New Book Announcement . . . Not Really!

Caught this from my Google News alerts:

It looked like a new book announcement, something I don't ever look forward to from the DI, but you never know they might actually have something intelligent to say.  But as I looked at the cover, I thought it looked familiar . . . and it did.  This isn't a new book, it's not even a updated edition.  It's something they published back in 2007/2008!

Oh, they are using it to introduce a new publishing imprint:

" . . . published originally by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, now available to celebrate the launch of a new imprint of Discovery Institute Press, Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE) Books."

Wait, wasn't the Foundation for Thought and Ethics the publisher of the now infamous 'Of Pandas and People', you know the one that showed the very clear evolution from Creationism to Intelligent Design that was revealed during the Dover Trial (remember 'cdesign proponentsists'?).  So they are now part of the Discovery Institute.  And to 'celebrate' the DI is offering this book at a huge discount!  I have to wonder how many copies have been gathering dust in a warehouse?

Wasn't this also the book that, once again, showed one of the common gutter-level tactics the DI and their sycophants use when releasing a new book? Ah yes, Panda's Thumb wrote about that in 2007:

"On November 19, 2007 a new book, The Design of Life, authored by William Dembski and Jonathan Wells, was released. Almost immediately a stream of reviews, all giving the book 5 stars (the highest positive evaluation possible for readers’ reviews on Amazon) started appearing on the Amazon website. On December 20, 2007, Wesley Elsberry posted a brief survey of the exaggerated acclaims of the book in question posted on Amazon by a bunch of ID advocates – acclaims bearing unmistakable signs of orchestration. 

Elsberry’s survey could have been written even before this book appeared: the behavior of ID advocates follows a predictable pattern. Each time a new book by Dembski or Wells (or Behe, or any other of the Discovery Institute denizens) appears, their cohorts immediately start creating a ruckus, proclaiming the book in question the “end of Darwinism,” a great event in the history of humankind, destined to become a shining achievement in science, philosophy, sock mending, and culinary art." (Panda's Thumb: Dembski’s and Wells’s shenanigans - just a reminder)

Yes, that tactic -- release a book and have people who already agree with you jump over to Amazon to write all kinds of nice things about it.  They even write reviews BEFORE a book has been published, as we discussed here in Defensiveness 101.  As of today the ratings include 47% at one star and 43% as five stars.  When ordering the ratings by date, you do see a lot of front-end loading of five star ratings, including at least one by a then employee of the DI.  I do wonder if this re-publicizing will change that, hopefully for the better, like 99% one star.

Here is a kicker of a quote:

"When future intellectual historians list the books that toppled Darwin's theory,The Design of Life will be at the top." (Michael Behe)

Of course the announcement forgets to mention that Behe is a Senior Fellow of the DI, in other words, not very objective.  Besides, how long have Creationists been predicting the demise of Evolution?  On the one hand, if Evolution is ever 'toppled' it won't be by a Creationist pushing their religion.  It will by a scientist, or more likely a team of scientists, who make a number of breakthrough discoveries and replace one, or more, of the underlying theories supporting evolution with something with better explanatory power.  That's how science works.

On the other hand, if by some miracle Intelligent Design is found to have any scientific merit at all, this book won't even be mentioned.  It's nothing by a re-hash of already passed over arguments.  Re-publicizing it now in 2016 doesn't change it's lack of merit.  You really should read some of the one-star reviews.  Thy are pretty sharp and cut the book into confetti!  Here are some headlines:

• This is creationism., not science
• The same old canards one more time...
• Religion masquerading as science 
• Teach The Controversies of Evolution (Or How Not to Teach Science, Courtesy of the Discovery Institute) My personal favorite! 

There are plenty more to read.  If you really want to be entertained, read a few of the five-star ratings.  You can tell how many agree for no other reason than a shared philosophy.   I'm sure there will be an increase in ratings, what I am curious about is how many will be employees of the DI.

Re-Trying Kitzmiller v Dover School Board

Yesterday I mentioned the spin-miesters at the Discovery Institute doing their level best to spin the Dover Decision in their posts called the '10 Myths About Dover' in my "Merry Kitzmas!" post.  I had a little time tonight and looked at their Myth No. 7, " Ten Myths About Dover: #7, "The Dover Case Showed ID Is 'Religious' and a Form of 'Creationism'" ".  I was planning on commenting on just the title, at least at first, but then I read it . . . all of it . . .warning, it's huge!  What they are trying to do is re-try the case, seriously . . . read it yourself.  Of course they are re-trying the case by only presenting their side!   It's hilarious!

In all honesty, I don't see anything new here.  It's a re-hash of things said time and time again since the trial, including their comments in the Montana Law Review.  It really is funny.  Especially this part:

Here's what Scott Minnich testified:

Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether intelligent design requires the action of a supernatural creator? A. I do.
Q. What is that opinion?
A. It does not.
[...]
Q. Does intelligent design require the action of a supernatural creator acting outside the laws of nature?
A. No.
(Scott Minnich, Nov. 3 PM Testimony, pp. 45-46, 135.)

Similarly Michael Behe testified:

Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether intelligent design requires the action of a supernatural creator? A. Yes, I do.
Q. And what is that opinion?
A. No, it doesn't.
(Michael Behe, Oct. 17 AM Testimony, p. 86.)

Now a question . . . would you expect anything else from two of the ID Proponents during their testimony?  Of course the DI forgets all about the cross examination?  If they are going to re-present their side, they should at least present the entire argument.  Well, their definition of fair and mine are obviously different.   However, did they forget that in order for ID to be science, Behe wanted to expand the definition of science to allow supernatural causation?  So under cross-examination Behe admits supernatural causation, but under examination by defense he denies the need.  And they wonder why the Judge didn't accept everything they said as gospel?

One more laugh.  Over in Ten Myths About Dover: #9, "The ID Movement Had Its Day in Court" they claimed to have not had their day in court . . . yet in addition to their proponents testifying, they bring up in this 'myth' the amicus brief they gave to Judge Jones to try and 'help' during the trial.  According to a google search, in legal terms it means:

"An amicus curiae (literally, friend of the court; plural, amici curiae) is someone who is not a party to a case and offers information that bears on the case, but who has not been solicited by any of the parties to assist a court. This may take the form of legal opinion, testimony or learned treatise (the amicus brief) and is a way to introduce concerns ensuring that the possibly broad legal effects of a court decision will not depend solely on the parties directly involved in the case."  (Wikipedia)

Yes they weren't party, but they certainly had a vested interest.  All on their own they provided this information . . . and yet they claim to not have had their day in court!   I underlined one part of the definition I wanted to mention: 'possibly broad legal effects of a court decision '.  So, the DI provided an amicus brief designed . . . pun intended . . . to insure that any possible broad legal effects had their input.  After the trial they whined that Jude Jones overstepped, yet they themselves were hoping for a broad legal effect . . . but only if it went in their favor.

Well, you can read the rest of their post if you want, but be prepared to take some time.  They pretty much re-tried and re-presented their entire side of the trial . . . a trial in which they keep trying to distance themselves.  If you want a quick laugh you can read how they re-wrote history with their re-telling of the story of "Of Pandas and People'. This part is particularly amusing:

"Again, up to this point, "creationism" was the only game in town. Sometimes in the earliest days, in fact, ID advocates used that very term. But they clearly meant something different by it than did actual "creationists." Obviously, they could not have anticipated the way Darwin defenders would later seize on the strategy of using ambiguous or multivalent language ("creationism," "evolution") to sow confusion among the public and in the media. "

ID advocates used the term 'creationism', but meant something different that how 'creationists' used it.  Does anyone believe this?  And, pretty typically, they accuse real science of sowing confusion, their own favorite tactic.  Remember the bait and switch with the word 'Theory' and who could forget 'Academic Freedom' which has nothing to do with actual academic freedom.  Ah yes, they love confusion, it's their ironic accusation that amuses me.

OK, enough!  I'm not planning to read this one again.  I wonder what they have in mind for Myth 6?  Eventually they have to renew their attacks on Judge Jones.  My guess is Myth #1 will focus there.  Who will they attack next?  Tammy Kitzmiller?  The biology teachers in Dover?  How about reporters covering the trial?