Does the Discovery Institute Understand Scientific Methodology At All? Apparently Not!

I've explained this many times, but it bears repeating because the Discovery Institute continues to trot out the same erroneous arguments.  An analogy of a Scientific Theory is that it is like a snapshot in time.  It is the best explanation based on the available evidence we have right now.  In the future, as we learn more, scientific theories change.  While the DI likes to brand this as a weakness, it's actually one of its strengths.  If it were incapable of change, we certainly wouldn't have gone to the Moon, flown a single balloon -- let alone an airplane, nor cured and eliminated many diseases.

In this latest post, new evidence is changing some of the theories around evolution and the DI is complaining.  There complaint goes like this:  Since science is changeable, it means it's wrong, and therefore cannot be counted on.

Here's the post: "With Two New Fossils, Evolutionists Rewrite Narratives to Accommodate Conflicting Evidence".  Without even going into the post, you can see the complaint.  That's why I have to question an organization claiming to be a scientific organization not understanding how science works.  But when you see the DI for what it really is, a religious ministry, it's not so hard to understand.

If you do read the post, it's little new, except for this little gem:

"Dubious procedures like these would be unthinkable in other natural sciences, such as physics."

Yes, Physics and the other hard sciences make no allowances for new discoveries at all.  Scientific theories in Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Astronomy . . . never change when something new is discovered, really?  So Nobel Prizes are awarded for what?  Maintaining the status quo?  I can hear the announcement from Stockholm now "And the Nobel Prize in Physics for 2018 goes to John Smith, for doing nothing at all!" and everyone applauds, except for me -- I mean, I did nothing in Physics at all, so where is my Nobel?

I do find is funny that this post uses Physics as it's example because the DI has frequently poked at Physics, as well as most of the rest of the hard sciences.  Usually they are trying to tear down support for Biology from any of the other sciences, but equally as often they are trying to use new discoveries in those science to disprove biology.  Funny because in this post they claim that the other hard sciences don't change with new discoveries, and yet when new discoveries are made they try and twist it into something against Biology.

Anyone with a functioning brain knows that a scientific theory is not:

"merely a loose collection of narratives that are forged to fit the evidence"

That's what the DI would like people to believe.  Which is why they like using such disreputable tactics as "It's Only a Theory" and calling Evolution 'Darwinism', both designed to make Evolution appear to be less than it is, a Scientific Theory -- which is, just in case you need a refresher:

"A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, by using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge." (Wikipedia: Scientific Theory)

Just a wee bit more than a 'loose collection of narratives' . . . which happens to much closer to the definition of something else:

"The Bible is a collection of sacred texts or scriptures that Jews and Christians consider to be a product of divine inspiration and a record of the relationship between God and humans. 
Many different authors contributed to the Bible. What is regarded as canonical text differs depending on traditions and groups; a number of Bible canons have evolved, with overlapping and diverging contents.
" (Wikipedia: Bible)

Many different authors, collection, different canons . . . certainly sounds more like a 'loose collection of narratives' than a 'repeatedly tested' and 'withstood rigorous scrutiny', doesn't it?

But the DI would have you believe that scientific theories are nothing more than a bunch of stories with no evidence at all . . . exactly what their pet idea of Intelligent Design has always been.  You think one day they might learn . . . oh wait, but anyone who thinks scientific theories should never be able to be changed isn't demonstrating the capacity for learning, are they?

Intelligent Design Summed Up in One Line

A quickie little post today from the Discovery Institute's little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer: "Stenophlebia amphitrite, a Stunningly Gorgeous Dragonfly from the Upper Jurassic":

"When you see something like that, a creature that is so transparently a work of art, how in the world do you jump to evolutionary explanations dependent exclusively on blind churning?"

What he is talking about is a fossil dragonfly, and to be honest, it is gorgeous.  Take a look:

Yes, that's terrific, but is this all you need to toss away real science and climb on one of the multitude of religions?  I don't think so.

When I read something like this, it simply shows me not only how little the talking heads from the DI know about actual evolutionary theory, but how insistent they are that everyone should also know even less than they do.  I have a few issues:

1. The world's biologists didn't 'jump' to anything.  Questions about a deity doing this stuff have been around since the first person made such a claim.  It took decades, if not centuries, to formulate explanations that actually meets the evidence.  It wasn't a 'jump'.  Darwin didn't wake up one day and say 'Eureka, God is Dead!', as much as you like to portray him having done so.
2. Where in evolutionary theory is 'blind churning'?  That's a strawman explanation of evolution the DI would like everyone to believe.  It goes with the 'tornado in the junkyard' and many other discredited analogies of evolutionary theory.
3. 'Work of art'?  So, opinion is now replacing facts?  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, right?  It is a gorgeous fossil of a creature that evolved a long time ago and whose descendants will soon be appearing in my neighborhood, but calling it 'art' in no way negates the evolution behind it.

Fossils such as this don't make people turn away from real science, I believe it supports it.  Look at all the evidence of paleontology, it's one of the areas of study that had people questioning religious explanations well before Darwin.  Look at the discoveries, read about how people were looking for answers as to when did those discoveries live, why have they disappeared, why are they so similar to many modern forms.  These are just a few of the questions that tarted with fossil discoveries and has grown into the discipline of Paleontology.

Look at the evidence linking current forms with those of the past.  Do we have a perfect line from one to another, no we do not, scientists readily admit that.  But each new find changes how we look at the past.  We are learning new things all the time, it's exciting!  Nothing we have learned has negated the overarching theory of Evolution, nothing!

The Discovery Institute would like you to join their religion.  Don't think, just appreciate the beauty but don't look any deeper.  God forbid [pun intended] you engage your brain and think about where this fossil came from, when it lived, how it might be related to current forms.  It seems to the DI that thinking will reduce your appreciation for the beauty of the fossil itself.  They can't possibly imagine someone can find something so beautiful and not fall on their knees to pay homage to one deity or another.  

Well, they are wrong . . . but what else it new!

The DI's Michael Denton makes a Prediction -- Yes, believe it or not! Unsupported, but still a Prediction.

The Discovery Institute (DI) did something out of the ordinary, well for them it's out of the ordinary.  In this post from their Evolution 'news' and Views (EnV), "Genetic Similarities Between Fins and Limbs -- Evidence for Evolution, Maybe, but Not for Darwinism", Michael Denton said this:

"There never were any transitional forms making both dermal bone and endochondral bone. Organisms made one or the other.There never were any transitional forms with fin rays and digits. And I predict that no matter how extensively the fossil record is searched, the phenotypic gap between fins and limbs will remain even as the genetic gap continues to diminish. "

While we could get into one of the usual arguments about how there is much more to Evolution than the work of Charles Darwin, something the DI only seems to remember when it suits them.  Usually they equate all of evolutionary theory with Darwin's work as a strawman so they can try and tear away pieces.

I do have a biological question about one of Denton's statements, he said "Organisms made one or the other".  That's not true is it?  Granted I have to go back a number of years to a biology class, but aren't there examples of both in the human body?  Let's try Wikipedia:

"A dermal bone or membrane bone is a bony structure derived from intramembranous ossification forming components of the vertebrate skeleton including much of the skull, jaws, gill covers, shoulder girdle and fin spines rays (lepidotrichia), and the shell (of tortoises and turtles)." (Wikipedia: Dermal Bone) 

"Endochondral ossification is one of the two essential processes during fetal development of the mammalian skeletal system by which bone tissue is created. Unlike intramembranous ossification, which is the other process by which bone tissue is created, cartilage is present during endochondral ossification. Endochondral ossification is also an essential process during the rudimentary formation of long bones, the growth of the length of long bones, and the natural healing of bone fractures." (Wikipedia: Endrochondral Bone)

That's what I thought, Denton's comment is wrong.  Humans produce bones using both processes.  Plus when you read the original article Denton started with, You have someone studying a subject for 20 years and then based on one article in the NY Times, Denton makes some erroneous statements, strange conclusions, and ends with a ridiculous prediction.

Even with that, what I found most interesting was this declarative statement, Denton's prediction.  He says 'no matter how extensively the fossil record is searched', really?  Isn't he making several assumptions?  First of all, is Denton a Paleontologist?

No, he's a Biochemist with a philosophical agreement with the ID community.  In fact he wrote one of the earliest books that influenced Phillip E. Johnson in his drive to form the Discovery Institute and legitimize his religious beliefs as science. That book (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis) was reviewed by actual scientists and they said that the book distorts and misrepresents evolutionary theory and contains numerous errors.  So, we have a Biochemist making predictions about the fossil record.  Anyone else see a problem with that?

Next issue, Denton seems to think the fossil record is a complete record.  Doesn't he realize that we are making new fossil discoveries all the time?  Paleontologists are still discovering, categorizing, and studying all the time.  As new discoveries are made, the fossil record changes, usually becoming more complete and better defined.  We discussed a good example of this back a few years ago.

Finally, the last part of his 'prediction' is his assumption that as the 'genetic gap' shrinks, and by that I believe he's saying that as we learn more and more and connect the fossil lineages closer and closer, there will never be a direct connection between limbs and fins.  So . . . I have to ask this, is Denton acknowledging that Intelligent Design in nothing more than a God-of-the-Gaps argument?

OK, maybe not 'god' of the gaps, but definitely using perceived gaps to try and make an argument against current evolutionary theory, oh wait, not current evolution, but 150-year old 'Darwinism', how could I confuse the two.  Denton called this a prediction, but in reality it's his opinion.  He might be right, but then how many opinions and even predictions opposing Evolution have come true?  Anyone else remember the "The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism".  If you haven't read it, you might give it a go.  It's a nutshell view of the many 'predictions' made against evolutionary theory and how none of them have come true.

Back to his prediction.  Since the two bone formation processes (dermal and endochondral) are two different processes that produce different types of bone, would there be an expectation of a transitional form demonstrating one type to change into the other or is it more likely that one may replace the other?  I don't know what future discoveries will be (and neither does Denton), but I think what Denton's done is take two widely different things and then predict they won't intersect.  What this reminds me of is a common Creationist complaint about a dog never giving birth to a cat.  His 'prediction' seems to be highly improbable -- by design.