Self-Censorship and the DI

A while back I wrote about censorship and how there doesn't seem to be much support for the Discovery Institute (DI) claims of censorship.  In "Is anyone actually censoring the Discovery Institute?" there doesn't seem to be any actual censorship . . . so of course, the DI annually award a 'Censor of the Year', and so far there awardees have done little in the way of actual censorship.

Previous 'winners' for 'Censor of the Year' are Jerry Coyne, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and the United Methodist Church (UMC). The DI says Coyne's 'crime' was encouraging Ball State University to stop teaching Intelligent Design. That's not exactly true. What Ball State University did was stop teaching Intelligent Design as if it was science.  Now, what did Neil deGrasse Tyson did to offend the DI? He hosted the updated Carl Sagan series Cosmos, which presented a few segments on religion's negative impact on scientific inquiry over the centuries. The DI really took exception to that.  The UMC had the audacity to decide that their annual convention was for their members and not to let the DI present their belief set at their own convention -- a belief set not shared by the UMC.

One of this years contenders seems to be something called 'self-censorship'. In this post from their blog "Quiet Self-Censorship and the Academic “Consensus”" they describe a phenomena in which Intelligent Design supporters never admit to being supporters because it might have an adverse impact on their academic and professional life.

I certainly hope being an ID supporter would have an impact!  After all, if you are in, or are entering in, a scientific field, shouldn't you be focused on actual science and not pseudo-science?  That's the point folks like Sarah Chaffee, the author of this particular piece and a regular DI mouthpiece, seem to miss.  She mentions this:

"We know a tenured science professor who in giving presentations in a private setting needs to begin his talks with a peculiar slide — a disclaimer that he does not speak on behalf of his university. He must include it, even though, again, he is speaking at a private event."

I would be surprised if she wasn't talking about Michael Behe, one of the few tenured professors who support ID and is a senior fellow at the DI.  He is tenured at Lehigh University, which has this disclaimer:

"The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."

Without such a disclaimer, it would be easy to assume any presentations by Behe would have the support and approval of Lehigh University.  By requiring such a disclaimer, the University recognizes both Behe's right of freedom of expression, but their own right to not be construed as supporting pseudo-science.  It might sound funny, but I respect both Lehigh and Behe for dealing opening and honesty about his support for ID.  One thing Behe doesn't seem to do is let his support for ID affect his teaching and research at Lehigh.

You will note that Behe isn't being censored, but he isn't allowed to present in such a fashion that his presentations imply that ID actual science. When it comes to his work for the university, he leaves ID at the door instead of demanding it be allowed at the science lectern. After all, Lehigh is pretty unequivocal when it said "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."

Sarah goes on to say that during their Summer Seminars on ID, they didn't take any pictures of people's faces, and asked that they not posting on social media about it, all so: 

"their career prospects will not be harmed by an association with intelligent design."

So the DI is censoring themselves!  Maybe they do deserve to award themselves as 'Censor of the Year'.  But they are missing the reason.  Think it through!  Would their career prospects be hurt if they profess their support for ID?  Most likely!  But why?  Don't just stop there, take it to the next logical step, why might their career prospects be in jeopardy?

That's the part Sarah and her friends never want to really examine.  Say you are a Physicist about to graduate and you publicly support Dark Matter Research?  Would that cause you difficulties in getting a job?  How about a Rocket Scientist who expresses an interest in Ionic Propulsion?  No, why?  Because those fields are part of the overall concept of Physics and Rocket Science.  So why does such career impacts happen with ID?  Simple, ID isn't part of Biology and until ID proponents stop whining and produce actual, viable, repeatable and falsifiable science, it never will be.

Suppose a mathematician posts all over Facebook stuff on Numerology and teaches it as Math, wouldn't that affect his career prospects?  That's the part Sarah doesn't get.  ID is not science, it is a religious proposition and supporting such may have negative impacts on your career -- unless you do what Behe does and separate them.

I know Sarah will trot out people like Gonzalez and Croker who claim to have had negative career consequences because of their support for ID.  But that's not the whole story, Gonazlez and Croker, along with Sternberg, Abahams, and a few others all have something else in common -- they let their support for ID interfere with doing the job they were hired to do.  Gonzalez failed as a tenure applicant, Croker failed to teach her subject, Sternberg violated publishing rules for the journal he was the outgoing editor for, and Abrahams refused to do his job as an 'Evolutionary Biologist'.  It's not their support for ID that had career impacts, but their refusal to do their jobs!  They put their religious beliefs ahead of the professional responsibilities and the expectations of their employers!  In other words, they were held accountable and they can't stand it!

So maybe the DI is a self-censor, but they aren't doing it to protect people, they are using this concept of self-censoring as another tactic to try and discredit real science.  Look at this post, do you really think they are trying to hide their supporters?  No, they are selling the idea of censorship.  But when you look at it, what is being censored?  Are they still able to publish and post?  Oh, sure they cannot do it as if they really are science, but that's not because of censorship, but because they haven't provided anything other than marketing material.  No science, no discoveries, no advances, just religious preaching.

In reality, the censor of the year award doesn't seem to be awarded for actual censorship.  It seems to be an award for not agreeing with the DI.  Hey, maybe I could be a nominee one day?  Oh we can only hope!  My family would be so proud!

Is Michael Behe a Revolutionary Scientist? I Don't Think That Word Means What The DI Thinks It Means!

The Discovery Institute (DI) has a fun, but very misleading post.  The title says a great deal: "Charles Darwin, Michael Behe — Two Revolutionary Scientists"  Really, comparing the relatively unknown -- outside of Lehigh University and Intelligent Design circles -- with someone who truly revolutionized Science.

Michael Behe is one of the few actual scientists on the staff at the Discovery Institute.  He likes to write books and even testified during the Dover Trial -- where he got torn to shreds.  You can read the transcripts for yourself, but when:

• Behe had to redefine science to claim his ideas are scientific.
• When presented with over 50 books and articles refuting his ideas, Behe claimed that it was not enough.
• Did not do any of the scientific work to support his ideas, nor did he know of anyone else who was doing such work.

You get the point?  Behe might be one of the few actual scientists at the DI, but he does them little good other than as a rallying cry.  How many times has the DI pointed to him claiming that "See we have scientists too!"  And yet does Lehigh even let him teach his ideas as part of his biology classes?  This is part of The Lehigh Biology Department's Statement on Evolution and Intelligent Design:

"The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."

So even Lehigh treats Behe's irreducible complexity idea as nothing more than his opinion and not scientifically valid.  OK, so let's look at the post and see if they say anything new.  Sure doesn't look like it.  Oh look, a quote-mine:

" “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” "

This is a very common issue with Creationists.  They love this quote  from Charles Darwin and frequently screw it up.  How you might ask?   By itself it makes it sound like Darwin himself is doubting his own theory . . . but they drop the very next line:

"But I can find out no such case."

Certainly changes the context of the quote, doesn't it?  When you read the whole quote, including the line they like to drop, you realize that isn't so.  Darwin isn't express doubt at all.  So I guess the next question is "Has anyone found such a case to be true?"

Obviously the answer is 'No!'  Behe's own 'work' has been torn apart on numerous occasions.  But the DI is offering a 'list of essays' that claim Behe's idea of 'Irreducible Complexity' has not been refuted.  Take a look at that list and you might see something more than a little suspicious.  Did you see it?

Let me repeat something I said earlier when I first mentioned Michael Behe, I called him:

"relatively unknown, outside of Lehigh University and Intelligent Design circles "

Look at the authors of all those essays, do the names look familiar?  Yes,  members of the DI and proponents of ID one and all:

• Michael Behe himself, which shouldn't be a surprise.  He's a DI Senior Fellow.
• little casey luskin, (lawyer) who spent the Dover Trial handing out pamphlets.  He was never a Fellow, but he working in the PR department before departing the DI.
• Wild Bill Dembski (philosopher and mathematician), who has since broken away from the DI, another Senior Fellow at the DI.
• The infamous Paul Nelson (philosopher ), each April 7th is called  Paul Nelson Day, the anniversary of Nelson’s so far unfulfilled promise to provide a detailed exposition of “ontogenetic depth.”, a promise he made in 2003.  Paul's a 'fellow' according to Wikipedia.
• Bruce Chapman (journalist and politician), one of the founders of the DI
• Stephen C. Meyer (philosophy and historian),  another founder and currently one of the directors of the DI

Yes, we can see for yourself that outside his little circle of friends, none of whom are actual scientists, there isn't anything to support Michael Behe's ideas . . . and yet the DI wants to put him on the same pedestal as Darwin?

Let me give you the first part of the Lehigh's Statement now:

"The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others."

 I underlined part of the last line to illustrate the difference between Behe and Darwin.  Which one of them has defined scientifically valid theories that is a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and whose findings have been replicated by hundreds, if not thousands, of other scientists?  I'll give you one guess and his initials are not 'MB'.

The Discovery Institute is Hosting a Little Get-Together -- and it's for Everybody -- or is it?

Here is their announcement.  "Join the ID Debate! Private Networking Conference in Seattle, October 6-7" and here is a few quotes, I added the underlining for emphasis:

"The debate about intelligent design in nature is for everybody. ID presents an ultimate question, far from being limited in the scope of its relevance to just scientists or philosophers."

This opening implies that the debate is open to everyone, which may be true, but the reality is most people don't care about the debate.  Seriously!  There is a small minority of theists who want to replace science with their religious beliefs, a vocal minority, but a small one.  So not only is the debate not really for everyone, the title of the post is a 'Private Networking Conference', so you know this conference isn't for everyone either.  Maybe they'll explain more about who can attend later, in the meantime there are a couple of other things I an interested in.

Intelligent Design (ID) presents an ultimate question?  Really?  Any questions ID raises are usually a form of a tautology or so vague any answer is meaningless. Seriously, tell me one question ID has raised that actually cast any doubts on real science?  The nearest they have come is pointing out things that may not have been fully explained by current science -- but what do those questions have to do with ID?  Look at Behe's 'Darwin's Black Box' and you will see what I mean.  Behe listed a bunch of things that science hasn't explained to some ill-defined arbitrary standard, but at no time did he make a connection to ID other than to claim maybe an intelligent designer did it, or maybe a space traveling alien.  In other words, 'who knows' is not support for ID.  Even if his questions were valid, they don't offer any support for ID. Anyone have anything better?  I would be greatly surprised.

Back to the 'everybody' question.  They do go on to explain that it's not just scientists and philosophers, but everybody?  But not really 'everybody', sorta like their summer program, there are some qualifications:

"To join us, you must apply beforehand and explain your purpose and interests. The meeting is private and open to guests only at the discretion of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture."

Do you remember their Summer Program? Applications had to include:

1. A copy of your resume;
2. A letter of recommendation from an ID-friendly source;
3. A copy of your academic transcript;
4. A short (one page) statement of your interest in ID within your field of study.

Yes, for this 'conference' as well, you have apply beforehand and get vetted by the DI.  So you know there won't be a dissenting voice in the house.  If you hear anything about science, it'll be presented by one of the DI's own folks . . . and we know just how objective they are on that subject.  I see a lot of strawmen also attending this 'conference'.  A couple of last quotes:

"Ask questions, pose challenges, and sharpen your skills as an ID advocate. We’ll help equip you for this challenging intellectual battle."

Has this really been an intellectual battle?  No much sign of it.  Cultural battle, certainly, maybe philosophical battle is a better term -- but when you hear the phrase 'intellectual battle', this debate isn't what comes to mind.  There is an old joke whose punchline embodies something along the lines of 'refusing the enter a battle of wits with the unarmed'.  That's what this battle would look like if it was an actual intellectual battle.  One the one side you have 150+ years of science, evidence, and support and the clear majority of the scientific community -- and in the other corner you have a religious philosophy dressed in an ill-fitting lab coat with nothing but conjecture and wishful thinking.  Even the few scientists who are on that side haven't been able to muster a single scientific argument, only religious ones..  Talk about battling the unarmed!

I remember Lewis Black, the comic, said a couple of interesting lines a while back: "Whenever someone says they believe the Earth was created in 6 days, I  grab a fossil and say 'Fossil!'.  If they keep talking I throw it . . . just over their heads."  He also said:  "They watched the Flintstones and thought it was a documentary!"

And finally to attend, you get to pay for this yourself:

"The price, at $75, is affordable. "

I'm not sure this is a really physical or virtual get-together.  From the price I would guess a virtual one.  You sure aren't renting a conference center for even a small crowd at $75 a head.  So you'll most likely get to dial in and listen, maybe ask a question or two, only after you have been vetted by the DI and you get to contribute to the DI coffers.

I guess calling it a 'private networking conference' is supposed to somehow make you feel privileged.  But do you really think they are going to tell you things they haven't already tried to publicize and market to the widest degree possible?  Has any of their arguments changed in the last decade or two? They spin real science to try and create an ID-friendly message from other peoples' work.  They claim to not be pushing ID into the classroom, while continuing to create lesson plans just for that purpose. They will continue to cheer anti-science legislation, speak to religious groups and organizations, and publish in the religious and popular press -- avoiding real scientific journals.

More of the same, but you might feel special being in a 'private networking event' that's open to anyone who already agrees with their religious message and has a few bucks to burn.  I'm sure we'll be hearing what a wild success is was.  I wonder if they'll have the press release ready before the conference actually happens or will they bother to wait before announcing their success?

Dodge Ball at the Discovery Institute

In a post over at the Discovery Institute's (DI) Evolution 'news' and Views site (EnV), "Bad Bugs, Good Designs — The Case of the Mosquito" looks like it's going to make a case for design.  Yet all it does it dodge the issue.  Remember making a case means much more than offering an opinion, you have to support it with evidence.

Quoting an article from Nature "Smart wing rotation and trailing-edge vortices enable high frequency mosquito flight", the DI does what it usually does and places an Intelligent Design spin on things.  What the paper describes is the intricate and interesting detail of mosquito flight characteristics, something that hadn't been studied to this level of detail before.  And what do you know, they discovered some new and interesting information.  So, how does one determine that this post on EnV is nothing more than the usual DI spin?

• Clue Number 1, is did the DI do any original research on the subject?  No, there is no evidence of any original research.  They took someone else's work and changed the conclusions.
• Clue Number 2, did the paper cite anything from the Discovery Institute or any similar source?  No, all citations reference actual scientific papers and articles, nothing pseudo-scientific in the bunch.
• Clue Number 3, does the DI's post offer any support for the design 'conclusions'?  No, they simple make the statement, but offer nothing in the way of support or proof other than their opinion.  In fact, look at this quote from the post:

"Others insights drawing on religious teachings could be cited, including the reply to Job from the whirlwind. Such answers, though worth exploring, drift far beyond the limited scope of intelligent design. The job of ID is to identify design, not comment on its morality. We gladly leave such matters in the capable hands of philosophers and theologians. To the objective observer, mosquito aerodynamic systems look well designed. They may not get our love, but deserve our respect."

They claim to have other papers they could cite, but due to the religious nature of those papers, the DI decided not to use them.  Ostensibly due to the limited scope of Intelligent Design, but in my opinion this is just another effort to keep distancing themselves from their religious background.  When you read real scientific papers, articles, and even postings, you never see a religious disclaimer, do you?

Another point, take a look at the second to last line, "To the objective observer, mosquito aerodynamic systems look well designed.", I added the underlining to point something out.  I, and many others have said, that Intelligent Design is nothing other than opinion and conjecture going for it.  This line supports that idea.  Instead of actually proving intelligent design is real, all they can do it point to things that look designed and make their religious claim that 'if something looks designed, it must be designed'.  In this case they declare it to be a good design, but yet no evidence to support that it is designed at all, let alone good or bad design.

One of the things I find humorous is that when someone points to something that, if it had been designed, was a very poor design, ID proponents never seem to address those issues in the same way. (Argument from poor design) For example, this post suggests that because the mosquito's flight characteristics are so special and so well-designed; therefore that somehow proves Intelligent Design.

However, Wild Bill Dembski, once a rising star of ID, clams there there is a difference between 'intelligent design' and 'optimal design', meaning that just because something may be poorly designed doesn't rule out ID. (Dembski, William (1999). Intelligent design: the bridge between science & theology. InterVarsity Press. p. 261. ISBN 0-8308-2314-X.) 

Huh?  Good design proves design, but bad design also proves design?  Do you want a bit more of  Marie Antoinette's cake, don't you think?  In other words, this whole post means absolutely nothing.  Yes, mosquito flight characteristics are interesting and unique in many ways and deserves further study . . . but, as an example of Intelligent Design?  That means absolutely nothing because even if it was uninteresting and pedestrian the DI could claim it supports design anyway.  A difference that makes no difference is no difference!

What this post reminds me most of is Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box".  In it Behe discussed things like clotting factor, the immune system, and bacterial flagellum as things that are 'irreducibly complex' and therefore could not have come about through a natural process like evolution.  When faced with nearly 10 years of further research on those topics that support evolutionary origins, Without having read any of it, Behe said that research wasn't good enough. (Dover Trial Transcript, Day 12, PM, starting at 49.)

Scientists readily admit that they don't know everything about the flight characteristics of the mosquito.  This paper is an example of something the DI doesn't seem to know much about, it's called 'Research', in which real scientists explore things we don't know in order to learn more and more.

The DI wants to declare this as something really really special, therefore it has to have been designed.  But when you look at other insects, you also see special characteristics.  How about the Bumble Bee:

"Bees beat their wings about 200 times a second. Their thorax muscles do not contract on each nerve firing, but rather vibrate like a plucked rubber band. This is efficient, since it lets the system consisting of muscle and wing operate at its resonant frequency, leading to low energy consumption. Further, it is necessary, since insect motor nerves generally cannot fire 200 times per second. These types of muscles are called asynchronous muscles[ and are found in the insect wing systems in families such as Hymenoptera, Diptera, Coleoptera, and Hemiptera. Bumblebees must warm up their bodies considerably to get airborne at low ambient temperatures. Bumblebees have been known to reach an internal thoracic temperature of 30 °C (86 °F) using this method." (Wikipedia: Bumble Bee)

Bumble Bees have different, yet efficient, flight characteristics than mosquitoes. If you study up a bit you find that many groups of insects have very interesting characteristics when it comes to how their wings work.  So what's a good explanation?  Were they all designed differently or did they all evolve different characteristics?  On the one hand you have opinion offering the answer of 'designed', but on the other hand you have 150+ years of evidence supporting evolution.

Look at this one line mentioning Hymenoptera (Sawflies, wasps, and bees), Diptera (Houseflies), Coleoptera (beetles), and Hemiptera (cicadias, aphids . . .). Thousands of insect species with some similar flight characteristics.  Design or Evolution, which answer makes sense and is supported by evidence?  You can't forget the evidence part because without evidence all you have is opinion.  Before answering you might want to know there has been a great deal of research -- there's that word again, research -- about the genetics of insects, including related species and sub-species of insects.  Did you know human's share about 60% or our genes with fruit flies?  Again, before answering, how much actual research have you seen on Design?  I'm not talking opinion and religious pieces, but actual scientific research?  None!  So clearly the answer to my question doesn't support design!

Rather than do their own research, the DI simply take someone else's work and put a Behe-type spin on it.  In the future, as we learn more and more about the subject, I am sure there will be someone from the DI to tell us that it's not enough.  After all, that's a lot easier than doing any real research, isn't it?

There is a Difference Between designing intelligently and Intelligent Design

Sarah Chaffee, one of the Discovery Institute's (DI) talking heads doesn't seem to understand several things.  First she claims biologists disregard function, then just because you use intelligence to design something doesn't mean you are using 'Intelligent Design, and finally when she misrepresents these things, she undermines her own arguments.  You can check out Sarah's most recent post: "Happy Engineers Week -- Let's Remember Intelligence Is at the Heart of It All".  

She starts with this:

"As we've observed in the past, engineering and medicine differ from evolutionary biology in that they focus on how things work. Evolutionists can seem at times to disregard function, but doctors and engineers never can."

Really, biologists disregard function?  Not in any biology class I have taken nor in any biology book I have read.  Function is an integral part of biology and evolution, the reality is that biologists are not restricted to one function.  Let me give you an example, Michael Behe, the on-and-off-again darling of the Intelligent Design Movement, wrote a book a while ago that listed a number if things he claimed had to have been Intelligently Designed because, as he said, they were too complex to occur naturally.  In his examples he developed this idea of 'irreducible complexity', claiming, among other things, that if you remove any part, the object would no longer function.

But the error Behe made, and continues to make, is that he was restricting himself to the one specific function.  Biologist who studied the same examples as Behe looked at the objects beyond that one function and found that while the original function may no longer work, those parts can certainly serve other functions.  By looking beyond the one function, they were able to form a much more complete picture of the evolution of the what, the how, and even the why.

Behe used an example of a Mousetrap, claiming that removing one part rendered the mousetrap non-functional.  Of course the possibility that the mousetrap could serve another function is foreign to Behe.  Biologist Ken Miller wrote a rebuttal "The Design Mousetrap" which addressed the area Behe missed completely, a different function, just not the original one.  In a more pertinent example, Behe described Bacterial Flagellum as irreducible complex because if you remove any of the parts, you lose the whip-like function that give mobility that the flagellum gives to some bacteria.  However, apparently the flagellum evolved from the type-3 secretory system.(Wikipedia: Evolution of Flagellum).  I say 'apparently' because unlike the claims made by ID proponents, scientists frame things in terms based on our current understanding.  I believe 10, or so, of the proteins involved in the secretory system are also in the flagellum, leading researchers to make the conclusion.  Again, unlike science, ID proponents stop once they reach a conclusion they like, scientists keep looking and never completely close a door.

As you can see, claiming biologists disregard function as nothing more than a straw-man argument. Sarah tries to make the reader think that only ID proponents address function, but that would be a lie. Yes, it's a lie Sarah and her partners-in-crime repeat often, but that doesn't make it reality.  Behe faced this evidence in court and tried to deny it, even though he hadn't kept current.  You would think someone who studies things like bacterial flagellum would stay up on the science of it . . . unless your point was never to see something that might discount your own unsupported conclusions.

Back to Sarah and something we have discussed many times before, whenever someone uses their brain for something other than keeping their eyebrows from meeting, the DI likes to try and twist is into some sort of victory for Intelligent Design (ID).  Engineers design and build, well, . . . pretty much everything.  Here in Dayton Ohio we are constantly reminded of this because of the many innovations and inventions that have their roots in this area.  So many things from the Wright Bros, cash registers, and even pull-tab for pop cans to electric car starters and code breaking machines. Inventors, architects, and engineers all use their intelligence, training, experience to make some incredible creations.  But what does any of that have to do with ID?  Let us not forget what ID is . . so let's look at the DI's definition and also a definition that ID proponents particularly dislike (and are always trying to change):

The DI defines Intelligent Design as:

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."(DI website FAQ: Intelligent Design (Feb 27, 2017))

While the rest of the world defines it as such:

"Intelligent design is a creationist religious argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" but found to be pseudoscience.  Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." (Wikipedia: Intelligent Design (Feb 27 2017))

Can you explain how either of these definitions can be used to justify Sarah's words:

"Speaking of engineering, here's a rundown of news on one of the most exciting fields where the science of intelligent design really shines: biomimetics. This field uses designs from nature to boost efficiency and create new products."

Interesting claim, shining examples of ID, but where is the ID?  Sarah's only half right, there is intelligence involved.  If you read Sarah's post you will see that there are some engineering examples that take inspiration from nature.  OK, so what?

We've been doing this for how long?  Early wing designs for airplanes mimics bird wings.  Of course without feathers and the ability to control all those feathery surfaces, airplane wings only share some similarities with birds.  We often borrow from nature in designing things.  I'm sure the originator of the wheel took note in how round rocks rolled downhill at some point and early boat developers noticed that wood floated.  But the connection I cannot seem to reach is how this ties into Intelligent Design, as described by the DI!  The DI likes to call ID a theory, but where and how is this 'theory' applied?

ID proponents, like Sarah, have made many claims about how 'nature' was designed by an intelligent designer (The Christian God, who they hate naming 'officially').  But they have yet to offer any evidence supporting these claims.  Without such support their claims fall flat, and trotting out example of human design and the use of intelligence doesn't automatically link the two.  Remember that 30 years ago there was no Intelligent Design Movement, ID was called 'Creation Science'.  So I guess the equivalent argument is that since a human being is capable of creating something, 'Creation Science' is somehow validated? No, it's not!  Just because you are using the same word doesn't equate the two!

Those are my first two issues with Sarah, her attempt to claim biologists disregard function and her assumption that intelligence somehow can be seen as the "science of intelligent design" shining.  I did find it interesting that Sarah used the lower case 'intelligent design' as opposed to the usual 'Intelligent Design', My final point is how this claim actually undermines the whole ID Movement.

Sarah has made two different attacks here, the first (function) she tries to limit biologists and put them in a box of her own making.  This way she can make further claims about ID by knocking down a straw-man of biology.  Her second attack is to try and make you think that since everything a human engineers and builds is designed using their intelligence, that nature must have been designed by an intelligence.  Of course she offers no support for making such a connection.  Think it through, the ONLY thing supporting ID is the appearance of design in nature.  Basically, according to the DI, if it looks designed, it must have been designed.  ID is nothing more than a re-statement of the old Watchmaker Analogy:

"In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. ... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use. ... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation."  William Paley, Natural Theology (1802)

The DI often claims that ID isn't a restatement of this analogy, that it is something new and different and much more 'scientific'.  And yet, look at the examples Sarah bring forth, more and more 'appearance' and 'inspiration', but with nothing supporting the idea that natural objects had to have been designed, nor support that it had to be designed by an intelligence.  So every time Sarah, or any of the posters at the DI's Evolution 'news' and Views website put out something like this, they are simply reminding us that the DI has nothing other than conjecture and wishful thinking backing them up.

Sarah's final line makes even less sense:

"Mind over matter -- it holds true and leads to advancement in technology, science, math and engineering."

While the words are fine, the context is missing.  Where are the advancements in technology, science, math and engineering that can actually be attributed to ID?  Not by making an unsupported claim, but where is the application of ID in any of these areas?  So far  . . . there haven't been any.  When you look at actual advances, the application of one of more scientific theories is evident.  In fact the advances more than likely would not have happened without an understanding of the applicable scientific theories.  Could we build an engine without some understanding of metallurgy and thermodynamics?  Could we build an airplane without understanding those two and much more like Aerodynamics?  Could we have gone to the Moon with those three and also an understanding of Gravity? So where does ID fit with any of the things Sarah claimed as 'shining examples' of intelligent design?

That's why her closing line, when considered within the context of her post, makes little sense.  Yes, intelligence does hold true and each and every advancement in any field can be traced back to people using their intelligence, their experience, and often their own sweat and tears.  They put in the time and work to makes these advances, but doesn't anyone see any ID proponent doing the same? Other than marketing the same foolishness over and over again, you never see anything else, do you?  One of the other things Behe admitted in court was that no one was doing any actual scientific work to support his ideas, nothing has changed in the 11 years since that court case, has it?

So, once more with feeling DI, where are the advances in science and engineering that can point to a direct relationship with your idea of 'Intelligent Design'?  Don't worry, we'll keep waiting for you to spin some more marketing material.  It will be just as 'effective' as all your earlier efforts selling your pseudo-scientific religious babble.

So Who Has their Head in the Sand?

Interesting article, but one that seems to be nothing more than a wonderful example of quote-mining. By now, you are probably more than familiar with the concept of quote-mining, that is taking a quote out-of-context in such a way to change its meaning.  There have been many instances of quote-mining, one of my personal favorites is here with Ben Stein quote-mining Charles Darwin, and doing a pretty poor job.  In any event, my opinion of quote-mining is that it is a reprehensible tactic and one usually used by the loosing side of an argument when they seem to feel they have nothing left to loose.

Here in the new post 'Irony Alert: Michael Shermer on "When Facts Fail" ' from the Discovery Institute's blog, Evolution 'news' and Views.  I had to read through it twice to get the point the author, Cornelius Hunter, was trying to make.  What it looks like to me is he is insinuating that folks like Michael Shermer are engaging in the exact behavior that he [Shermer] was writing about, that is the refusal to change ones mind when confronted with facts that contradict 'beliefs'.

So, instead of listing all the 'facts' about Intelligent Design that Michael Shermer might be refusing to consider . . . oh wait, there are no facts about ID.  So I guess Hunter had to take a different path, in fact [pun intended], the only path open to him.  So what he does is list a whole bunch of stuff, claiming these were all examples of facts failing evolution.  But are they?

One example Hunter uses is, the emphasis is Hunter's:

"Early trilobites show all the features of the trilobite group as a whole; transitional or ancestral forms showing or combining the features of trilobites with other groups (e.g. early arthropods) do not seem to exist."

Since this is from Wikipedia, let's look at it a bit more in context:

"Evidence suggests that significant diversification had already occurred before trilobites were preserved in the fossil record, easily allowing for the "sudden" appearance of diverse trilobite groups with complex derived characteristics (e.g. eyes)." (Wikipedia: Trilobite)

To get the entire explanation, you really should click on the link and read it all for yourself.  Hunter took only one line to try and make his case.  Of course it doesn't present the complete picture -- after all the more complete context doesn't support his contention -- hence quote-mining.

The bottom line, which Hunter failed to mention, is really two-fold.  The first is that the evidence supports that the majority of the evolution of trilobites precedes the time periods when bony structures formed and started leaving detailed fossils.  So, on the one hand Creationists like to claim there are no transitional fossils and on the other when there are not clear transitional forms, they claim that disproves evolution.  Really?  How . . . two-faced.

The other thing you get when you read it is that science is honest about the things we do not know.  Instead of making definitive statements you see terms like 'do not seem' and 'evidence suggests'.  That's how science works.  The things we don't know or aren't sure about are openly identified.  It identifies areas where we need more work.  Look at what we know today compared to what we knew 10, 20, 50, or 100 years ago.  Can Hunter really claim this is some sort of fact failure?  The only failure is in his imagination.

A quick Google of some of his other 'failed facts' show similar issues, Hunter simply is representing them as fact failures, however they really aren't at all.  Some of them are reasonably understood, from an evolutionary standpoint, others less so.  But at no time can you call these failures.  Only a Creationists would call something we don't understand to the nth degree a failure.  I guess having a deity you can rely on to give you all the answers means you have no failures . . . also you have no successes.  After all, how many scientific advances can identify the point where Creationism/Intelligent Design entered and added something to the whole?  Yea, I get the same answer.  There aren't any!  Planes fly not because a deity wills it, but because of our understanding of many scientific theories. 

All Hunter has proven is science doesn't know everything.  Of course the scientific community has never said that it knows all.  That's a lie put forth by anti-science organizations, like the DI.  One of the common anti-science tactics is to build a strawman argument, demolish it and claim a victory.  In this case, the strawman is that science knows all, and then you point out a few things where the science isn't complete and claim science is all screwed up.  So which side is actually being honest in this discussion?

Actually this is a common tactic.  Remember the Dover Trial and Michael Behe?  Unlike Hunter here, who is only a Fellow at the DI, Behe is a 'Senior' Fellow, I'm not sure if that means smarter or simply older. Here's a quote from the decision:

"In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough." (Wikipedia: Dover Decision)

So, I would also like to address this idea of Hunter's from a different angle.  Take any scientific theory, say Light, Gravity, Germs, or even Evolution.  Look back on a timeline and look at the changes to the theory as you go further and further back.  You will see an almost constant evolution [used in the context of 'change over time'] of the theories.  Does this sound like a community of people who reject new ideas and cling to their belief set?  Scientific advances are not made by re-hashing the old!  It would be hard to call them advances if all we are doing is running in place.  Picture the medical community of Darwin's day.  How would you like to be treated by those medical techniques?

So, Hunter . . . who has their head stuck in the sand when faced with fact that refute their belief system?  It sure doesn't sound like the scientific community is guilty here, but can you say the same? 

Design v. Intelligent Design, two different things

The Discovery Institute seems to have a language problem, or maybe an issue with defining terms.  I recall an old joke about how the United States and Great Britain, two countries separated by a common language.  I think there is a new divide between the Discovery Institute and the rest of the world.  For a while now I have commented how the DI likes to claim that when there is something intelligently designed, be it a car or a mousetrap, the DI likes to lay claim that it's Intelligent Design 'theory' in action. (Intelligent Design vs intelligent design).

Well they are now doing the same thing for the word 'design'. Take a look: "Michael Behe's Challenge -- Past, Present, and Future".  In the referenced papers they do mention the word 'design' a number of times and that seems to give the DI cause to celebrate yet 'another' example of their Intelligent Design 'theory' in action.  And since the authors didn't discuss evolution, obviously the DI is winning the battle for the souls of the world.  Here's a quote that struck me:

"While these Japanese researchers do not mention Behe or his conclusions, their work underscores the case for irreducible complex molecular machines as prima facie evidence for intelligent design. Nowhere do they credit evolution for the motors of the cell"

However . . . and you just knew there had to be a however . . .

• Were either of the two papers about the evolution of the structures being replicated?  No!
• Did either paper cite any of the multitude of Intelligent Design articles or books?  No!

Do you see where I am going?  At no time did the papers discuss evolution because the purpose of the papers were not about evolution, they were basically announcements about two teams artificially creating structures that mimic the function of cilia (nose hairs are an example of cilia).  Now cilia are fascinating things, tiny hairs that actually move material along a pathway in a specific direction.  You can read the abstracts for yourself (Artificial cilia as autonomous nanoactuators: Design of a gradient self-oscillating polymer brush with controlled unidirectional motion and From Biological Cilia to Artificial Flow Sensors: Biomimetic Soft Polymer Nanosensors with High Sensing Performance).  To be honest, little made sense to me after the first line or two because the technical details came fast and furious.  But what I read was two groups built objects that mimic the functioning of human cilia.

How many times in the past has human engineering mimicked something from nature?  Too many to count, right?  So, what we actually have here is another example of intelligence being used to create something  . . . and the DI then come along, well after the fact, claiming that since these were smart people doing smart things, they must have been using Intelligent Design 'theory' and since they didn't discuss the evolution of cilia, we win!

Anyone else's BS meter pegging?  You know my Chilton's Manual for my car didn't go into the evolution of the automobile, so therefore Intelligent Design 'theory' wins?  My Java programming language manual doesn't go into the development of computers since the 1940's, so therefore computers haven't evolved since then . . . obviously.  The papers didn't discuss evolution because it is immaterial to the stated purpose of the papers, but the DI doesn't see it that way.  They prefer to spin it as some weird success for Behe's irreducible complexity and then, by extension, a validation for their whole reason for existing.

However, wouldn't you think someone using the DI's idea of Intelligent Design 'theory' go to the source and reference it in their papers?  That would make sense, now that would be a victory for the DI and actual validation.  So, why didn't they?  I would have to think that the obvious answer is the best one.  That religious claptrap published by the DI simply doesn't apply.  If you want, check out the 30 papers cited in the first and the 48 papers cited in the second and you won't find any reference to the DI's pseudo-scientific publications.

I'm sure the DI will spin that as something caused by their constant whine of some massive prejudice ID proponents face in the world of science -- one often claimed but never substantiated.  The simpler answer isn't some deeply hidden multi-national, multi-cultural conspiracy, but that their idea of Intelligent Design simply does not apply.  Unlike the DI's stable of writers, lawyers, and philosophers, these are actual scientists who seem to apply only things that supported and furthered their research. That's a more honest answer than any spin from the DI, but that's not what you hear from them!

One last comment and then I will go to do something a bit more useful.  If the biology of cilia are so supportive of Intelligent Design, who in the DI's limited sphere of influence is doing the actual scientific work to make that connection?  Instead they prefer to quote a 20-year old book by Michael Behe that was thoroughly dismantled years ago -- as if it is still relevant.

Don't worry, DI, I am sure you can build another green-screen 'lab' and one of your talking heads can present your lack of findings to the world.

Are Scientists really saying nice things about Doug Axe's new Book? Seriously?

One of the common themes the Discovery Institute is constantly rallying against is 'scientific consensus'.  Their group complains pretty loudly about how bad it is when scientists agree, because that is the path to intolerance and censorship . . . well you know the whine.  However, they also do like to publish claims about 'scientists' who agree with them.  Does anyone else find this amusing?  Scientific consensus is a bad thing, unless they are agreeing with us then it something to crow about!  But, as expected, what we are seeing here isn't really consensus among a group of actual scientists, all we have is typical DI spin.

Here's the post, by 'our favorite' little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer: "Axe and Undeniable -- What the Scientists Are Saying".  Before looking at the article, re-read the title.  The words that jumped out at me are 'the Scientists'.  So the question that follows is did a group of actual scientists say positive things about Doug's book on how intuition is more viable than rational thought when it comes to forming scientific conclusions?  Now read the article and you will find that there was no large group of scientists, there wasn't even a small group . . . what you have is several -- which is defined as more than two but not many.

As the Sensuous Curmudgeon pointed out, it's three . . . yes . . . three, which does meet the definition of several, but just barely.  I can see why they wouldn't accurately report it as "Few Scientists say nice things about Doug and his latest religious tract" . . . after all that would be a counterproductive spin.  But klingy implies more than just several by using 'the Scientists!

But here is the kicker, it's not just three . . . it's three who already agree with the DI and their many marketing schemes of the past.

• Michael Behe, who klingy forgot to mention is a Senior Fellow of the DI.  
• Marcos Eberlin, Professor of Chemistry at Brazil’s University of Campinas and the author of 'Life and the Universe by Intelligent Design'.  
• J. Scott Turner, Professor of Biology, State University of New York and someone previously identified as an ID supporter by none other than casey luskin himself.

Three current advocates of the DI and Intelligent Design (ID) support Doug.  That's a huge drop from the implied 'Scientists' to three already true believers, don't you think?  But it does repeat a common DI theme: one of the DI publishes a book and they gather a few of their current supporters and elicit comments they can publicize.  I remember commenting on this before, "That's it? An admission of failure?", where, if you recall, I listed a bunch of editorial reviews for one of Stephen C. Meyer's less laudable books -- although finding one that is actually laudable might be a stretch.  The list of 'reviews' was seriously stacked with DI and ID supporters:

•  Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig, senior scientist emeritus (biologist) at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research.  Isn't he on the editorial board of 'Bio-Complexity', the DI in-house pro-ID journal.  He's written often for the DI and even been interviewed by casey luskin!  LOL!
• Dr. Mark McMenamin, paleontologist at Mt. Holyoke College and coauthor of 'The Emergence of Animals'.  And a long term critic of evolutionary theory.
• Dr. Norman C. Nevin OBE, BSc, MD, FRCPath, FFPH, FRCPE, FRCP; Professor Emeritus in Medical Genetics, Queen's University, Belfast.  Currently Nevin is President of the Centre for Intelligent Design in Scotland, sort of a low-rent version of the Discovery Institute.  I wrote about Nevin in "Intelligent Design, Sh** or get off the Pot!"
• Dr. Richard Weikart, Professor of History at California State University, Stanislaus; Author of 'From Darwin to Hitler'.  Did he forget to put on his resume that he's a senior fellow at the DI?
• Dr. Matti Leisola, Professor, Bioprocess Engineering, Aalto University, Finland (emeritus); Editor-in-chief, Bio-Complexity.  Bio-Complexity is the in-house journal of the Biologic Institute, a wholly owned subsidiary of the DI, in other words their pet lab.
• George Gilder, Technologist, economist, and New York Times bestselling author.  Who is, among other things a founding member of the Discovery Institute, a Senior Fellow at the DI, and also cited 129 times in the article database.

As you can see, the deck was stacked. You might also recall that Stephen [C. Meyer] was once claiming this about one of his ID books:

"First, the scientific community is not uniformly opposed to ID. My recent book on the subject received enthusiastic endorsements from many scientists not previously known as advocates of ID, such as chemist Philip Skell, a National Academy of Sciences member, and Norman Nevin, one of Britain's top geneticists."

I responded to this with:

"In my humble opinion Stephen C. Meyer is a liar. According to this quote Meyer states that Philip Skell and Norman Nevin were not previously advocates of Intelligent Design. Let's set the record straight, Skell is a Signatory of the very discredited "A Dissent From Darwinism", the list used in Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns in an attempt to discredit evolution and bolster claims that intelligent design is scientifically valid by claiming that evolution lacks broad scientific support. Meyer is a liar, Skell may not have published a pro-ID fluff piece, but he is an advocate. Nevin is a supporter of "Truth in Science" a United Kingdom-based organization which promotes the "Teach the Controversy" campaign. It uses this strategy to try to get intelligent design taught alongside evolution in school science lessons. Meyer is once again, in my opinion, lying!"

What I find most amusing is that this time around, klingy could only round-up three?  What are the rest of them doing?  Trying to teach Donald Trump the intricacies of Intelligent Design?  Normally that would take about five minutes, but we are talking about 'the donald'.  The DI should be practiced at this, a while back they taught all of it to Ann Coulter, who then screwed it all up in another bombastic book.

In any event, there you have it.  The DI is really scraping up support for Doug and his effort to replace rational thought with feelings.  But instead of asking real scientists, maybe even objective scientists, they gather 'several' known ID supporters and stack the deck again.  And they wonder why real scientific journals don't take them seriously?

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.

Should Science Peer Review be replaced with Public Opinion? DI says yes . . . No Surprise There!

Doug Axe has a new post over on EnV: "Public Opinion Is the Ultimate Peer Review" and as you can guess I disagree with a lot of what he says.  He is, in my opinion, taking a commencement speech way out of context.  The original speech was printed up in the New Yorker, "The Mistrust of Science" and, in my opinion is a damn good speech.  Before getting into Doug's spin, I want to look at the commencement address myself.

The speaker, Atul Gawande, is a contributor to The New Yorker for quite a while.  He's also an author, a surgeon, a professor, the executive director of Ariadne Labs, a joint center for health-systems innovation, and the chairman of Lifebox, a nonprofit organization making surgery safer globally.  His main topic for this particular speech is dealing with the public's growing mistrust of science.  I am not terribly surprised that someone from the Discovery Institute is commenting on the speech, after all they are one of the main purveyors of scientific mistrust, are they not?  Let's see . . . evolution is ONLY a theory . . . teach the controversy . . . Darwin caused the Holocaust . . . let's re-baptize Jefferson, Wallace, even Superman as ID proponents . . .  they claim scientific status without using any scientific methodology . . . yea, definitely purveyors of scientific mistrust.

This is a great speech and one I hope the graduates take to heart.  Here is my favorite part, and I almost can't wait to get to the end so I can see if Doug responded specifically to:

"Science’s defenders have identified five hallmark moves of pseudoscientists. They argue that the scientific consensus emerges from a conspiracy to suppress dissenting views. They produce fake experts, who have views contrary to established knowledge but do not actually have a credible scientific track record. They cherry-pick the data and papers that challenge the dominant view as a means of discrediting an entire field. They deploy false analogies and other logical fallacies. And they set impossible expectations of research: when scientists produce one level of certainty, the pseudoscientists insist they achieve another."

If I didn't know better I would think I was reading a checklist of everything Doug and his Lords and Masters at the Discovery Institute (DI) do.   Remember, Doug works for the 'Biologics Institute', which is the pet 'laboratory' of the DI.  But you gotta look at this, tell me it's not the DI:

• Conspiracies:  How many times have we heard how the DI isn't taken seriously . . . how the DI can't get published in real scientific journals, or how 'Big Science' is keeping them out of the classroom.  Too many times to count . . . all I hear is George Carlin's 'It's a conspiracy, man!'
• Lack of a credible scientific track record:  Or do you think people like William Dembski, Casey Luskin, Paul Nelson, and even Michael Behe have actual scientific track records for ID.  Yes, even Professor Michael Behe who has done absolutely no science to support his idea of irreducible complexity -- he admitted so in court.
• Cherry-picking:  Although I think you can also add quote-mining here.  How often has the DI taken real scientific research and tried to frame it in a different way, claiming the research, or the scientists themselves are supporting ID.  Remember the list of 44 publications the DI presented to the Ohio State School Board claiming support for ID . . . and how the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) contacted the majority of the authors (26 of 34) and found the authors were surprised to learn their work could be construed to support ID in any fashion.  Doug's discussion of this speech is another good example, he pretty well ignored this part.
• False analogies and other logical fallacies:  The whole tautological argument of if it looks designed, it must be designed . . . of trying to equate the definition of 'theory' with the more precise definition of 'scientific theory' in order to artificially equate ID with real science.  I might so another post later to see how many logical fallacies I can attribute to the DI.
• Impossible research expectations:  Also known as 'moving the goalposts'.  How often has the DI bunch of talking heads demanded that evolution has to provide a complete evolutionary pathway in order to be deemed worthwhile . . . and yet ID isn't required to explain anything.  One set of rules for science and no rules at all for the DI.  Remember Behe during the Dover trial, when faced with over 50 peer-reviewed scientific publications refuting his claims of irreducible complexity he said that it was not enough!

In the next paragraph Gawande says:

"But when you see several or all of these tactics deployed, you know that you’re not dealing with a scientific claim anymore. Pseudoscience is the form of science without the substance."

The DI is hitting 5 for 5!  Pseudo-science at it's . . . well  . . . best!

The rest of the speech focused on how to deal with such mistrust.  I like his approach.  As anyone who has had an argument with a creationist, presenting the holes in their arguments doesn't do much good.  All you tend to do is drive them into a philosophical corner and they start spouting Bible verses, real and imaginary ones.  His approach is a more positive one, keep asserting the real science, the good science.  When someone quotes an anti-vaxxer, talk about the diseases nearly eradicated by vaccines.  When an anti-evolutionist goes off the deep end, talk about the benefits of evolution in medicine, food production, and the environment.

Now, Doug on the other hand presents a pretty typical commentary.  He strings together some personal revisionist history, some innocuous sounding phrases and then he completely glosses over the five ways to identify pseudo-scientists.  Yes, this is all he says about it:

"Gawande gave five handy tips for writing people off as pseudoscientists, but instead of alienating people by dismissing them in this way, what if we were to view public opinion as the ultimate form of peer review?"

Yes, I can see why he would want to get past this part very quickly, after all, the only thing he could possibly do is try and spin how the DI's tactics don't meet this critieria.  That would be a very hard sell.  So he takes a different tactic and ignores it.  Poor Doug!  Ignoring it doesn't mean each and every one of those pseudo-science pointers doesn't  apply, it only means he didn't have the intestinal fortitude to address them.  I really wish he had addressed them, because it would have been hilarious!  Although apparently he didn't read the rest of the speech for comprehension.  Gawande also said:

"Having a scientific understanding of the world is fundamentally about how you judge which information to trust. It doesn’t mean poring through the evidence on every question yourself. You can’t. Knowledge has become too vast and complex for any one person, scientist or otherwise, to convincingly master more than corners of it."

Yet Doug wants to make the general public the ultimate form of peer review?  So Gawande basically says it's not possible for any one person to be experts in all fields, Doug wants to make science answer to the general public.  Yes, as long as various polls show a majority supporting various forms of Creationism over science, Doug wants that to be the determining factor.  Of course once the pendulum swings and places folks like Doug in the minority, he'll be changing his tune really quickly.

The reality seems to be that no one appears to be able to critique intelligent design . .  after all how many times has the DI whined about any criticisms by claiming the critic 'didn't understand' ID . . . he's never going to allow ID to come under any form of peer review . . . at least not when the DI isn't holding the controls.  Think again how often they claim to have published 'peer reviews' that are nothing but comments by people who already support the DI and their pet version of Creationism?  We've discussed it many times, for example in "Is it Peer-Reviewed?"

But Doug and his buddies would love it if the scientific peer review process, which is not a perfect process by any means, was replaced with one more subject to the whims of the general public.  Think of how much more mileage the DI can get out of the opinion polls.  Suddenly popular opinion equates to peer review!  How ridiculous.

Yes, the scientific peer review process isn't perfect.  But is bypassing it for the court of public opinion an improvement?  I am no rocket scientist, so now my opinion is the equal of actual rocket scientists when it comes to rocket science?  I think not!  I'm sure I can tell them a few things about computer programming, repairing radar equipment, and maybe teaching community college classes, but when it comes to rocket science, the experts need to have a greater weight.  As Gawande said about the scientific community:

"Beautifully organized, however, it is not. Seen up close, the scientific community—with its muddled peer-review process, badly written journal articles, subtly contemptuous letters to the editor, overtly contemptuous subreddit threads, and pompous pronouncements of the academy— looks like a rickety vehicle for getting to truth. Yet the hive mind swarms ever forward. It now advances knowledge in almost every realm of existence—even the humanities, where neuroscience and computerization are shaping understanding of everything from free will to how art and literature have evolved over time."

Let's see Doug discuss all the advances in scientific knowledge that have come out of the Discovery Institute?  See what I mean?  For an organization that has yet to advance any knowledge, Doug is recommending that we abandon the current peer review process for a public opinion type review.  Does he really think this would be an improvement?

In my opinion, this is nothing but an effort to artificially elevate ID.  Think about it, who is critiquing ID?  Pretty much every scientist, right?  So how to best address all that criticism?  Rather than actually do the scientific work that might support ID, they want to remove the peer review process and water down science.  I guess that's about the only way ID will gain any ground.  After all, they sure aren't doing it in Doug's lab.

Professor Michael Behe, Famous or Infamous? You be the Judge!

A new post over on the Discovery Institute's (DI) Evolution 'news' and Views (EnV) blog announcing the 12th anniversary of Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box".  Here's the link "In Time for Michael Behe's Book Anniversary, Here's a Real Mousetrap in the Cell".  Something the folks at the DI take an inordinate amount of pride, for some reason.  If you aren't familiar with Behe, here's a nutshell biography:

"Michael J. Behe is an American biochemist, author, and intelligent design (ID) advocate. He serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and as a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Behe is best known for his argument for his pseudoscientific stance on irreducible complexity (IC), which argues that some biochemical structures are too complex to be explained by known evolutionary mechanisms and are therefore probably the result of intelligent design. Behe has testified in several court cases related to intelligent design, including the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that resulted in a ruling that intelligent design was religious in nature.
Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community,and his own biology department at Lehigh University published an official statement opposing Behe's views and intelligent design" (Wikipedia: Michael Behe)

Just for fun. here is another nutshell bio from the Discovery Institute:

"Michael J. Behe is Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. He received his Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania in 1978. Behe's current research involves delineation of design and natural selection in protein structures. " (Discovery Institute: Michael Behe)

Funny how the Discovery Institute fails to mention that he testified in the Dover Trial where the ruling called him out specifically stating:

"We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large. Additionally, even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design." (Kitzmiller v. Dover Ruling: Page 79)

I wonder why the DI fails to mention that?  Could it be because his testimony didn't help their cause any?  While they are proud to remind everyone that Behe is a Professor at Lehigh University, they also tend to forget to mention that Lehigh has this linked from the home page of the Biology Department:

"The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific." (Lehigh Biology Department:  Statement on Evolution)

So based on this, what are the chances that Behe actually teaches Intelligent Design in his biochemistry classes?  Yea, I agree!  However, as opposed to people like Guillermo Gonzalez and Catherine Croker, he doesn't let his ID hobby get in the way of doing his job.  The schools position is pretty clear, ID is an opinion of Behe, and not certainly not science.  OK, enough about Behe, let's see what EnV says about the 12th anniversary of his book.   They want to start quoting his book, including this delight:

"It's especially delightful because it brings to life an analogy Behe made famous: the mousetrap as an example of irreducible complexity."

Yes, the famous mousetrap, which proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that intelligence can design stuff.  It doesn't automatically support that a mousetrap is an example of irreducible complexity because, as Kenneth R. Miller showed at a number of times, including his own testimony during the Dover Trial and a 2008 book ("Only a Theory"), a mouse trap is not irreducibly complex because even if you remove pieces and parts, they can still have other uses, they are not limited to just a mousetrap, except in the apparently limited imagination of ID proponents.  But the DI is so proud of a very limited and failed analogy.

The article goes on to repeat some of the other examples from his book.  Remember those?  Those that when faced with actual peer-reviewed research, over 50 examples, that refuted his examples, Behe said that it was not enough.  Even though he hadn't read them!

The article also quotes a 'new' claim of something called serpin antithrombin III (ATIII), being irreducibly complex and the unnamed author justifies is with this:

"But can you be sure ATIII is itself irreducibly complex? First, note that the seven authors of the PNAS paper, all from the University of Massachusetts, never explain how this protein might have evolved. Quite the contrary; their only mention of "evolution" deals with how the protein folds, not with Darwinian evolution. There's no mention of selection, phylogeny, or ancestors. Instead, they seem fascinated by the precise way this machine must be assembled and "cocked" for action. Watch for "mousetrap" again:"

Really?  They didn't go into possible evolutionary paths, so that is the number one reason why it must be irreducibly complex?  Wait just a minute?  Didn't another recent EnV post complain about tracing hypothetical evolutionary paths?  Yes, here it is:

"Biological systems not only need to exist but to function properly. It's no use tracing a hypothetical path of evolutionary descent unless every living thing along that path was fully functional in the real world."

So . . . if you do suggest how something may have evolved, you are wrong because the very limited thinking of the DI says that if it's not in its final functioning form, it can't exist in the real world.  But if you don't suggest an evolutionary path, you are supporting irreducible complexity?  What we seem to have here is another Marie Antoinette moment.  Cake anyone?

OK, I think I've just about had enough.  One last thing.  In the closing paragraph, the author says:

"That gives a modest sense of the overarching lesson here: multiple factors are working together to make ATIII work."

Yes, multiple factors are working together to make ATIII work -- as ATIII . . . but at no point does anyone from the DI show that those same multiple factors could not have another function if configured in a different way.  Where did the pieces and parts come from?  Do they offer any support for ID?  No!  All they do it put a box around ATIII and demand that the conversation is over.  Boxes like this are great for limiting the conversation . . . which seems to along well with the very limited thinking we seem to see all the time from the DI.

Klingy thinks Medical Doctors' Opinions are Important, on non-medical topics, Is it?

Does the Discovery Institute really understand the word 'hypothetical'?  I don't think so.  In little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer Evolution and 'news' and Views post "The Medical Background to Intelligent Design", I think he misses the point.  But then since he is repeating a constant Creationist trope, it might be understandable.  Here is a quote of his:

"Biological systems not only need to exist but to function properly. It's no use tracing a hypothetical path of evolutionary descent unless every living thing along that path was fully functional in the real world."

The trope I mention is their continual insistence that a biological system must exist in its final and absolute state in order for it to be considered functional.  How many times does this have to be addressed before he, and the rest of the DI get it?  Michael Behe tried this with his 'Irreducible Complexity (IC)' and that work so well that he's backed off considerably from providing examples.  He got his hat handed to him after testifying about it during the 2005 Dover trial and and the court said:

The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large." (Wikipedia: Irreducible Complexity)

If you don't recall the details, here's a quickie refresher: He argued that evolution, particularly evolution by Natural Selection, was impossible because 'certain' biological systems cannot evolve by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems.  He cited a number of potential systems, like blood clotting factor and the immune system as irreducibly complex.  However, when faced with over 50 peer-reviewed articles and papers explaining these in evolutionary terms, he rejected them out of hand saying that they were not enough.  You can see why the court said what it said about it.

My initial reaction was much simpler.  Michael Behe postulates an idea with absolutely no support except for wishful thinking and conjecture . . . and rejects actual peer-reviewed papers that he hasn't even bothered to read.  Anyone else see something wrong with that?

Anyway, you can see klingy is beating on that drum again.  Only he's not calling is IC, but the premise is the same.  He seems to define 'function properly' as functioning in the way the current biological system functions.  What he does is dismiss any possibility of the parts that make up a biological system having any other function.  Like all DI'ers, he discounts it.  He is once again claiming evolution's impossibility, while failing to support is argument with anything other than wishful thinking.

I do enjoy how he brought in medical doctors into the argument.  Back in 2005 the Discovery Institute claimed 60% of medical doctors didn't believe in evolution, in In 2007, the Jewish Theological Seminary conducted a survey on this topic, finding that 78 percent of doctors accept evolution.  As we have said before, you can find a survey on any subject that will support a particular view, so surveys like these are meaningless.  The real question is "Is it important that a practicing medical doctor accept evolution?"  The answer seems to be that for the most part, no.

When I first realized that, I was more than a bit surprised.  But when you think it through, doctors use the results of the biological science, but are not necessarily educated in understanding the details. Most specialties in medicine require no actual study or understanding of evolutionary theory to do their jobs.  There are some, like dealing with infectious diseases or cancers where evolution is key to their work, but for the most part doctors don't need it. Their focus is on the here-and-now and not on how we got here.  So when is comes to asking medical doctors about their level of belief in evolution, the answer isn't very important.  Which pretty well makes the DI's point meaningless. 

I haven't checked, but I am sure there are some medical doctors who signed to 'Dissent from Darwinism' petition, that's we've discussed all too often.  If you remember those posts, while the statement they signed claimed to dissent for scientific reasons, the reality was they signed for religious reasons.  I am sure there are a number of doctors who have a philosophical stand against evolution, but I doubt those that use evolution as part of their medical duties would agree.  Remember that while doctors are highly educated, the education is tightly focused.

While I am sure doctors wouldn't like the comparison, but can a car mechanic build a car?  No, that's not their job or training.  That is similar for medical doctors.  I have three degrees dealing with computers, but I cannot build a computer.  I can assemble one from parts purchased from multiple sources, as I have done on a number of occasions.  I can fix them, program them, network them . . . but I do not have the training or experience to 'build' one.  Why would we expect doctors to know everything about biology?  I wouldn't go to a biologist for a medical diagnosis, would you?

Of course the DI doesn't care about the reality.  All they care about to be able to string together words and phrases that make it sound like Evolution is on its knees.  You know for a scientific theory whose death knell has been declared continually for over a century and a half, its constant survival might seem surprising, until you look at the actual attacks.  Then it's easy to see why it's still the most supported theory in biology, maybe in all of science.