Is Intelligent Design Creationism?

The Discovery Institute must be feeling more than the normal amount of heat recently on the connection between Intelligent Design (ID) and Creationism.  I recently read two posts that firmly try and separate the two -- and while each post pretty much addresses the same things, neither of them can answer something incredibly simple, why do the majority of Americans equate the two?

Yes, their posts (Latest Gallup Polling on Evolution Fails to Enlighten and  Correcting Disinformation on Academic Freedom Legislation) try and make a similar argument, things like this:

"ID is not “rebranded” creationism – the ideas are worlds apart. Teaching creationism in public schools has indeed been rejected, but ID is not creationism."

And yet:

• Why does the DI receive nearly all of its funding from religious sources?
• Why is the DI's only audience religious groups?
• Why does its own people play up their religious connections?
• Why does their own guiding document connect the two to tightly?

The answers to this first set are simple, it's because they are nothing more than a religious ministry despite their protestations.  If they aren't a religious ministry, but a scientific organization like they claim, there are some different questions they might try answering:

• Where is their scientific work?
• Where are their scientific discoveries?
• Where are their scientific peer review papers showing their research, methodologies, and results?

The answers to the second set are equally simple, it's because while they like to portray themselves as a scientific organization, they are not.  Therefore, there is little scientific work, there are no discoveries, there are no peer reviewed papers -- and I am talking actual peer review, not the sham 'peer review' set up by the DI to fake it.  Yes, that all might sound harsh, but when you only submit your papers to fellow Creationists and they pat you on the head and say 'nice job', that's not actual peer review.  What scientific work there is never seems to get around to mentioning Intelligent Design.

If you disagree, check out how often the papers from the DI are referenced in actual scientific papers.  I haven't been able to find any.  The only sites that seem to come close are . . . . wait for it . . . other Creationists organizations.

I know we are talking about only my opinion, after all it's my blog.  But when anyone objectively looks at the DI, they see a religious ministry.  I admit to not being objective, but that's after well over a decade of reading their publications and blog posts.  Prejudice is when you 'pre-judge' something without any actual experience . . . I can honestly say after the past decade, I have lots of experience with their marketing machine.  I keep hoping for actual science and are regularly disappointed.

As Judge Jones wrote in the 139 page Dover Decision:

• For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (page 24)
• A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. (page 26)
• The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)
• The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)

So, I see ID proponents as Creationists wearing ill-fitting lab coats  . . . while giving a presentations to various religious groups . . . in front of green-screens that have lab pictures on them . . . and hiding behind the screens are the rest of the Creationists.  They might as well have a sign "Pay No Attention To People Behind the Screen!"

Does Intelligent Design Do Anything At All?

In a recent post on the Discovery Institute's (DI) Evolution 'news' and Views blog, one of the posters, anonymously, asked whether or not Intelligent Design (ID) does too much or does too little.  Here's the post: "Horns of a Dilemma: Does Intelligent Design Do Too Little -- or Too Much?"

I have a much more basic question, just what does ID do?  Seriously, how many scientific advances have been made as the result of Intelligent Design?  Anyone?  I certainly haven't heard of any.  Is anything published by any ID advocate supporting ID actually referenced by anyone?  Well, other than another ID proponent creating more than a bit of circular logic.  Dembski citing Behe citing Meyer citing Dembski is entertaining, but not worth very much.   I am talking about real science, not the make-believe green-screen stuff the DI calls science.

While most of the post means little, I have to enjoy this:

"ID may be limited, but if it can show that even one feature in living things is designed by an intelligence (no matter when,where, or how), the whole edifice of materialism collapses."

But has ID shown any single feature of living things is designed by an intelligence?  Have they?  Aside from a great many claims to the contrary, they have not.  They speculate, hypothesize, market and self-publish, but at no time have they accomplished, or come near to accomplishing this.  They have a great many excuses, but woefully short of anything real.

I don't know about you, but before ID can claim to have done anything, isn't this the first step?  Until they accomplish this, they have no accomplishments to speak of, because everything they claim all hinges on this one thing, showing that a feature is designed, and not only designed, but designed by an intelligence.  One of my many problems is that no one seems to be working on this.  They write lots of philosophical material, but none of it means anything until they have success in this one area.

So when they ask if ID has done too little or too much, it's a meaningless question until ID has shown itself to be more than just conjecture and wishful thinking.  Even Judge Jones left that door open when he said this in his decision:

"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science." (Wikipedia: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Decision)

It is within the realm of the possible that ID might be an actual answer to something other than an obscure Jeopardy question of "What replaced 'creation science' as an alternative to force religion into the science classroom in the 1990's?"  But until the DI does the actual work to support their conjecture and wishful thinking, they haven't done a damn thing.

My Prediction Sort of Came True!

A couple of posts back, "Re-Trying Kitzmiller v Dover School Board", I wondered what the DI's next target would be in their fairy tales about Dover Trial 'Myths'.  I thought something about Judge Jones, but I didn't think the Judge would be the target for Myth #6, I figured he would be Myth #1.  I was incorrect, but not entirely in error.  Yes, Judge Jones was the target of Myth #6.  Myth #4 was about the Judge's ruling.  Myths #2 and #1 also targeted Judge Jones.  So while I didn't think Myth #6 would have been about the Judge, I was right he would be targets by #1, but rather than 1 shot in 10,  4 of the 10 total 'myths' targeted Judge Jones.  So you see, I thought they would save it all for the final Myth, delivered on Kitzmas itself (the 20th of Dec, this one being the 10th anniversary of the Dover Ruling).  But they either couldn't contain themselves or, more likely, couldn't find anything else to spin as a myth.

You know for a court ruling that they claim has had a very limited impact on the Intelligent Design Movement, they certainly had a lot to say about it, over and over again.  What I found funny as well was that one of the Vice-Presidents for the Discovery Institute, John G. West, followed all those myth posts with one of his own "The Day a Judge Tried to Kill Intelligent Design".  For some reason I am not sure John read the actual decision because it wasn't Judge Jones who put a knife into the ID Movement, but it was a combination of the Dover School Board and the testimony of ID proponents that did more damage to ID than anything the Judge did.  All the Judge did was render a legal decision  . . . one based on actual law, not what the Discovery Institute thinks the law should be.  His legal decision summarized much of what the DI proponents, like Scott Minnich and Michael Behe had to say and explained why their testimony was particular compelling.

John repeated other things said in some of the other myths.  One I wanted to spend a little time discussing, 'Ten Myths About Dover: #5, "Discovery Institute Supported Dover School Board Policy" '.  John said:

"Even though we had opposed the Dover school district policy, we were the ones who bore the brunt of the impact of Judge Jones's decision."

So did the DI oppose the Dover School District policy?  The answer isn't the simple back and white the DI would like you to think.  Their answer is no, officially they did not support the Dover School Board.  However . . .:

1. Why did the DI feel it was necessary to submit an Amicus Curiae brief about Intelligent Design if they weren't part of it?
2. Why did the DI's own Wedge Strategy Document describe tactics similar to those used by the School Board and even by Michael Behe's in his testimony?  The strategy also said:
   

   "We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory in public school science curricula. (Wedge Strategy Document, Phase III, page 7)"

3.  Why did Seth Cooper, DI attorney, have several calls with William Buckingham (Chairman of the Dover School Board Curriculum Committee discussing the legality of teaching ID.  (Trial Transcripts)
4. Why did the DI forward to Buckingham DVDs, videotapes, and books. (Trial Transcripts)
5. Why did two lawyers from the DI make a legal presentation to the Board in executive session. (Trial Transcripts)
6. Why was the DI one of only two outside organizations consulted.  (The Thomas More Law Center was the other).  Plus the consult wasn't for scientific material, but legal advice. (Trial Transcripts)

In my opinion any claim the DI has in opposing the Dover Policy is a sham.  They were in the middle of it from the beginning and any claims of 'officially' opposing the policy is more a face-saving action rather than anything substantive.  I believe they and the Thomas More Law Center were looking for a test case for teaching any form of Creationism in public school.  Here are a couple of lines form the WIkipedia page on the Thomas More Law Center that I found interesting:

"Prior to taking on this particular case [Kitzmiller v. Diver Area School District], the lawyers of the Thomas More Law Center traveled the country seeking a school board willing to withstand a lawsuit as a test case for the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, forcing the first test case for intelligent design in the courts."

"In the summer of 2004, the Dover, Pennsylvania, school board, after receiving legal advice from the Discovery Institute, accepted the center's offer of advice and possible representation, as they worked to change their science curriculum."

The Dover School Board went down the path that cost the district $1,000,000, cost several members their seat on the board, and should have put at least two of their members in jail for perjury AFTER receiving legal advice form the Discovery Institute.  Does anyone really believe they were opposed?  What do you think they would be saying if the Dover School Board had won? 

John, and the rest of the DI keeps trying to paint the Judge as the ogre.  But John went in another direction as well and even tried to put himself in the role of a self-sacrificing hero.  Does this sound a little self-serving to you?

"It was during the bleak months following Dover that I made one of the biggest decisions of my professional life. Rather than cut and run, I decided to risk everything. Convinced of the critical importance of the intelligent design debate, I gave up my tenured position as a university professor to devote my full energies to Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture, which I had co-founded with Stephen Meyer in 1996. "

To be clear John was an Associate Professor of Political Science at Seattle Pacific University (a private Christian university) where he chaired the Political Science and Geography department.  Please note he's not a biologist, but a Government major.  Maybe I should add his teaching position to another "So there's nothing religious about ID" post?  I do wonder what his salary was in his Associate Professor position, because according to the DI's 2013 Form 990 (Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax), John made $120,000.  Donations were down about 25% from 2012, but John is pulling in 6-figures. The further back I can find in 2006 and while the link to the 990 was bad, the Sensuous Curmudgeon talked about another VP Stephen C. Meyer making $112,000 that year.  So I think John's was probably in the same neighborhood, after all he and Meyer co-founded the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture.

The DI keeps trying to minimize any impact of the Dover Trial and yet in his post John wants everyone to feel sorry for the DI because while claiming not to have been a party to the trial, claims to have born the brunt of the decision.  So which is it, was any impact minimal or was the impact serious?  I know what I think, but to date the DI wants everyone to believe the trial had little impact?  Which is it?

I will repeat something I said in a recent post:

" . . . How many public schools have ID on the science curriculum on par with Evolution?  They tried in many places and so far, haven't been very successful.  How many of their 5-year goals have they achieved?  How about none!  And that's not 5-year goals based on the Dover Decision, but 5-year goals set from the founding of the DI's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture . . . which I believe was 1996.  So in reality after 19 years, they haven't achieved any of their 5 year goals, let alone put a dent in their 20 year goals."

I think the impact was profound, but why would John change the DI's spin and recognize the impact all of a sudden?  I wasn't sure why until I saw the end of his post.  He tried to turn it into a plea for support, monetary support.  Here is a couple of the last lines:

"Will you take a stand against censors like Judge Jones and help us continue and expand the debate over intelligent design in 2016?
If you've helped us in the past, can you do it again right now?And if you've never donated to our work, isn't it time to join us?
DONATE now to support the work of intelligent design in 2016."

So now it wasn't enough to try and vilify the Judge, he also wants to use that vilification to raise funds.  Picture my head shaking!

OK, so there you have it.  My prediction on the Judge being saved for the big 'myth' #1 was right, but they spread their attempted vilification for Judge Jones across 40% of their 'myths', something I didn't predict.  It might have been interesting if they had anything new to say.  But the reality is they simply repeated much of their whines and cries over the last decade.  Nothing new, nothing earth-shattering.  Just more marketing, more spin.