Another Meaningless Name Change

It was pointed out to me by a Commentor (Thanks again Matthew) that the Discovery Institute pseudo-blog has changed it's name.  It was called "Evolution News and Views (ENV).  Of course, I usually referred to it as "Evolution 'news' and Views (E'n'V)" because news was not it's forte.  It was always bringing you their [the DI's] view on nearly any topic.  Oh, they might reference other pieces of information -- including someone else's actual science -- but the purpose of E'n'V was never to educate, but show you the Intelligent Design (ID) perspective.

So, they would sometimes point out some actual science and then spin their ID magic on it and lo-and behold one of two things usually happened.  Either the real science could be spun in such a way as to appear to support ID or they declared that the real science must be wrong because of ID.  Of course, they never bothered to support either contention with anything resembling evidence or scientific experimentation, it was all rhetoric*.

One other point, I also normally referred to it as a pseudo-blog because they never, ever let people comment on it.  For all their talk about 'free speech', letting people comment would probably show more of the weaknesses in their arguments than identify any actual strengths -- but then strengths and weaknesses aren't their forte either (pun intended).  To my knowledge, they never even tried to moderate comments, which is how many other sites control views they do not like.  To date, I have only removed comments that were abusive (once) or sales marketing (three). All other comments are still there.  Funny, I've had more authors remove their own comments than anything I have done.

Back to the topic at hand, the DI pseudo-blog changed it's name.  It's now called "Evolution News and Science Today (ENST)".  I took a quick look through the postings for this month and it really doesn't look like anything has changed.  Sarah Chaffee is talking about a subject she doesn't seem to know anything about -- free speech, pseudo-historian Richard Weikart is busy trying to re-write history, and little davely 'klingy' klinghoffer is bragging that this pseudo-blog is now available in Spanish.  -- which I thought was almost interesting because their new intelligent design center is in Brazil, and their official language in Portuguese.  Nope, nothing new and still no commenting allowed.

Which means the new name is even more misleading than the old one.  I mean not only was it not presenting news, now they are hiding their views under the label of 'science'.  Does anyone actually believe actual science will be coming out from the DI, let alone published in their pseudo-blog?  But then, like their other avenues of publication, be it books, articles, or posts, there is no standard for supporting their 'work'.  Which means E'ns'T will continue in the less-than-proud traditions of E'n'V and give us things to laugh at rather than actually enlighten us!

*rhetoric: language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.

When One Idea Doesn't Work, Change the Name and Do It Again

Ever bother to read the label on your shampoo bottle?  If it's like mine it's pretty simple:

• Lather
• Rinse
• Repeat

It seems the Discovery Institute is trying something similar, only in their case it more:

• Fail
• Change the Name
• Repeat

A few examples:

• First off, I can't blame this on just the DI, but look at Intelligent Design.  It was originally known as Creationism.  When efforts to keep it in the science classroom failed, Creationists changed the name to "Creation Science" and kept on pushing.  When that one failed, they changed the name to "Intelligent Design".  So far that one isn't making much headway either, so expect a name change in the near future.
• How about Intelligent Design Journals?  
• The first was the  Origins & Design (ISSN 0748- 9919), produced by the Access Research Network which ceased publishing in 1999.  
• The next was from a DI homeboy, WIld Bill Dembski (who is no longer one of their members).  He founded the  International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design which published Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (ISSN 1555-5089) which hasn't been heard form since 2005.
• The on-line Journal of Evolutionary Informatics (no ISSN) was sponsored by the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, a project of Dembski and Robert Marks, which became defunct before managing to publish a single issue.  
• The current one is called Bio-Complexity (ISSN 2151- 7444), and it's put out by the DI's pet lab 'The Biologics Institute', a lab that is funded by and has a public contact point at the DI itself.
• So my latest example: Clubs
• Do you remember the Discovery Institute's IDEA clubs?  This was the brainchild of the former DI publicist little casey luskin and a few others dating back to 1999.  You might remember casey as the guy with both a law degree and a biology degree who was relegated to handing out pamphlets during the Dover trail.  Well, casey was heading up this idea [pun intended] for building student-based clubs as high schools and colleges all over the country.  Here is the link from the DI's site, and here's a screenshot in case they finally notice it's still up and decide to take it down:

Even though the pages are still up, it's been pretty dead since 2008.  In fact:

In December 2008, biologist Allen MacNeill stated, on the basis of analysis of the webpages of the national organization and local chapters, that it appeared that the organization is moribund.(The "Intelligent Design" Movement on College and University Campuses is Dead)

So, another dead idea.  So in true DI tradition, let's change the name and try again.  This time they are called: "Science and Culture Network (SCN)".  Currently they have two chapters Houston and Colorado:

They not only share the moniker of 'SCN' but they also have something else in common.  I circled it in red, it reads: 

"This program has no upcoming events"

SO they have opened two chapters of this new club, but nothing is going on.  It does make you wonder.  I mean court cases caused the name change, failure to produce science killed the journals, and nothing happening might have been the reason the IDEA clubs died off. Are they repeating themselves again?

I do have to point out one more 'little' thing.  While they also hold meetings, look at where Houston holds their's: 

"We meet monthly in various churches across the greater Houston area on a rotating basis. "

Yes, we meet monthly in various churches . . . and yet what is the mantra of the DI?  How they are a scientific organization and not a religious one?  Is there anyone who actually believes that who isn't on the DI payroll or a member of one of their 'chapters'? Colorado doesn't have anything more specific other than they plan to hold meetings, but no location.

But do you see the tactics, or in the case 'strategy' might be a better word.  When one method fails, change the name and try to same routine over again.  As they say "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet", only in these cases 'sweet' might not be the smell these things give off.  Think about it, if Intelligent Design was such a worthwhile endeavor, then aren't there be IDEA clubs all over the place?  Wouldn't there be multiple ID journals instead of one after another going defunct?  I mean how many scientific journals are there?  Hundreds?  Thousands?  And Creationists certainly wouldn't have had to keep changing the name if there was any actual merit to their claims, would they?  And by 'merit' I am talking scientific merit -- you know things supported by actual evidence.

You guys and gals might try real science instead of pseudo-science next time.  If that fails you might really give that some thought, instead of simply repackaging it and having a go again.  What's that definition of insanity?  Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.  You really should think about that while you are at it.

Congratulations to Wikipedia, 'winner' of the Discovery Institute 'Censor of the Year' -- while not doing any actual censoring!

Last month I was discussing the upcoming awards season, which includes the Discovery Institute's (DI) "Censor of the Year" award.  It's awarded annually on Darwin's birthday.  One of the things previous 'winners' have had in common is that they don't actual censor anything, they simply say or do things the DI disagrees with.  I gave three predictions.

The first was that the DI would give the award to themselves.  I based that on the simple fact that while there is no evidence of actual censorship of Intelligent Design, the DI does self-censor themselves and then claim they do so because of all the censorship they use as an excuse to avoid doing any real scientific work.  Of course, since there is no real censorship, I wasn't sure they would give the award to themselves because they might have to admit that their whole censorship argument was nothing more than a lie, so they would pick on someone else.

My second suggestion is an example of real censorship, and my nominee would have been the current Administration. Who was is that It banned the top US public health agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), from using seven words: “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.” A certain hamster-haired serial lying misogynist control freak, that's who! His Interior Secretary, Ryan Zinke, reprimanded the Joshua Tree National Park’s superintendent for tweeting about climate change. Trump is also trying to censor a free press. These are prime examples of censorship.  But since the DI was not Trump's target, I didn't think they would pick him.

My final prediction was Wikipedia, and I said:

"But we know the DI will stick to their guns and pick on someone, or something, that didn't actually censor them, just did something that annoyed them.  My guess would be Wikipedia.  I think Wikipedia has been a nominee before (2015 almost certainly for "Wikipedia deserves an Award! They Annoyed the DI! Yea!"), and this past year they [Wikipedia] annoyed the DI by dropping a Wikipedia bio for one of their senior fellows ("Does Losing a Wikipedia Page Ruin a Career?"), which they keep whining about pretty constantly.  Which is why I believe Wikipedia will win this year."

And. guess what? They made their announcement and Wikipedia has 'won':  "Happy Darwin Day! Our 2018 Censor of the Year Is Wikipedia".  Yes, another instance of a censorship award for not having done any censorship.  Here is their 'rationale':

1. They don't like how Intelligent Design is represented in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia keeps busting them in their efforts to self-edit the page.
2. They disagree that one of their own fellows isn't notable enough to rate a Wikipedia page -- even though most of their fellows do not have a page.
3. When all else fails, call it 'fake news'.  Gee, how come whenever a conservative group -- and you don't get that much more conservative than the DI ministry -- calls something 'fake news' is always turns out to be true?

Nothing here is an actual example of censorship.  Wikipedia's description of ID is accurate, and also agrees with court cases involving ID.  Of course the DI doesn't like it, since Wikipedia calls out ID to be the pseudo-science that it really is.  All of their efforts to edit it has run smack dab into the editing policies of Wikipedia.  While Britannica Online doesn't call it pseudo-science, it does explain how it is built upon an argument for design for the existence of God.  Why isn't the DI complaining about that?

While removing one less-than-notable pseudo-scientist's Wikipedia entry might seem like censorship, it's more accurate to say that it was in line with the encyclopedia's policies.  If it was actual censirship then none of the ID proponents would have Wikipedia pages!   Bechly [the guy whose page was deep-sixed] isn't notable enough to have a page on Britannica Online either:

Yet, the DI doesn't seem to be whining about that.  Could it be because anyone can create a Wikipedia page, whereas Britannica has different policies when adding subject pages?  Of course both encyclopedias have inclusion standards, the difference is that Wikipedia's are applied after the subject page is created, and Britannica's are done prior to the creation.  So that means Bechly does not meet the criteria of either encyclopedia for being 'notable'.

And, then finally, hop on the 'fake news' bandwagon and complain about something that is true by claiming it's 'fake news'.  Tell me, has anyone found anything that certain hamster-haired serial liar misogynist control freak claimed to be 'fake news' to actually be fake?  Yea, neither have I.

So there you have it, another censorship award to a group that doesn't actual do any censoring.  I congratulate Wikipedia on being a thorn in the side of the DI!  I hope one day I will have done something to annoy the DI enough that I may be a nominee for such an 'honor'!

Is Any Scientist Really Inviolate? Not In The Least! Look At History!

Funny post from something called 'The Institute on Religion and Public Life': "St. Charles Darwin".  The basis is that no one is allowed to criticize Charles Darwin because . . . he's Charles Darwin.  The author is reacting to the many critical reviews of A. N. Wilson, Charles Darwin, Victorian Mythmaker.  Actually critical is an understatement.  In response to those reviews, the author of this piece believes that 'committed evolutionists' are outraged about the biography simple because Wilson attacked Darwin.

Well, to a point; she's half right.  People are outraged at the 'biography', but not because Darwin is raised on some inviolate pedestal, but because it is completely contradicted by every other biography, Darwin's own letters, and the writings of people who actual knew Darwin.  Why wouldn't we be outraged at an obvious hatchet job!  Like many things written about Darwin by Creationists, it's basically a hit piece, and many of the reviewers called it such.

One, of the many things the author of this piece fails to acknowledge is how science actually works.  If something was discovered that offered a better scientific explanation of how life evolved on this planet, Darwin would go the way of Lamarck.  That's how science works, and you can dig for a few minutes and find long lists of scientists who were tops in their field at one point and now, no one knows their name.  But the workings of actual science is something rarely recognized by creationists, like this author and Wilson himself.

I've written a little about this pseudo-biography before: "Whats Wrong with This Picture -- A Review of a Review of a Book We Haven't Read Yet?" in which we discussed how the DI reviewed a review of a book they haven't even read yet.  I haven't read the book either, and probably won't.  But something about this particular post simply tickled me.

Let me see if I can lay it out for you.  The author, Charlotte Allen, tries to make the case that the only reason some people are more than a little outraged about Wilson's 'biography' is because he attacked Darwin.   She completed missed the point that the many of the reviews detail the  areas where Wilson got things wrong, creating things that never happened, and offered his negative opinion as if it was fact.

"Wilson appears to have hit upon a rich seam of cliches in his five years of research for his book,"("Some still attack Darwin and evolution. How can science fight back?")

If you look at the Amazon listing you will see 24 reviews.  Only 6 of them are 5-Star and if you look at the links for these 5-star reviewers, you see the the religious and/or political leanings that explain the ratings. None of them identified the things that made it a top review, they are simply happy that Wilson is bashing Darwin -- regardless of the truthfulness of what he is saying.  There was one 3-star review and the rest were 1-star that make up 75% of the reviews.  If you look at those 1-star reviews you will see a litany of things Wilson got wrong, disregarded, or just plain invented.

Those are the reasons for the outrage, but that doesn't even get lip service from Allen.  Looking at Wilson's own prejudices and his history of such less-than-factual biographies, you will see even more how and why this book was written.  But does Allen do any of that?  No, her only point was claiming that Darwin is:
"a holy saint who must not be criticized".  Here is her closing:

"A. N. Wilson may have written a bad, unfair, inaccurate, and error-ridden biography of Charles Darwin. But he has homed in on something real and obviously troubling to Darwin’s disciples: the vulnerability of Darwin’s personality and his theories."

This would be true if the biography wasn't a flawed piece of poor scholarship and obviously done for the express purpose of denigrating Darwin and his science for religious reasons.  Don't believe me, do a little research on AN Wilson, in fact here is the critique from Wikipedia on Wilson's page (the underlines are mine):

"Wilson's biography Charles Darwin, Victorian Mythmaker, (2017), has been criticised by John van Wyhe in the New Scientist for confusing Darwin's theory of natural selection with Lamarckism at one point, as well as other scientific, historical and editorial errors.  Kathryn Hughes in The Guardian wrote it is "cheap attempt to ruffle feathers", with a dubious grasp of science and attempted character assassination. In The Evening Standard, Adrian Woolfson says that "..while for the greater part a lucid, elegantly written and thought-provoking social and intellectual history" Wilson's "speculations on evolutionary theory," produce a book that is "fatally flawed, mischievous, and ultimately misleading".  Steve Jones, an emeritus of University College London, commented in The Sunday Times: "In the classic mould of the contrarian, he despises anything said by mainstream biology in favour of marginal and sometimes preposterous theories." The geneticist and former editor of Nature, Adam Rutherford, called the book "deranged" and said Wilson "would fail GCSE biology catastrophically."" (Wikipedia:  AN Wilson)

Here is the funniest part.  Allen claims that the whole reason people are outraged at the biography is because of Darwin's status, while ignoring the obvious flaws. Rather than do a little homework and realize how 'bad, unfair, inaccurate, and error-ridden' it is, she dismisses all that to rationalize her own prejudice.

Bait and Switch, Discovery Institute Style

A new post over at the Discovery Institute site is pretty typical of their tactics, what I like to call their 'Tactics of Mistake'.  Here it is: "Helpful Atheist Makes a Case for God".  In it they summarize something PZ Myers said and then do the something typical -- moving the goal posts:

"But we can ask an interesting question . . . How far back can contingency go? . . .
Myers would likely reply that “the primordial universe is the start. The universe is the fundamental existing thing.” That’s the stock atheist answer. But it’s wrong — the universe can’t explain contingency completely. Here’s why."

Look at what they did, they ask a question -- which is fine, but then they form an answer as they claim Myers would answer it.  I don't know how Myers would answer it, but even if he gave the answer they claim, within the context of what Myers said, it would still be a perfectly acceptable answer.  The context wasn't 'essential cause chains', what they did was change the context and then spend the rest of the post explaining why Myers, and Evolution, is wrong.

What's funny is the artificial distinction they use to explain 'accident contingency' and 'essential contingency'.  There is nothing in the definition of an contingency that requires the continued existence of the parent contingency.  Here is how they define it:

"Essential causal chains are causes and effects that depend on the continued existence of the entire causal chain to produce an effect."

Does this make any sense to you?  They are trying to create this new concept called 'essential causal chains' and claiming that everything in the chain must continue to exist or the end result cannot exist.  Then they end with:

"So evolution, as a contingent process in nature that contains some essentially ordered series of causes, requires a First Cause that is outside of nature. Of course, that First Cause is what men have called God.

Really?  Other than twisting around words, what have they provided that supports their contention that Evolution requires a first cause?  And even if one is required, why does it have to be outside of nature?  That's the part of their explanation they never seem to support.  The only reason seems to be that they have to have something outside of nature or they will never accept it.

There is no evidence that however life started, it required a first cause to be outside of nature.  Remember it's not a requirement for the Theory of Evolution to explain exactly how life began, only that once it did, it evolved and been evolving ever since.  Yes, word games can make all this sound important, but the reality, all the DI's efforts to insert God into the equation have amounted to nothing.  Now they go a further step and try an tie in the concept of Atheism:

If P.Z. Myers follows his own argument about contingency a bit further, he would see that atheism is inconsistent with the contingency on which evolution necessarily depends."

Is the Theory of Evolution and Atheist theory?  Seriously, what in science addresses the concept of God?  God has always been within the realm of philosophy and metaphysics -- not science.  So, in fact, all of science can be considered atheistic.  Just like all of mathematics, cooking, finance, language . . . it's a pretty long list of all the things that fails to pay homage to a deity.  But does that make them inherently atheistic?

Of course not, but that doesn't stop folks like the DI from making the claim.  It's their belief set that requires it, and that's why they play these sort of 'bait and switch' games.

First, customers are "baited" by merchants advertising products or services at a low price, but when customers visit the store, they discover that the advertised goods either are not available or are not as good as expected, or the customers are pressured by sales people to consider similar, but higher-priced, items ("switching")." (Wikipedia: Bait and Switch)

The DI baited their argument with PZ Myers words, changed the definition and then went on to make their point about evolution and then somehow turned it into a atheism hit piece.  Creative, maybe, but not very well done at all.  Pronouncements like these require more evidence than 'Because I said so!"

And the Award Goes to Ourselves!

The Di is asking for nominations for Censor of the Year, something don't recall them doing before.  I was just used to them talking through some possibilities and then making the award.  But if you are interested, you can certainly "Submit Nominations for 2018 Censor of the Year Now!"

I am sure you can guess my issues with this whole deal, but for fun I will lay them out. First off, this award is only people or groups who annoy the Discovery Institute (DI). It really has nothing to do with censorship at all. If you look up the definition of censor:

"a : an official who examines materials (such as publications or films) for objectionable matter
Government censors deleted all references to the protest.
b : an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (such as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful"
(Merriam-Webster: Censor) 

You will find that the previous three winners (Jerry Coyne, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and the United Methodist Church (UMC) did nothing to the DI that meets that definition of a censor.  Nothing the DI has accused them of comes anywhere near censorship.  The DI is still free to publish, prevaricate, and market with the best of them.  The only thing they cannot do is pass of Intelligent Design as if it was science in the public school classroom.  They sure haven't stopped trying to pass it off as science anywhere else!

If you look for all of 30 seconds, you will find that no one is censoring the DI.  What groups like the are doing is applying standards of scholarship that the DI refuses to meet.  Where is the research, where is the evidence, and where is the support?  There are many things that would make ID acceptable as science and in the science classroom, and the DI hasn't offered up a single one.  

OK, back to the topic at hand.  If we expand the scope from just pissing off the DI to actual Censorship, who would be your choice for Censor of the Year?  Looking back over 2017, I would have to say "The Trump Administration".

Who was is that It banned the top US public health agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), from using seven words: “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”  A certain hamster-haired serial liar and misogynist, that's who! His Interior Secretary, Ryan Zinke, reprimanded the Joshua Tree National Park’s superintendent for tweeting about climate change.  Trump is also trying to censor a free press.  These are prime examples of censorship, not the watered down "Pissing on the DI's cornflakes" version.

But we know the DI will stick to their guns and pick on someone, or something, that didn't actually censor them, just did something that annoyed them.  My guess would be Wikipedia.  I think Wikipedia has been a nominee before (2015 almost certainly for "Wikipedia deserves an Award! They Annoyed the DI! Yea!"), and this past year they [Wikipedia] annoyed the DI by dropping a Wikipedia bio for one of their senior fellows ("Does Losing a Wikipedia Page Ruin a Career?"), which they keep whining about pretty constantly.  Which is why I believe Wikipedia will win this year.

Another real possibility is the self-censorship the DI does to themselves.  They claim they are doing it to protect career possibilities of ID proponents, but that seems fishy to me because for all their claims of censorship, they are the only ones doing any censoring -- and they are doing it to themselves.  So self-awarding themselves as Censor of the Year would be totally within character, don't you agree?

Self-Censorship and the DI

A while back I wrote about censorship and how there doesn't seem to be much support for the Discovery Institute (DI) claims of censorship.  In "Is anyone actually censoring the Discovery Institute?" there doesn't seem to be any actual censorship . . . so of course, the DI annually award a 'Censor of the Year', and so far there awardees have done little in the way of actual censorship.

Previous 'winners' for 'Censor of the Year' are Jerry Coyne, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and the United Methodist Church (UMC). The DI says Coyne's 'crime' was encouraging Ball State University to stop teaching Intelligent Design. That's not exactly true. What Ball State University did was stop teaching Intelligent Design as if it was science.  Now, what did Neil deGrasse Tyson did to offend the DI? He hosted the updated Carl Sagan series Cosmos, which presented a few segments on religion's negative impact on scientific inquiry over the centuries. The DI really took exception to that.  The UMC had the audacity to decide that their annual convention was for their members and not to let the DI present their belief set at their own convention -- a belief set not shared by the UMC.

One of this years contenders seems to be something called 'self-censorship'. In this post from their blog "Quiet Self-Censorship and the Academic “Consensus”" they describe a phenomena in which Intelligent Design supporters never admit to being supporters because it might have an adverse impact on their academic and professional life.

I certainly hope being an ID supporter would have an impact!  After all, if you are in, or are entering in, a scientific field, shouldn't you be focused on actual science and not pseudo-science?  That's the point folks like Sarah Chaffee, the author of this particular piece and a regular DI mouthpiece, seem to miss.  She mentions this:

"We know a tenured science professor who in giving presentations in a private setting needs to begin his talks with a peculiar slide — a disclaimer that he does not speak on behalf of his university. He must include it, even though, again, he is speaking at a private event."

I would be surprised if she wasn't talking about Michael Behe, one of the few tenured professors who support ID and is a senior fellow at the DI.  He is tenured at Lehigh University, which has this disclaimer:

"The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."

Without such a disclaimer, it would be easy to assume any presentations by Behe would have the support and approval of Lehigh University.  By requiring such a disclaimer, the University recognizes both Behe's right of freedom of expression, but their own right to not be construed as supporting pseudo-science.  It might sound funny, but I respect both Lehigh and Behe for dealing opening and honesty about his support for ID.  One thing Behe doesn't seem to do is let his support for ID affect his teaching and research at Lehigh.

You will note that Behe isn't being censored, but he isn't allowed to present in such a fashion that his presentations imply that ID actual science. When it comes to his work for the university, he leaves ID at the door instead of demanding it be allowed at the science lectern. After all, Lehigh is pretty unequivocal when it said "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."

Sarah goes on to say that during their Summer Seminars on ID, they didn't take any pictures of people's faces, and asked that they not posting on social media about it, all so: 

"their career prospects will not be harmed by an association with intelligent design."

So the DI is censoring themselves!  Maybe they do deserve to award themselves as 'Censor of the Year'.  But they are missing the reason.  Think it through!  Would their career prospects be hurt if they profess their support for ID?  Most likely!  But why?  Don't just stop there, take it to the next logical step, why might their career prospects be in jeopardy?

That's the part Sarah and her friends never want to really examine.  Say you are a Physicist about to graduate and you publicly support Dark Matter Research?  Would that cause you difficulties in getting a job?  How about a Rocket Scientist who expresses an interest in Ionic Propulsion?  No, why?  Because those fields are part of the overall concept of Physics and Rocket Science.  So why does such career impacts happen with ID?  Simple, ID isn't part of Biology and until ID proponents stop whining and produce actual, viable, repeatable and falsifiable science, it never will be.

Suppose a mathematician posts all over Facebook stuff on Numerology and teaches it as Math, wouldn't that affect his career prospects?  That's the part Sarah doesn't get.  ID is not science, it is a religious proposition and supporting such may have negative impacts on your career -- unless you do what Behe does and separate them.

I know Sarah will trot out people like Gonzalez and Croker who claim to have had negative career consequences because of their support for ID.  But that's not the whole story, Gonazlez and Croker, along with Sternberg, Abahams, and a few others all have something else in common -- they let their support for ID interfere with doing the job they were hired to do.  Gonzalez failed as a tenure applicant, Croker failed to teach her subject, Sternberg violated publishing rules for the journal he was the outgoing editor for, and Abrahams refused to do his job as an 'Evolutionary Biologist'.  It's not their support for ID that had career impacts, but their refusal to do their jobs!  They put their religious beliefs ahead of the professional responsibilities and the expectations of their employers!  In other words, they were held accountable and they can't stand it!

So maybe the DI is a self-censor, but they aren't doing it to protect people, they are using this concept of self-censoring as another tactic to try and discredit real science.  Look at this post, do you really think they are trying to hide their supporters?  No, they are selling the idea of censorship.  But when you look at it, what is being censored?  Are they still able to publish and post?  Oh, sure they cannot do it as if they really are science, but that's not because of censorship, but because they haven't provided anything other than marketing material.  No science, no discoveries, no advances, just religious preaching.

In reality, the censor of the year award doesn't seem to be awarded for actual censorship.  It seems to be an award for not agreeing with the DI.  Hey, maybe I could be a nominee one day?  Oh we can only hope!  My family would be so proud!

Wikipediatricians -- what a concept!

Caught an interesting post from Dr. James McGrath and his blog "Religion Prof". Professor McGrath is Clarence L. Goodwin Chair in New Testament Language and Literature at Butler University in Indianapolis.  While his blog isn't one you might think I read regularly, it certainly is.  I find his posts thought provoking, and this one certainly is:  "Wikipediatricians and Ways of Knowing".

Let's talk about Wikipedia for a moment.  I use it often and have also run up against criticism of it, usually from people who don't like their policies.  Yes, unlike what some people would like to believe, you just can't publish anything you want on Wikipedia.  There are processes, editorial policies, and rules that apply no only to those editing information, but what information can be included.  In other words, just like Encyclopedia Britannica, there are processes that must be followed.

For some background, I grew up with two sets of encyclopedias in the house and many an evening you could find my siblings and I huddled over one volume or another compiling information for school.  When I was in grade school -- even high school, I rarely questioned the encyclopedia.  However, once in college I used an encyclopedia reference in a paper just once and you would have thought the world had ended from the reaction of the professor.

That's where I got my first lesson in what an encyclopedia really was, a compilation of research, not an authoritative source -- and that you have to go to the source material for understanding.  While they are generally regarded as acceptable knowledge, when it comes to actual research and references, they are second or even third-hand information.

As a result, when I first saw Wikipedia, one of the benefits I saw was the live links to the source material supporting the articles. but I was curious as to how it stacked up against the gold-standard of encyclopedias "Britannica".  What I have found is that Wikipedia does have a slight bias to the left, especially in pages concerning corporations and governments, but, in my opinion, it wasn't a significant bias -- which may relate to my own biases; however, in scientific/technical subjects, it was as accurate as Britannica.  In some ways it is more current than a published encyclopedia because the editing is much more recent. Of course Britannica is also available online, but the currency issue still leans in favor of Wikipedia.

In 2005 Nature did a study comparing the two and found that all-in-all, they were pretty much on par as information sources:

"In the end, the journal found just eight serious errors, such as general misunderstandings of vital concepts, in the articles. Of those, four came from each site [Wikipedia and Britannica]."

Nature didn't mention any bias, but Forbes did later in a 2015 study -- but like me didn't see it as significant.  In fact one of the findings I found fascinating in the Forbes study:

"Perhaps the most interesting finding of Zhu and Greenstein's research is that the more times an article is revised on Wikipedia, the less bias it is likely to show—directly contradicting the theory that ideological groups might self-select over time into increasingly biased camps."

Yes, the most times an article is edited, the less bias is present.  Which I find very interesting since the groups that seem to whine about Wikipedia most often are groups with an ideological bone to pick, as noted in Wikipedia deserves an Award! They Annoyed the DI! Yea!.

OK, back to Professor McGrath, now that you know where I stand on Wikipedia itself.  It's not the source of information that may be problematic, but, as he puts it:

" . . . a failure on the part of readers to understand how summaries relate to the processes whereby academic conclusions are drawn."

Encyclopedias, whether print or online, are simply summaries from a wide variety of other source materials.  They are compiled by writers and editors that probably do not have the same level of expertise as the original writers.  That doesn't mean encyclopedias should be discarded.  What it means, especially in this environment of distrusting experts and the Internet's apparent democratizing of every opinion, we still need to understand that our own perspective is limited and that any single individual or group might understand some things differently than we do.  We need to grasp those not just as limitations, but as strengths.  I am not a doctor, so a doctor's medical opinion is going to be better than mine . . . and equating such expertise to an unsupported opinion on the Internet can be both dangerous and foolish.  Multiple doctors opinions would weigh even more heavily.  That's how it should be!

Like Wikipedia. the best information seems to be when it is confirmed by multiple reliable sources.  I am not talking about when all Fox News talking heads agree, but if Fox, CNN, and MSNBC are presenting similar stories, you can more than likely rely on them.  But when one source is leaning hard in one direction and the majority of the other news sources have an opposing view, you can be pretty sure the one is 'showing their slip', so to speak.  As you look at a variety of sources, you will come to find ones that tend to be more objective than others, like MSNBC and NPR over Fox News or Breibart.  But you have to experience multiple sources to figure that out.

Academic consensus, including scientific consensus, isn't the voice of one person, but the collaboration and confirmation by multiple people with a particular expertise.  If you distrust it, you always have the option to examine the source of the material yourself.  Wikipedia makes it easy, as does Google.  But do not let your perception be stuck in a rut with one source.  Branch out, you might learn something!

One of my friends is a hard-line conservative, and as the years have gone by become much more conservative than I am comfortable with.  His favorite news sources include Fox, Limbaugh, and a few specific websites.  When he tells me anything, I head out and check carefully.  As much as he will dislike reading this, I usually find his information to be biased to the extreme and often outright wrong.  Sometimes it's just a little twisted, but all too often it's simply a lie.  He doesn't seem to like it when I call him on it and he gets rather defensive -- OK more than just 'rather defensive'.  But until he figures out his usual sources aren't particularly honest, we will keep playing this game.

But therein lies the problem.  He has very few sources of information and gets told by those sources that any other sources are 'fake news', and he buys into it.  He's not learning anything, all he's doing is getting reinforcement for his own prejudices.  That's the dangerous point.

It's not Wikipedia that's a problem, but how we take information, regardless of source, and use it.  Are we learning or are we reinforcing beliefs we already have? Are we getting information from authoritative sources, or are we assigning our own form of democratizing and thinking authoritative sources and alternative sources are equal?  A doctor v. Hollywood celebrity on vaccines?  A spokesman paid for by the oil companies v. actual scientists who study climate change?  A biologist v. a lawyer?

You really need to think about who is more likely to give you good information rather than tell you something you might want to hear!

Happy New Years! The DI looks Back at 2017

Before going forward, the Discovery Institute (DI) likes to look back at their top stories/accomplishments of the previous year.  It's become an annual tradition.  This year instead of looking at them one by one, I decided to let them drop their entire list and look at the their accomplishments as a whole. Here is the list:

1. Footprints from Crete Deepen Origins Mystery - And so a new discovery which may change some of the existing theories of human origins.  Of course, the DI didn't make the discovery, but they simply offer their spin to make it sound much bigger than it is.  What it really is -- is science in action, not pseudoscience.  New evidence may equate to theory changes  -- which, according to the DI is considered a weakness of science, but the actuality is it is one of science's strengths!
2. Clueless Reporters and Canaanite DNA - While claiming not to get into 'Biblical exegesis' (explaining the Bible), they then do exactly that.  Yet at the same time they try and remind people how they are not really a religious ministry.  If they weren't a ministry, then why try and explain the Bible?
3. Perfect Eclipse, Coincidence or Conspiracy? - Yes, the news was filled with the eclipse, but perfect?  By what standard?  Using math and numbers that were far from exact, they decided that the most recent eclipse was 'perfect', as in the moon 'perfectly' covered the sun (it was close) and a few other examples of 'perfection'.  Yet when you look at it objectively, you see it's only a coincidence because of the distances and diameters involved and the numbers aren't so 'perfect' after all.  Plus in a few centuries the numbers will be much further off as the moon gets further and further away, so we happen to live during the time when the size of the moon and sun 'appear' to be closely matched . . . so what?
4. Wiki Co-Founder Blasts “Appallingly Biased” Wikipedia Entry on ID - This one isn't any sort of accomplishment, but it is a re-hash of their whines against any published content that doesn't say exactly what they want it to say.  Wikipedia has a history of failing to let the DI define Intelligent Design (ID) as if it was not pseudoscience and the DI really hates that.  So rather than offer evidence that it is not pseudoscience, they quote other people who agree with them.  Remember these are the same people who want to teach Evolution and ID and let the students decide for themselves which is true.  So Wikipedia has both the definition of  both of them, but they don't want students exposed to a non-DI version of an ID definition.
5. Of Course You Aren’t Living in a Computer Simulation. Here’s Why. - So now they take on the Matrix, a fictional environment and try and explain how intelligence cannot be programmed into a simulation.  Huh?  What this post really means is Neil DeGrasse Tyson has an imagination and the DI does not.
6. Dan Brown Pushes Atheism and Intelligent Design. Wait…What? - OK, the DI took a thriller, a fictional thriller, and somehow twisted it to some sort of support for Intelligent Design (ID).  Well, so far they have pretty well managed to spin anything they want into a back-handed support for ID, so not only shouldn't this surprise anyone, but is this such a big story it's one of their top 10?
7. Intelligent Design Shines in Brazil with Discovery-Mackenzie Launch - Yes, this might actually be considered an accomplishment, opening up a new religious ministry in one of the most religious countries in the world.  My prediction is we will see the same amount of actual science coming out of this center as we see from the DI and their self-owned lab (the Biologics Institute).  Do you remember when opening IDEA clubs at several college campuses was lauded, but where are they today?  Can we say 'extinct'.
8. Theorist Concedes, Evolution “Avoids” Questions - So there are questions yet to be answered . . . nothing new there.  Yet over the past 150+ years, how many questions has the Theory of Evolution answered?  Hundreds, even thousands.  Avoiding questions doesn't seem to be something real scientists actually do.  This is the DI trying to cast doubt on science because it hasn't answered every question.  Even with that, has ID answered anything at all?  Casting doubt is only effective if you have a viable alternative that provides better explanations.
9. Genetic Code Complexity Just Tripled - not really tripled, but then the DI's strong suit isn't math.  In any event the discovery mentioned wasn't done at the DI.  This is just their commentary and another effort to cast more doubt on real science.
10. Nobel Laureate Is “80 Percent” Confident in Intelligent Design - who says this without a single reference to anything accomplished by the DI.  He's expressing an opinion only.  Now if something done by the DI actually drove this particular opinion, that would be newsworthy, but as it is -- it means little.

OK, if you have read all, or even any, of them, you might have noticed the same thing I noticed, where is any original work?  The DI keeps claiming they are a scientific think tank, that they are doing actual science, and that all their issues with real science are based on science -- and yet where is it reflected in their annual list of stories/accomplishments?

Even their number one stories from recent years shows a lack of scientific work:

1. #1 of Our Top Stories of 2016: Happy New Year! Why the Royal Society Meeting Mattered - claiming recognition for their 'scientists' that no one else noticed.  How underwhelming!
2. Happy New Year! Here Is #1 of Our Top Stories of 2015: A Scientific Debate that Can No Longer Be Denied -- about the release of the sequel to Darwin's Doubt -- you know, the book that was to address all the criticisms to the original, but they forgot to actual address those criticisms.
3.  "Happy New Year! Our #1 Evolution Story of 2014: New Paper from Biologic Institute, "Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design?"" - a paper from themselves that never answer the question they want to raise.
4. Happy New Year! Here Is #1 of Our Top-Ten Evolution Stories of 2013: Responding to Charles Marshall’s Review of Darwin’s Doubt - More accurately, this is the first of four rebuttals to a devastating critique, and this rebuttal -- like the next three -- never manage to actually refute the criticisms.  The title of the critique should be the motto of the DI: "When Prior Belief Trumps Scholarship" and it is an excellent read!

Wouldn't you assume that an organization that claims to be doing actual science, might be able to celebrate those achievements in their own blog?  Wouldn't you think that at least one of their own scientific accomplishments might rate a mention in their top 10 stories?  But no, their top stories reflect nothing of the scientific achievements because, as we all know, they haven't had any.  What these stories are is nothing more than a re-hash of their standard marketing material.

Sell, market, and try to sow doubt -- and at the same time push their religion while trying to deny that is what they do.  Yes, it's been a banner year for the DI.  Another year of spending other people's money and having nothing to show for it.

Of course, each one of their top 10 starts with a plea for a donation.  That way readers can contribute to another year of nothingness!

The Discovery Institute (DI) is begging for contributions, again.

This time the sales pitch is asking : "In 2018, Please Help Us Take Intelligent Design to the World!".  It starts off with this:

"Living in the United States, we’re accustomed to evolution being thoroughly politicized, in the sense that the media encourage everyone to divide into armed camps: evolutionists versus Darwin skeptics. In both the U.S. media and academia, there’s a kind of social panic for many about being classed with the dreaded “creationists.”"

First off, who is politicizing Evolution?  It's not the scientists, they treat it as a scientific theory.  It's not the general public, they tend to ignore such things, for the most part.  So who is doing all this politicizing?  Yes, Creationists, including those less-than-honest folks at the Discovery Institute -- which also includes the author of this piece, little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer.  Yes, if it wasn't for these people, there would be just as much politicizing of the Theory of Evolution as there is about Germ Theory, Gravity, and the other scientific theories.

Second thing, is there some sort of 'social panic' about being classed with the Creationists?  Certainly if this were so then many fewer people would self-identify as Creationists.  But, you know the DI, if there isn't a real problem, invent one.  The main reason no one takes Intelligent Design (ID) seriously is because there haven't been a single scientific breakthrough or even discovery based on ID.  I'm not talk about all the DI claims that using intelligence is an example of ID, but actual scientific research and discoveries that has as its basis the DI's 'theory' of Intelligent Design?  There aren't any and no one seems to be actually doing anything to change that.

"The world is wide open to scientific arguments for design in nature. The big launch of ID in Brazil is a case in point,"

Really?  Could the reason why the DI has had this success in Brazil have something to do Brazil being one of the most religious countries in the world?  I just have to ask this again to properly frame this part of the discussion . . . just what actual scientific advances have been made based on Intelligent Design?

You see, it doesn't matter how many adherents the DI thinks they have.  Their pet version of Creationism, ID, will never gain any real scientific ground until it is being used for science.  To date not only is there nothing scientific about it, but the pretend science they keep crowing about has had no impact on actual scientific developments, let alone breakthroughs -- significant or otherwise.  Bragging that ID is 'gaining ground' because you have pumped some of your money to fund an ID center in a highly religious country is not a good example of ID gaining ground, is it?

So, with all their 'successes', mostly bought and paid for by the DI itself, now they want more money to push their religious agenda on to other countries mainly because their success in the US has been so limited.  They still refuse to realize why they  have been so unsuccessful, lack of scientific evidence or any actual scientific work certainly is the main limiting factor.

Failing to provide real science is the actuality, claiming that scientists are close-mined is the marketing tactic.

Why did Methodological Naturalism Replace a Theological View of the Universe?

Sort of interesting article from the Adventist Review Online: "Cliff’s Edge – The Neo-Darwinian Inquisition", but like many similar arguments, it misses a simple, yet key, point.

Cliff Goldstein said:

"Sure, like 400 or 500 years ago, “natural philosophers” (the term “scientist” is a nineteenth century creation) nibbled away at the dogma, tradition, and ecclesiastical authority that for eons dominated the intellectual landscape. My favorite line in the history of the West came when—defying the stranglehold that Aristotle (the Darwin of his day) had on just about every discipline (like Darwinism today)—Englishman Francis Bacon declared, “I cannot be called upon to abide by the sentence of a tribunal which is itself on trial.” Wow! In other words, How dare you condemn me for violating a tenet of your worldview when your worldview itself is what I am challenging to begin with?"

I think Cliff is missing a few points.  First off a question, why did dogma, tradition, and ecclesiastical authority dominate the intellectual landscape for eons?  Do you see what I am getting at?  Cliff is complaining that natural philosophers nibbled away at that authority, but does Cliff explore why that authority was so paramount for so long?  Eons is stretching it, but it was the principle authority for a long, long time.  So why was it so?

In all honesty, it was the only game in town, wasn't it?  Who controlled the educational system?  Religious groups, did they not?  Monarchies ruled by the grace of one deity or another, didn't they?  Look at every town and you find often the largest and most ornate building was a religious one.  There were regular mandatory gatherings, and people were not allowed to exempt themselves, were they?  It literally was the only option, and it wasn't much of an option.  Even in the largest cities you might have multiple religious groups, but often they were segregated in certain areas -- or often they segregated themselves.  Marriages were often based on religion, children raised in the religion of their parents . . . and endless list helping to keep religion the only game in town.

Cliff also doesn't want to remind people that religions are incredibly jealous masters, even Christianity, which sells itself as being good and wholesome, has as its first commandment 'Thou shalt have no God before me'.  OK, sometimes it's listed second -- after the one about idols.  But the point is that adherence to the Christian God is before murder, theft, and adultery -- which is a perfect example of religion's priorities.  Most religions decry other religions, often tolerating them more than actually accepting them.  Many theists might never admit it, but anyone not of their specific religion is looking down as some sort of lesser human being. They are taught to feel sorry for others who fail to share their belief set and are constantly trying to convert them

Not complying with the religious authority could get you ostracized, banished, or even killed, it was hard to even consider any possible alternative.  Now let's ask the same question in a different way?  Did those dogmatic, traditional, or ecclesiastical authorities offer answers that actually worked?  Did prayer cure disease?  Did a deity help you plant the crops that would let you survive through a barren winter?  Did it help you build shelters, or explain how the sun rose each night or where it went at the end of every day?  In other words did religious answers provide anything useful in a practical sense?

So, even though it was the only game in town, and an incredibly jealous master, the answers that authority provided weren't particularly useful.  You have a very sick child -- then you were supposed to pray!  If the child died it's your fault for not praying hard enough!  If the child lived, praise your deity!  Sound familiar?  Even today when a disaster strikes, there are religious zealots who want to blame the lack of faith of the people affected.  Disagree?  Well then I guess you weren't watching the news about the some of the recent events like mass shooting and hurricanes.  I've mentioned the religious tendency to blame the victims a number of times, for example.

The reason I raise the question the way I have is because of another point Cliff misses.  Not the fact that science is replacing much of the religious dogma that has been taught for centuries, but why is science so successful at replacing religious answers?

It's funny, in the past when one set of religious dogma replaced another, it's stories and traditions simply replaced the old.  It wasn't that it was any better or more usable, just different.

Cliff makes it sound that such ecclesiastical authority was some monolithic structure, but the reality is it was different wherever and whenever you lived.  Every religion had their own set of stories, the only difference was the time and location -- Norse Gods, Roman Gods, Native American Spirits, Egyptian, Greek, Hindu . . . we could go on for days just listing them all.    How many different explanations for the Sun going across the sky existed?  Apollo's chariot (or Surya's chariot in Hindu mythology) or Sol, the Norse Goddess of the Sun are just two examples -- there were many others.  Even when the Sun was understood not to be a chariot, it was said to go around the Earth, because the Earth was the center of the Universe.  While they were different in specific detail, they all shared the same idea -- when you fail to understand something, slap a deity in front of it and start praying.

Science, on the other hand, isn't replacing one set of theistic explanations for the world we live in, but all of them.  Why is that, Cliff?

Cliff seems to be trying to equate one religion being replaced by another with the changes science has made in the landscape  . . . but he keeps forgetting one key feature.  The point Cliff is missing is 'Why', not why did this happen, after all belief sets have been coming and going for centuries.  The 'why' is more why did science manage to replace theology in addressing questions, and not just one set of theological, but all of them.

Think about it, right now, in modern times there are still hundreds of different religions, even if you look at the main branches, you are looking at tens of different ones -- all with their own set of religions stories.  Science isn't one religion replacing another, as people like Cliff would like you to believe.  But it's one set of answers replacing all the religious stories for a very simple reason, they works.

It works regardless of what religion might be prevalent in a region, it works regardless of national borders, it even works regardless of the opinions of pandering politicians.  Science works, Cliff.  That's the point you keep missing.  When you say things like:

"Newton’s formula (within limits), and modern science in general, worked so well, their predicative and technological successes so stunning, that today science wields oppressive power over most every intellectual endeavor. "

Cliff, you aren't recognizing the truth in your face.  Modern science, mainly scientific methodology, doesn't wield oppressive power the way religions did for centuries, but it does wield tremendous influence because it works!  Of course religious alternatives don't gain traction, not because of that influence, but because they don't work.

That's where the modern Intelligent Design Movement, and all the other religious concepts keep failing so many challenges.  I'll put the question to you, What's been the single biggest difference between the challenges put forth by yet another religion, and the one by science?  It's a pretty simple answer . . . which one works?  Which one meets the evidence, which one can be used to produce results, predictable and consistent results?

Yes, there is the point Cliff conveniently forgets to mention.  When science answers a question they offer support as in evidence, as in testable explanations, as in predictions that later discoveries confirm.  I'm being serious, can you point to a specific example of a deity taking action?  Be my guest, but in reality, you cannot.  If you are a theist the best you can do is identify something you think a deity may have done, but you cannot substantiate it in any way.  When pressed you drag out your religious tome as if that's evidence.  Even if your one example is in fact the actions of a deity, can it be applied consistently?  Can it be depended upon to work?  If so then the lottery would have millions of winners each week, wouldn't it!

We haven't found a single turtle holding up the Earth or pillars holding up the sky, nor found an angry deity causing an earthquake. Scientific theories have offered more and better explanations than any religious story I have every heard, and I would hazard a guess that science will continue to provide better explanations regardless of your religious beliefs.

Hopefully you can see the difference.  While religious explanations seem to touch something within some people, the reality is they don't offer much in the way of explanatory power.  Science, on the other hand, actually works.  That's the point Cliff seems to keep missing.

So what's a theist to do?  Well, the majority of them seem to have no issues with dealing with the world around them as it is as opposed to someone's claims a deity says it is.  Some small, yet vocal, minorities like to resort to all sorts of activities to try and protect what they perceive to be their 'turf'.  The problem is their explanations still do not work, not matter how many politicians pass laws 'protecting' them or their theistic 'pseudo-scientists' claim otherwise.

If you disagree I will ask once again, show me an actual scientific advance that how at it's core a religious concept?  I've had this conversation with different people over the years and at best they claim that a deity was the inspiration behind a scientific advance.  That's it!  They can't point to one scientific theory, or even part of a theory, and tell me anything specific.  They offer nothing but their own conjectures and lots and lots of wishful thinking.  But when it comes down to testable, measurable, and usable explanations, science leaves religion in the dust.

Is science perfect?  By no means!  But don't try and tell me perfection only applies to deities . . . if that was true, why do we need thousands of religions?  But when it comes to actually providing real answers, science, and the scientific methodology, is that only one that provides them.  Medicines cure disease, Materials science explains how structure we build remain standing, Geology explains earthquakes, Physics explains gravity, . . . -- all without invoking a single deity.  Do we know everything on every subject, no.  We will continue to learn and grow -- but working and workable answers will continue to leave out the deity, all of the deities!

And while we continue to advance on the scientific front, religions will continue to fight tooth and nail to protect their beliefs.  The tactics of mistakes they use will continue as long as they are donors willing to fund them.  People like kennie ham in Kentucky or those less than honest dealers in pseudoscience at the Discovery Institute will continue to both market their beliefs and fail to withstand any actual scrutiny, as long as their a people willing to fund them.  Science will continue, not because of a stranglehold of ideas, but because science simply works.

Can We Agree To Disagree? No!

It's only been recently that I've heard people actually use the expression "We can agree to disagree!".  Before that people disagreeing didn't require any sort of statement because what was usually happening was two people arguing about something inconsequential and couldn't find a way to end the argument, so without stating it, they would simply drop it.  The key for me was that it was always something inconsequential, like two fans of different sports teams or an opinion of a movie or restaurant.  Both parties recognized not only were they never going to agree, but whatever they were arguing about was really nothing important.

According to Wikipedia the phrase actually has a long history, much longer than I had realized, dating back the to 1770:

"There are many doctrines of a less essential nature ... In these we may think and let think; we may 'agree to disagree.' But, meantime, let us hold fast the essentials"

Note the phrase 'less essential nature', in other words 'inconsequential.  The problem is that when I hear the phrase being used, it's not an inconsequential argument.  As I said previously the argument would end without having to declare agreeing to disagree.  But nowadays when I hear it, it's taken on a very different connotation for me.

There is an example in this blog, you might remember a commenter named 'Rory'. He responded to one of my posts: "Intelligent Design, Sh** or get off the Pot!", in it he claimed  . . . well, here is his comment:

"Actually, an increasingly large percentage of today's scientists believe in an intelligent designer of the universe and life, and this is now an established one way trend. To understand this turn of events, including perspectives of many leading scientists, see Intelligent Design vs. Evolution — The Miracle of Intelligent Design."

The link is to a webpage of his own which didn't do a very good job of making his case that 'an increasingly large percentage of today's scientists believe . . .'.  I didn't respond in a comment, but drafted a separate post: "In response to a comment".  In my response I went searching for independent confirmation of Rory's claim:

• I visited the Discovery 'Institute' (D'I') to see if they showed a significant increase in signatories to their anti-evolution petition -- which they did not.
• I also checked out the Biologics 'Institute' (D'I' private pseudo-lab) to see if they were publishing anything supporting Intelligent Design -- which they had not!
• I searched on Pub Med to see if there was an increase in the number of Intelligent Design-friendly papers being posted and used for further research -- and found none.
• I also hit several secular and non-secular universities to see if ID appeared in their curriculum -- which it has not.
• Finally I reviewed Rory's link and found it to be mostly quote-mines and showed a severe lack of scholarship and hardly any research at all.

Bottom line, Rory had absolutely nothing to support his claim and I said so in my response post. Of course he had to respond and before repeating some of the same stuff over and over again, he started his long-winded response with:

"Thanks for your comments and rebuttal. We can agree to disagree."

So, can we really 'agree to disagree'?  At the time I said 'Yes, we can', but the more I hear the phrase, the more I realize that we cannot.  I see two reasons, the first is that 'agreeing to disagree' is a tacit agreement that the arguments being made are equivalent.  My second issue is that such arguments are not about inconsequential things.

Arguments such as the one with foolish Rory was about Science and scientific methodology.  Rory was in it to praise his version of a deity.  Since that is something not addressed by science or any rational scientific methodology, Rory was doing nothing but preaching and using lies and distorting other people's words (quote-mines) to do so.  How can anyone agree to disagree when faced with such disreputable tactics?

Arguments concerning Evolution, Vaccinations, and Climate-change are not inconsequential!  These are important areas that should not be trivialized because of one's religious beliefs.  Belief in a deity is not going to save children from getting preventable diseases, it's not going to develop cures and new medical techniques, and it's certainly not going to change how humans have impacted our environment!  That's why most Christians have no issue with those areas at all!

So I have come to the conclusion that when someone says "We can agree to disagree" really means they have lost the argument and are looking for way out without having to actually concede.  In recent conversations, the people who uttered that ridiculous phrase seem to be trying to equate their complete lack of factual support with the opposition's facts and evidence.  But, it doesn't work that way.

My example of Rory should how little factual support he had for his arguments, so he tried the 'agree to disagree' BS.  No, I do not agree to disagree, particular when your arguments are based on lies and distortions.  Bring the evidence that supports your arguments and then we can discuss.  If you have no evidence, don't expect me to let you off the hook by agreeing to disagree.

Look at the parent who says something like "I know what's best for my child!"  In many cases that's true, but when it comes to vaccinations and medical treatment, is the opinion of a parent the same as a trained medical professional?  It's not even close!  Yet groups, like the Discovery 'Institute' (New Discovery Institute Key Word: "Intuition") keep trying to sell folks that their intuition is as good as scientific methodology!  Show me one scientific breakthrough that is based on intuition or even opinion?  Intuition and opinions do not keep buildings standing, that's called engineering and it's based on sound scientific principles.

So if you ever say to me 'We can agree to disagree' and we are talking about something more important than the NY Giants chances for the Superbowl, you can forget it -- because we cannot agree to disagree and we never shall!

Does Losing a Wikipedia Page Ruin a Career?

This story has been rumbling around the web for a while, in fact the DiscoveryInstitute talking heads have had a great deal to say about it. Before you read it, you might need to understand that Wikipedia has standards, one of the set of standards is academic notability. While nearly anyone can create a page on Wikipedia, it's contributors can easily remove pages that fail to meet those standards.

That's what happened to Dr. Günter Bechly, there was a Wikipedia page for him and Wikipedia took it down because it failed to meet their standards for academic notability.  Of course the DI immediately declared it an outrage, claiming all sorts of collusion, discrimination, and cover-ups -- much like their defense of Guillermo Gonzalez.  If you remember Gonzalez was denied tenure after failing to achieve the requirements for tenure.  The DI claimed the denial was based on him being a Creationist, but they never addressed several issues like:

1. The Chronicle [Chronicle of High Education] observed that Gonzalez  . . . had published no significant research during that time
2.  . . .had only one graduate student finish a dissertation.
3. According to the Des Moines Register, "Iowa State has sponsored $22,661 in outside grant money for Gonzalez since July 2001, records show. In that same time period, Gonzalez's peers in physics and astronomy secured an average of $1.3 million by the time they were granted tenure.

All the DI could do was whine and cry discrimination, yet the evidence says Gonzalez failed in the requirements for tenure -- requirements normally spelled out when you accept a tenure-seeking position.  Publishing research is probably the main requirement, but successful graduate students are also a typical responsibility, as is raising outside grant money.  Gonzales failed, and the DI never bothered to address his failings.

Doesn't that sounds exactly like the whining and crying they are now doing over Günter Bechly. According to Wikipedia, his academic achievements do not merit a Wikipedia page. So instead of showing Wikipedia a list of notable achievements -- related to actual science, they whine and cry about imaginary discrimination. Where is his Curriculum Vitae (CV)? CV's normally include information on academic background, including experience, degrees, research, awards, publications, presentations, and other achievements. Like Gonzalez, why isn't the DI publicizing Günter's?

The real question is -- is he truly notable?  According to WikiSpecies, he's been part of only 4 publications -- and he wasn't the lead on any of them.  Not particularly notable.  He is still listed in the German version of Wikipedia, which made me think a bit, what about his contemporaries?

Günter  used to work at the he State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, so I found their website and staff listing. I randomly selected a dozen members and have not found a single US Wikipedia page for any of them, in spite of several showing larger publications lists on the German version of Wikipedia.  Interesting, so Günter had a US Wikipedia page for some reason.  So that leads to my next question, what differentiates Günter from the rest of the staff?

There only seems to be one thing that separates Günter from the ones who still work there, his support for Intelligent Design.  So . . . why did he have a Wikipedia page in the first place?  Apparently his old co-workers didn't merit one?  Could it be his notoriety as one of the few scientists who support ID?  I don't know, but that seems to be the only distinction between Günter and his associates.

So, let's check a few other Wikipedia pages and see if the other members of the DI Religious Ministry have had their pages deleted.  Of course if Günter  was deleted because of some form of discrimination, logic says others will also have been deleted!

• Michael Behe -- page still there
• Wild Bill Dembski -- still there
• Phillip E. Johnson - still there
• Paul Nelson -- still there

I started searching individually, but then found a page at the DI that shows 12 of the 17  DI Senior Fellows have Wikipedia pages.  I would have to assume that the other 5 never had a page or the DI would be making even more of a hue and cry.  14 of the 24 Fellows have Wikipedia pages.  So I do not see any evidence of discrimination, only efforts to rationalize the removal of Günter's page.

I was pretty much laughing about the whole thing and had no intention of even addressing it until I saw this headline:

"Pro-Darwinists Destroy Scientist’s Career After He Turns to God-Based Evolution Theory"

Is his career ruined?  Currently he's working at the Biologic Institute (which is owned and operated by the very people who are raising the fuss -- the Discovery Institute.  Now since this job aligns well with his religious beliefs, you would think it would be a dream job for him.  Apparently he's still employed, so I have to ask, did the removal of his Wikipedia page really ruin his career?

Much like Gonzalez, the removal of the Wikipedia hasn't ended his career, so what might have had a negative impact?  Perhaps his time and energy and efforts promoting a non-scientific concepts may have played a role?  You get hired for a job and you spend most of your time doing a different job -- and then you find yourself working in a pseudo-lab instead of an actual lab?  Think about it, would you keep on a butcher who spend only part of his work time actually butchering meat?  How about a rocket scientist who spend hours a day preaching to co-workers?

No, if Günter's career is ruined, he cannot blame Wikipedia for enforcing their standards.  Günter, you have to look a bit closer to home and wonder if maybe you should have really kept your religion out of your workplace?  Spending your time and resources on your religious beliefs and not on actual science may have played a larger part -- not because of discrimination, but because you aren't doing your job.  You might look up Nathaniel Abraham, David Coppedge, Catherine Croker, or John Freshwater.  They also damaged their own careers because they put their personal religious beliefs ahead of their careers, and then seemed surprised when they were held accountable by their employers!

So now you are in the DI pet laboratory, the Biologics Institute.  Now you have a choice.  You can continue to whine and cry -- or you can do what no one else at the DI seems to be able or willing to do.  Get out of marketing and support your religious ideas with actual science -- not pseudo-science but actual science, following scientific methodology.  If you can do that, you might notice a significant career boost.  But if you fail at that, or simply keep whining and crying -- then you might one day realize your career was always in your own hands, not Wikipedia's.

Why The Earth May Not Be Round!

We are not advocating teaching the Earth is Flat, we are advocating to expand science education by teaching the controversy over why the Earth may not be round.  Sound familiar?

The official (cough, cough) policy of the Discovery Institute (DI) of not advocating the teaching of Intelligent Design (ID) is pure BS.  If it were true then they would not be writing lesson plans, politicking politicians and student groups, nor supporting legislation designed to weaken real science education, among other tactics and strategies.  What they claim to be advocating is expanding science education by teaching the controversy over Evolution. They re-iterated this in a recent post addressed to Utah (Dear Utah: Teach About the Scientific Controversy Over Evolution, Not About Intelligent Design)

I have a question, does teaching this 'controversy' really expand science education?  It would be one thing if there really was a scientific controversy over Evolution, but since the only controversy is an artificial one, a culturally-contrived controversy over whether or not religious beliefs should be taught instead of actual science -- is this really an expansion?

What this does is weaken science education, and this was found to be true during the Dover Trial.  Imagine a science teacher who covers the scientific theory of evolution, and then is required to introduce religious arguments against it -- arguments without any factual support or evidence.  What would be the outcome?  The Dover Decision made that pretty clear -- confused students because of a weakened science education.  Teaching religion as if it was science is a bad idea because  . . . well for one reason, it doesn't work.

Buildings are not held up by prayer, cars do not run because of the wishes of a capricious deity, medicines do not work because of wishful thinking.  They work because of the science and applications of that science in architecture,  engineering, and medicine.

I have to argue about one statement they made:

"In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can’t be questioned."

Is Evolution really taught as dogma and not open to any scrutiny?  That's what this statement implies.  So my next question is whether or not it is taught dogmatically.  So what evidence would support that?

• Textbooks covered it as dogma
• No changes to Evolutionary Theory since it's inception
• An increasing number of scientists/science group advocating a non-religious alternative

First up textbooks:
However, I have look at a number of textbooks, including my own, my daughters', and my granddaughter's and there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that.  In my last visit to a local college library (Wright State University), I looked up several biology texts and also found it taught as a scientific theory and not dogmatic at all.
-
There is one point that I do keep hearing from creationists or varying stripes as evidence for this dogmatic approach -- evolution being explained as a fact and not a theory, but that is more word play than anything else.  Gravity is a fact -- hold something out at arms length and drop it, it falls -- only please don't do this with an iPhone, they seem to be more disaster prone than others (as my granddaughter can attest).  The fall of an object is a fact, and we call that fact Gravity.  Gravity is also a theory, it is the explanation of why things fall as they do.

Do you see the difference?  We use the same term to describe both the fact and the explanation.  We do the same thing in many areas of science, Light is a fact, the Theory of Light is the explanation.  Germs are a fact, Germ Theory is the explanation.  Evolution is a fact, the Theory of Evolution is the explanation.  Calling Evolution a fact isn't dogmatic, but contextual use of the word.  When you look at the evidence for life changing over time, you see the fact of evolution.  When you see the genetic differences and similarities between organisms, you see the fact of Evolution.  What you want to understand how those facts occurred, you look at Evolutionary Theory.

OK, how about whether or not evolutionary theory is open to scrutiny:

Has the Theory of Evolution changed and is it still changing?  The answer is 'hell yes!'  Since Darwin's day there have been many changes.  There have literally been thousands of scientists questioning all or part of Evolutionary theory on a daily basis and coming up with more and better explanations.  That's how science works.

If scientists thought Evolution was not open to scrutiny, would any of this come to pass?  There would be very few, if any, scientists working on it.  There would be very few changes, again if any.  Major changes would be unheard up.  Things like Punctuated Equilibrium, Genetics, Genetic Drift, and many others wouldn't possibly exist if Evolution was some untouchable sacred cow.

The reason they do exist, and new ideas and theories that will come in the future, is because science treats little as untouchable.  We've learned the lessons of the past that when ideas are considered inviolate, we cannot ignore evidence that appears to violate them.  Ignoring evidence is not how science advances. We learn by asking questions and finding answers, and when those answers don't match current theories, we keep going and figure out why, then adjust the theories with the new knowledge.

The reason I think folks like the DI keep making this 'dogmatic' argument is mainly because their failure to formulate and actual scientific theory that includes their religious beliefs.  Several years ago even the daddy rabbit of ID, Philip Johnson, even admitted it:

"I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world." (Berkeley Science Review, Spring 2006, retrieved from Wikiquote)

That's why they make this argument, not because they really think it's being taught dogmatically, but because they have not made any headway in an actual opposing scientific theory.  Without their cries of 'dogmatisim', they would have little else to say.  So the real question is not whether or not Evolution is taught dogmatically, but why haven't you, DI, been able to formulate a scientific theory that can compete with Evolution?  The Dover Decision included this little gem on why they argue the controversy instead of focusing on actual science:

"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"

One last thing, are there non-religious alternatives to Evolutionary Theory?
If there are, no one seems to be talking about them, anywhere.  The only alternatives that people hear about are Creationism and it's little brother Intelligent Design.  I know the DI likes to claim ID is not religious, but no one seems to believe them.  Their own actions, strategy documents, even the audience for their marketing materials all prove that ID is nothing more than re-packaged Creationism.  One last quote, and it's from the Dover Decision:

"The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism."

And that is why Intelligent Design will remain in the same section of the bookstore where religion, physic powers, numerology, and tarot cards are sold.  You can get your 'Flat Earth' conspiracy books there as well.  It should also be the reason why states, including Utah, should pass real science standards which focus on science and not religious beliefs.