Did ProPublica Misrepresent Intelligent Design?

Little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer, one of the Discovery Institute talking heads had a bit of a whine today.  His post: "A Look Inside the Media Sausage Factory: Alternative Facts from ProPublica" continues a theme we discussed a few days back in "More 'Knee-Jerkiness' from the Discovery Institute, Emphasis on Jerkiness".  Apparently he's backing up Sarah Chaffee and her taking issue with ProPublica and one of their writers commenting on Intelligent Design (ID).

One of the reasons klingy complained about ProPublica was because it was mentioned on "Last Week on Tonight with John Oliver".  He doesn't seem to like Oliver saying that it did great investigative journalism:

" . . . donate to groups like ProPublica, a nonprofit group which does great investigative journalism."

If you aren't familiar with ProPublica, they are described as:

"ProPublica is a non-profit corporation based in New York City. It describes itself as an independent non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest. In 2010 it became the first online news source to win a Pulitzer Prize," (Wikipedia: ProPublica)

Other than that, I was surprised that klingy bothered to reach out to ProPublica, His normal course of events is to simply whine, cry, blame, and point fingers . . . usually all from various DI websites.  While he did reach out, I'm not sure of his approach.  He emailed them with this, including links to what he thinks are the significant misrepresentations:

"Writing at Evolution News & Views, which I edit, my Discovery Institute colleague Sarah Chaffee has pointed out significant misrepresentations in your January 30 article for ProPublica. Do you plan to correct them?"

Rather than ask for their sources, he goes immediately on the offensive and in one line basically questions their journalistic integrity.  Now when you question the integrity of the DI, they tend to get up on their hind legs and ad-hominen the hell out of you.  ProPublica is much more reasonable, an editor from ProPublica responded:

"I have reviewed both Annie's article and the critique by your colleague. In my judgment, Annie's article is factually accurate, and therefore we do not plan to publish a correction." 

She had more to say, you can read it at klingy post, if you want.  She stated her reasoning and supported it well.  Please note the term 'factually accurate'.  So in other words, ProPulica's description of ID as just another form of Creationism and the DI's goal of teaching ID in school is factually accurate.  Don't ya just love facts?  The DI and klingy obviously don't.

Klingy went on a much longer diatribe, and she responded to that as well.  Her bottom line was no corrections are necessary because the author did her homework and Sarah, and klingy, failed to make their case of 'misrepresentation', klingy took exception and said:

"So there you have it: a source of "investigative journalism" called out on multiple instances of misinformation in a single article refuses to correct the record, brushing aside objections as no more than a difference in "opinion." But I thought the highly regarded news source is supposed to be a source of fact, not opinion? 

Placing 'investigative journalism' in quotes they way he did was a subtle jab, but one that falls way off the mark.  In the eyes of the DI, ProPublica's crime was simply compounded because they refuse toe a DI-defined line, a line that no one outside of DI and ID circles toes.  The DI doesn't like Judge Jones because he stuck with the actual law, not the DI's version of it.  They also don't like Wikipedia because they won't let the DI define ID as science.  They don't like . . . well you get the idea.  They don't like anyone who disagrees with them.  Maybe one day they will notice me and I get added to that august list (Bucket List item for me :-))!  He continued with:

I'll drop this now, because the parade of fake news about ID and the evolution debate never ends."

Don't you love how he drags in 'fake news' again and tries to associate ProPublica with being a fake news site, like InfoWars (Wikipeda: Fake News Sites).  I do have to notice that while klingy is trying to paint ProPublica as a fake news site, he had nothing to say about John Oliver's characterization of InfoWars as an fake news site.  The reason this surprises me is that in the past InfoWars had nice things to say about ID.  I would expect some sort of defense, unless klingy is afraid to get in bed with a site that thinks Sandy Hook was phony government propaganda and the child victims were all actors.

In any event, the main question here is did ProPublica misrepresent ID?  You know my answer, it's that they did not!  The DI needs to do something more than just whine and claim to have been misrepresented without being able to show how and why.

I did want to make one small point that I do plan on expanding in the future, klingy ends with:

"If you suspect axe-grinding, yeah, it's probably there."

Isn't this exactly what most people think when they read anything from the DI?  Little klingy showed the axe he was grinding, his anti-science and pro-religion axe.  Funny how they [the DI] always seems to use the precise tactic they accuse other people of using. ProPublica isn't grinding any axes, they are reporting facts -- like investigative journalist are supposed to do.  You can disagree with them, but that doesn't mean the fact are false.

ProPublica has proven itself over and over again to be focused on the public interest.  While we already said they were the first online reporting website to win a Pulitzer back in 2010.  They also won one for investigative reporting in 2011, and a third Pulitzer for explanatory reporting in 2016.  Their list of awards goes on for 7 webpages.

Can the DI claim the same motivation, public interest, as ProPublica?  I'm sure they will eventually try and make such a claim, but then their claims of 'critical thinking' has nothing to do with actual critical thinking and their claims of 'academic freedom' has nothing to do with actual academic freedom, so if they ever claim to be doing whatever they do for 'public interest', I thnk we would find that it has nothing to do with actual public interest.

Facts, We Don't Need No Stinking Facts

I was following some of the news concerning the two big political conventions and noticed something strange about one of them, an overabundance of 'feelings' conversation.  I was mulling it over and what jelled it in my mind was John Oliver's Last Night on Tonight commentary about the Republican National Convention (RNC):

They really did spend a lot of time identifying peoples' feelings about something, much more than relying on anything resembling a fact.  Oliver said, "Believing something to be true is not the same thing as it being true" summed up the RNC pretty well.  I really was waiting for the RNC to use "Feelings" as their new theme song.

The interview with Newt really keyed in on it.  How he, as a politician, would go with feelings over facts any day. Shouldn't that be a warning flag?  I am not talking a little 3x5 inch flag on the end of a piece of straw.  I am talking about a room sized piece of red cloth run up to the top of a 90 foot flagpole signaling a serious disaster!  When someone wants you to go with your feelings, it usually means they don't have any facts to back something up, so they need you to 'go with your gut'.  Why would that be?

I have to wonder if the RNC 'feels' they are in a losing position.  Changing from 'facts' to 'feelings' is only a tactic when the facts don't back you up.  As we can see from the Newt's part of the interview, the facts do not back him up, so he tries to make the claim that his feelings, and the voiced 'feelings' attributed to 'the average American' are actually facts in themselves. Sorry, Newt, an unsupported opinion does not equal actual supported numbers, and it never will.

An analogy in Poker is called a 'chopped pot', which means splitting the pot evenly among the players who have yet to fold the hand.  There are two instances of a chopped pot, one is the hands are truly tied after showing them.  The other is when one player feels they are at a disadvantage and wants to minimize their losses, so they offer to chop the pot rather than take the risk and see the cards.  This is usually done because of a 'feeling' of having a weaker hand than one or more of your opponents.  In chess it's the offer of a draw rather than play out the rest of the game.

As you might have noticed the Discovery Institute (DI) has been spending a lot of time claiming that intuition is just as good as actual science.  That your 'feelings' about a subject are just as valid as someone who studies and works and has the evidence to back up their claims.  Why would they do so?

Because they must 'feel' they are in a losing position.  I wonder if donations are down or some of their big donors are questioning their lack of results?  Why else would they be celebrating 20 years of non-achievement.  That's why they are pushing books like Doug Axes "Undeniable" and re-releasing books like "The Design of Life". And that is why they make statements like:

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

I really love this statement because after years of the DI telling us how scientific they are and how many scientists disagree with evolution -- suddenly the message is who cares what scientists say anyway!  This is the equivalent saying "Oh Yea!" after a telling insult for which you have no response.  I mean what do scientists know anyway, nanny-nanny-boo-boo!

Telling people to go with their gut shows how little they have in the way of facts to support their Creationism/Intelligent Design.  To paraphrase a favorite movie "Facts, we don't need no stinking facts!"

I think I have a new Favorite Newspaper!

Back during the Dover Trial, I enjoyed the coverage from the York Dispatch, which was linked from a variety of sites.  That paper was certainly discussed in Lauri Lebo's book "The Devil in Dover", which I enjoyed immensely and have mentioned in a number of previous posts.  I was on Facebook and caught a post from Lauri pointing at an editorial from the York Dispatch.  It is a masterpiece.

Here a link to the article "EDITORIAL: Ban us, you big baby".  Rather than reproduce it, I will quote a couple of things, but I heartily suggest you click the link and enjoy it in its entirety.  Like most folks, I was aware of Trump's war on the media.  I hadn't realized that some media outlets would see it as a badge of honor to be so banned  . . . and I just have to quote this:

"We also believe you’re [Trump] acting like a spoiled-rotten child — the petty poster boy for why we need a strong Fourth Estate. (It’s how the grown-ups sometimes refer to journalists, dating back to … oh, never mind.)"

I mean . . . damn!  I did also love when they ranked a Trump Event as less important than a new Starbucks grand opening!  At the end, they sign off with:

"Sincerely, and with all the respect you’re due,"

Yes, with all the respect he is due . . . LOL.  I thought it was done, but they added a little editor's note:

"(Editor’s note: This opinion piece has been changed to clarify Donald Trump has the demeanor of an over-indulged 2-year-old.)"

I hope they end up on Trump's sh** list, I cannot imagine a better place to be!  Without a doubt this has been an example of the worst side of American Politics.  Not just Trump, although he is the absolute bottom, but when you look at all of the potential candidates that started back a while ago, you can clearly see what John Oliver recently called the 'Cirque De Dismay', would you trust any of them to pet sit your dog?

Politics, Politicians, WTF!

I try and avoid getting into the world of politics, but for some reason this election season seems to be one of the worst I can remember . . . and I lived in Louisiana for part of the political disaster named Edwin Edwards and also in DC during part of the Marion Barry debacle.  I mean re-elected a man after he served time for drug abuse while he was in office?  Granted he needs help, but re-electing him Mayor is well beyond the usual 12 step program!  As you can tell episodes like that give me a very particular view of politics and politicians.

For many years now I have considered the quadrennial election of our President not as selecting the best person for the job, but selecting the lesser of two evils.  It's a shame that we always seem to nominate people we would not trust to babysit our children.  Give that some thought, if Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton showed up to babysit, would you dare leave your house?  Does this election year seem worse than usual to you?

As a registered Republican, I look over the field on potential candidates and can only shake my head.  I really hadn't planned on saying even this much, but then I was watching one of my favorite shows and thoroughly enjoyed it.

If you haven't seen "Last Week on Tonight with John Oliver", you should really give it a try.  He's taken on some surprising issues, some you would expect, like Abortion and Hollywood Whitewashing, but then others surprised me like FIFA, Televangelists, and also how professional sport stadiums are financed.  This past week he took on Donald Trump . . . and when he was done he tore the donald into minuscule shreds.  Here is a link to the video:

I understand people's anger at professional politicians and this deadlock our elected officials seems to think is how it should be.  But looking over our choices for President . . . are any of them worth electing?  Not just Trump, but the whole field?

In my opinion, this part of Last Week on Tonight one of the very few examples of must-see TV in existence, regardless of what NBC likes to claim in their marketing.  I think the last time I felt this way about anything on TV was the opening scene from The Newsroom:

If you have seen that scene, and liked it.  You might be slightly interested in the one scene that made The Newsroom must-see TV for me.  It was sort of a follow-up on opener:

Dan Rather: Ignoring science isn't just a Republican problem. It's an American problem.

I was working on how best to build my own response  to some of the foolishness said by the Republican candidate wanna-bes and caught this from Dan Rather: "Ignoring science isn't just a Republican problem. It's an American problem."  Everyone should read it.  What he does isn't try and solve the issue, or even identify all the root causes -- although he does mention quite a few (loss of faith in authority, suspicion of big corporations, a general political balkanization).  He focuses on one of the reasons the anti-science feelings seem to be so prevalent, the one he knows intimately, as you would expect, journalism and how the press covers science.  He identifies some of the problems:

• Hyping certain "advances" that are more PR than science
• Shying away from covering important stories because they're "too complicated." 
• Don't even do a good job explaining how scientific research works
• Scientific issues don't lend themselves to simple soundbites for TV

He does mention one of my pet peeves, which got my attention [I added the underlines for emphasis]:

"And then there is the danger of false equivalency. Not every issue has two sides, or certainly two equal sides. Yet when you put two people on screen to tell both “sides” of the story, in the viewer's mind it immediately connotes 50:50, even if you say it doesn't. Giving someone equal time to explain their side doesn’t mean there is equal data, research and science behind their view. Often times, the “other side” of the story has very little data to support its very big exceptions to the rules." 

You might recall I have mentioned this a time or two, usually in regards to the Discovery Institute's lack of science and kennie ham's lack of anything.  He also had a link to a John Oliver video, which is a personal favorite.

I wonder if Oliver has done a show about Evolution?  I'm going to have to look!  Hang on a second . . . no, he hasn't addressed Evolution or Creationism, however his take down of Televangelism is a classic.  I would love to see his take on the Discovery Institute!  OK, back to Dan, who says:

"This is not to say that every science policy question has an easy or correct answer. There is a lot to weigh in how we should employ science and what we should fund. But it is not a debate we can afford to shy away from. I think that any politician who doesn't take those questions seriously is not fit to lead our country in the 21st century."

We need to ask our potential leaders more questions about science!  One of the things that has to be important is not only what the candidate says, but where are they getting their information -- from people who are actually doing the work or from folks with a philosophical axe to grind.  Trump failed badly on vaccines, Carson failed on so much!  You just have to love that last line 'I think that any politician who doesn't take those questions seriously is not fit to lead our country in the 21st century.'

I understand they are pandering for votes, but why are they pandering in such a way that makes them seem positively uneducated!  I thought Bobby Jindal and Rick Perry was bad, but Ben Carson and Donald Trump?  It's crossed the pandering line and reached epic stupidity.  Is Donald Trump or Ben Carson fit to lead us in the 21st century?  They certainly haven't shown it yet, have they?  I wonder which candidate kennie or the DI will back?