The Discovery Institute (DI) is begging for contributions, again.

This time the sales pitch is asking : "In 2018, Please Help Us Take Intelligent Design to the World!".  It starts off with this:

"Living in the United States, we’re accustomed to evolution being thoroughly politicized, in the sense that the media encourage everyone to divide into armed camps: evolutionists versus Darwin skeptics. In both the U.S. media and academia, there’s a kind of social panic for many about being classed with the dreaded “creationists.”"

First off, who is politicizing Evolution?  It's not the scientists, they treat it as a scientific theory.  It's not the general public, they tend to ignore such things, for the most part.  So who is doing all this politicizing?  Yes, Creationists, including those less-than-honest folks at the Discovery Institute -- which also includes the author of this piece, little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer.  Yes, if it wasn't for these people, there would be just as much politicizing of the Theory of Evolution as there is about Germ Theory, Gravity, and the other scientific theories.

Second thing, is there some sort of 'social panic' about being classed with the Creationists?  Certainly if this were so then many fewer people would self-identify as Creationists.  But, you know the DI, if there isn't a real problem, invent one.  The main reason no one takes Intelligent Design (ID) seriously is because there haven't been a single scientific breakthrough or even discovery based on ID.  I'm not talk about all the DI claims that using intelligence is an example of ID, but actual scientific research and discoveries that has as its basis the DI's 'theory' of Intelligent Design?  There aren't any and no one seems to be actually doing anything to change that.

"The world is wide open to scientific arguments for design in nature. The big launch of ID in Brazil is a case in point,"

Really?  Could the reason why the DI has had this success in Brazil have something to do Brazil being one of the most religious countries in the world?  I just have to ask this again to properly frame this part of the discussion . . . just what actual scientific advances have been made based on Intelligent Design?

You see, it doesn't matter how many adherents the DI thinks they have.  Their pet version of Creationism, ID, will never gain any real scientific ground until it is being used for science.  To date not only is there nothing scientific about it, but the pretend science they keep crowing about has had no impact on actual scientific developments, let alone breakthroughs -- significant or otherwise.  Bragging that ID is 'gaining ground' because you have pumped some of your money to fund an ID center in a highly religious country is not a good example of ID gaining ground, is it?

So, with all their 'successes', mostly bought and paid for by the DI itself, now they want more money to push their religious agenda on to other countries mainly because their success in the US has been so limited.  They still refuse to realize why they  have been so unsuccessful, lack of scientific evidence or any actual scientific work certainly is the main limiting factor.

Failing to provide real science is the actuality, claiming that scientists are close-mined is the marketing tactic.

Does the Discovery Institute Understand Scientific Methodology At All? Apparently Not!

I've explained this many times, but it bears repeating because the Discovery Institute continues to trot out the same erroneous arguments.  An analogy of a Scientific Theory is that it is like a snapshot in time.  It is the best explanation based on the available evidence we have right now.  In the future, as we learn more, scientific theories change.  While the DI likes to brand this as a weakness, it's actually one of its strengths.  If it were incapable of change, we certainly wouldn't have gone to the Moon, flown a single balloon -- let alone an airplane, nor cured and eliminated many diseases.

In this latest post, new evidence is changing some of the theories around evolution and the DI is complaining.  There complaint goes like this:  Since science is changeable, it means it's wrong, and therefore cannot be counted on.

Here's the post: "With Two New Fossils, Evolutionists Rewrite Narratives to Accommodate Conflicting Evidence".  Without even going into the post, you can see the complaint.  That's why I have to question an organization claiming to be a scientific organization not understanding how science works.  But when you see the DI for what it really is, a religious ministry, it's not so hard to understand.

If you do read the post, it's little new, except for this little gem:

"Dubious procedures like these would be unthinkable in other natural sciences, such as physics."

Yes, Physics and the other hard sciences make no allowances for new discoveries at all.  Scientific theories in Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Astronomy . . . never change when something new is discovered, really?  So Nobel Prizes are awarded for what?  Maintaining the status quo?  I can hear the announcement from Stockholm now "And the Nobel Prize in Physics for 2018 goes to John Smith, for doing nothing at all!" and everyone applauds, except for me -- I mean, I did nothing in Physics at all, so where is my Nobel?

I do find is funny that this post uses Physics as it's example because the DI has frequently poked at Physics, as well as most of the rest of the hard sciences.  Usually they are trying to tear down support for Biology from any of the other sciences, but equally as often they are trying to use new discoveries in those science to disprove biology.  Funny because in this post they claim that the other hard sciences don't change with new discoveries, and yet when new discoveries are made they try and twist it into something against Biology.

Anyone with a functioning brain knows that a scientific theory is not:

"merely a loose collection of narratives that are forged to fit the evidence"

That's what the DI would like people to believe.  Which is why they like using such disreputable tactics as "It's Only a Theory" and calling Evolution 'Darwinism', both designed to make Evolution appear to be less than it is, a Scientific Theory -- which is, just in case you need a refresher:

"A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, by using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge." (Wikipedia: Scientific Theory)

Just a wee bit more than a 'loose collection of narratives' . . . which happens to much closer to the definition of something else:

"The Bible is a collection of sacred texts or scriptures that Jews and Christians consider to be a product of divine inspiration and a record of the relationship between God and humans. 
Many different authors contributed to the Bible. What is regarded as canonical text differs depending on traditions and groups; a number of Bible canons have evolved, with overlapping and diverging contents.
" (Wikipedia: Bible)

Many different authors, collection, different canons . . . certainly sounds more like a 'loose collection of narratives' than a 'repeatedly tested' and 'withstood rigorous scrutiny', doesn't it?

But the DI would have you believe that scientific theories are nothing more than a bunch of stories with no evidence at all . . . exactly what their pet idea of Intelligent Design has always been.  You think one day they might learn . . . oh wait, but anyone who thinks scientific theories should never be able to be changed isn't demonstrating the capacity for learning, are they?