovery Institute seems to be trying to claim some sort of victory by crowing about how all they are doing is trying to teach critical thinking.  Anyone buy that?

A Nature article "The scientist of the future" makes the need for education improvement very clear and offers some actual ideas on it, like focusing on active learning and not just the recitation of knowledge.  What I find annoying is an article on the Discovery Institute's Evolution News and Views website, 'Nature Agrees: Science Students Should "Actively Grapple with Questions" Not Just "Listen to Answers".'   First of all the article makes it sound like Nature is agreeing with them.  While the DI frequently uses the term 'Critical Thinking', are they really saying the same thing as Nature?  I don't think so. 

Let's talk about the DI's 'Critical Thinking' campaign. Actually it's less a campaign and more of a tag line that they use in rationalizing all their anti-science campaigns like 'Teach the Controversy', 'Strengths and Weaknesses', 'Academic Freedom', claiming 'discriminatory activities', and trying to 'discredit the Dover Trial decision', to name a few.  What anyone dealing with the DI needs to remember is their motivation is entirely religious. No matter what words they are using, everything is geared toward religion. While they keep trying to distance themselves from their religious motivations, all of that is smoke and mirrors. Their founding document, the Wedge Strategy, made it incredibly clear:

" . . .reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

The reason I always bring this up is that when dealing with them -- either reading anything on their websites, their many press releases, their claims and counter-claims, published materials, and even just listening to them -- religion is at the heart of everything they do!  If you look at their words as encapsulated bits, they sound perfectly reasonable, but when placed within the context of their motivations, the meaning changes drastically.  Context counts, and the context of every action or word from the DI is based on their stated goal, which is certainly religious!  It's important to realize that -- because they also do their best to hide their religious motivations. 

Yes, it sounds a little strange, after all most theists are proud of what they believe in.  But you have to remember that since the Scopes Trial every time religion and science clashed in the courtroom over science education, science has won.  Think about Creationism mandates which lost in court, so they try and sell the idea of 'Creation Science', which failed due its obvious religiosity.  So the latest tactic is to try and hide the religious aspect of their ideas.  Intelligent Design is basically Creationism minus the mention of God.

But hiding their religious beliefs are nothing but a tactic, one they use to do their best in coming across as actually being interested in science, education, academic freedom, and free speech.  That's all 'critical thinking' is, a rationalization, just another tactic.  Since everyone knows 'critical thinking' is a good thing in education, they use it because it sounds like a reasonable voice in a crowd.  But are they really interested in critical thinking?

Consider that when they talk about critical thinking, they are arguing about critical thinking as it applies to evolution, not to science in general, and certainly not their own idea of Intelligent Design/Creationism.  Why is that?  Why do they only target one scientific theory?  Therein lies one clue.  They really don't care about actual critical thinking, they are just trying to get people to question the scientific theory of evolution. The assumption is that if evolution is off-target, the only thing left is Creationism.  It's like they are trying to create a vacuum so their ideas can be sucked right in.  But I have to ask, why do they never discuss critical thinking when it comes to Intelligent Design (ID)?

It's actually pretty easy to understand why they don't want anyone critically thinking about ID, because, to date, everyone who has critically thought about ID, has dismissed it -- unless they already agreed with it from a philosophical point of view.  That's an important distinction to make.  ID supporters do not tend to be people who actually think about ID.  They seem to be people who already believe and see ID as a mechanism to justify their beliefs -- so therefore they don't have to think about it.  They can market it, they can rationalize it, and they can whine and complain when it does get dismissed by people who don't already philosophically agree with it.  But what they seem to fail to do is anything that would actually support it from a scientific view.  In other words the actual work.  That's why critical thinkers about ID usually dismiss it, the component that makes an idea a scientific theory, the work, is missing.  If you already agree philosophically, you don't care.  But if you don't then you see the missing pieces and toss it in the same bucket as Astrology and the other pseudo-sciences.

New question, how many religious organizations want you to think critically about their religion? 

Can you see why I tend to classify the DI as a religious ministry rather than a think-tank of sorts.  Religious organizations rarely what you to actually think, unless your thinking agrees with what they are selling, period!  What happens when you look to hard and see things you don't like, or things you disagree with?  They boot you out!

Obviously ID supporters are not driven by a desire to improve science, but by the need to impose their religious viewpoint on science.  Go back to the wedge strategy quote I posted above:  " replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."  How much clearer do they have to spell it out?

If that were not enough, there are many other indicators of the religious underpinnings of ID and the DI:

• ID supporters fail to formally identify the 'Intelligent Designer', but informally they often offer their opinion as it being the Christian God.  Funny how they usually offer those informal opinions when speaking with their constituents, usually conservative Christians. I see this as sort of a wink and a nod.  While they use the term 'intelligent designer', they wink and nod to their constituents so everyone understands who they really mean.  On the surface, their words say one thing, but once you factor in their religious motivations, it makes perfect sense.
• At a conference in 1996, one of the men who started the modern Intelligent Design Movement, Phillip E. Johnson, said: 

"This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science.  It's about religion and philosophy."

• Have you ever noticed where they tend to hold their talks?  Religious schools and churches, usually at the sponsorship of various religious groups and religious themed revival meetings. 
• How about where they tend to publish?  Not in scientific journals and presses, but publisher's religious imprints, the popular press, or they self-publish in their own in-house publisher.
• What about what section their books tend to be placed in bookstores and libraries?  Not the science section, but the Christian Fiction section.  That's where I found "Signature in the Cell", and "Darwin's Doubt".
• They hide the religious activities of bloggers on their site, like Heather Zeigler.
• When an ID supporter has something negative happen to them one of their [the DI's] most common defense strategies is . . . freedom of religion.  Funny how when a non-ID supporter, like Chris Comer or John Stump, have trouble because of their support of real science, the DI never seems to say a word.

Oh, they have more and more rationalizations about all of these.  For example they claim to be rejected by scientific journals or presses, yet there seems to be scant evidence that they even try and get published there.  They prefer publishing venues where the requirement for supporting your writings is zero.  The 'reason' they talk to religious groups is because scientific groups are discriminating against them.  Their books are placed in Christian Fiction because the scientific community won't let them in.  You know, when everything you do requires a rationalization, you might reconsider some of your actions and decisions!

So while they like to try and align themselves with publications like Nature, the reality is their use of similar, or even identical, terms share very little with how Nature uses the terms.  Nature is interested in education, the DI is interested in imposing their religion onto science.  Once you look under the covers and see the religious motivations, the terms take on whole new meanings.  Context counts!