Friday, March 2, 2018

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.

2 comments:

  1. Another change that happened without fanfare (or if there was fanfare, I missed it) was the DI's website Evolution News & Views changing to Evolution News & Science Today.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great catch, one I missed as well. I guess I just got used to thinking of it as a pseudo-blog (because they never allow comments or even the possibility of a dissenting opinion. Personally, I don't expect any substantive changes, after all it was just a place for DI approved folks to pat themselves on the back. There will be just as much science as the under the old moniker (which is none at all). Even if they did allow comments, they would be heavily moderated to ensure only things they agree with would get through. So like most things they do, change the name and follow the same formula. Thanks Matthew!

    ReplyDelete