And There is Still Nothing Religious about Intelligent Design

I decided to quit numbering these, because there have been too many posts exploring the religious nature of the Discovery Institute (DI) and Intelligent Design (ID).  Instead of numbering, I am simply going to continue reminding folks about the those religious underpinnings.

This time around the DI is hawking someone else's book.  Little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer wrote this post: "Scott Turner’s Purpose and Desire — An Important New Voice in the Evolution Debate".  Before getting into the post, I was wondering who Scott Turner is and whether or not he is actually a 'new voice' in the cultural debate between religion and science.

So, I hit my usual sources and found that while Scott might be new to klingy, he's not new to this debate. Like klingy, Wikipedia also mentioned Scott's last book "The Tinkerer's Accomplice, How Design Emerges from Life Itself" and the Harvard University Press Catalog says a few interesting things:

"Physiologist Scott Turner argues eloquently and convincingly that the apparent design we see in the living world only makes sense when we add to Darwin’s towering achievement the dimension that much modern molecular biology has left on the gene-splicing floor: the dynamic interaction between living organisms and their environment. Only when we add environmental physiology to natural selection can we begin to understand the beautiful fit between the form life takes and how life works."

It also mentioned something klingy seemed to ignore, Scott's last book was in 2010.  Now I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound very new to me.  But that's only one issue with the above quote.  I have to ask, how did Darwin, and subsequent researchers, left 'the dynamic interaction between living organisms and their environment' on the cutting room floor?  Doesn't the very idea of Natural Selection get driven by how an allele affects the survival/reproductive opportunity within the environment?  How environmental changes affect evolution within a population?  The environment is, and always has been, a key factor in the study of evolution.

Here is where I start to suspect Scott's leanings.  By wording it this way, he seems to think there has to be a guide, a map, an . . . dare I say it . . . an intelligence, behind it all.  Instead of the environment causing natural selection, there is some sort of symbiosis between the environment and the population that drives evolution.  Ah, yes, from Scott's Wikipedia page we can see he is a proponent of the Gaia Hypothesis, something not very well supported by science.

OK, let see what klingy has to say.  He starts off with this little tarnished gem:

"The crisis of evolutionary biology is spoken of openly here and by scientists who are professed advocates of intelligent design."

'Crisis'? Really?  I understanding klingy wishing it was a crisis, but he's overstating things by a ton.  We don't have a crisis because within evolutionary biology, this barely a blip on the screen.  The debate is cultural, not scientific.  For years science pretty much ignored it until groups like the DI started threatening science education with their marketing and politicking.  If you remember the landmark lawsuits (Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District, Selman v. Cobb County School District, Edwards v. Aguillard, McLean v. Arkansas, Lemon v. Kurtzman, Scopes Trial) were all focused on education, not science.  What does that tell you?  It tells me that we aren't talking about a crisis here.

OK, next up, klingy says:

"The latest biologist to come out swinging at Darwinism, Turner is not an ID proponent. He teaches at the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry."

However, is Scott a biologist?  His own website says:

"I am a physiologist by training, but with a deep interest in the interface of physiology with evolution, ecology and adaptation." (SUNY: Bio)

I am not knocking Scott, I just wish klingy would stop mis-representing people. By referring to Scott as a biologist, you assume a much stronger background in biology.  Physiology is a branch of biology, but it's only a small part.  Here is the definition of Physiology:

"the branch of biology dealing with the functions and activities of living organisms and  their parts, including all physical and chemical processes." (dictionary.com)

Now contrast it with the definition of biology from the same source:

"the science of life or living matter in all its forms and phenomena, especially with reference to origin, growth, reproduction, structure,and behavior." (dictionary.com)

See some significant differences, don't you?  When you look at Scott's curricula vitae, you can call him Dr. Turner, he is a Doctor of Philosophy. not biology . . . but klingy calls him a biologist.  What I wish he would do is his homework and honestly represent folks!  This is a habit of the DI, do you remember some of the other times they mis-represented the facts:

• When they mis-represented a publication list to the Ohio State School Board as support for Intelligent Design -- which was not true.
• They collected signatures on a petition supposedly supporting ID as well, but they didn't list the current affiliations (as is the standard), but listed the signers most prestigious affiliation, even inflating a few to make them sound even better.  They also hid the affiliation of signers who worked for various religious organizations -- including those who worked for the DI itself.
• A couple of last things with the petition, they originally called all the signers 'PhDs', but that wasn't true.  Not all had their doctorates and also less than 25% were even working in biology
• When the DI announced a new member of the team, they mentioned her education, but conveniently forget to mention her religious background. (Heather Zeigler)
• Just like klingy here calling Scott a 'new voice', one of klingy buddies referred two commenters about his book as not previously known advocates of ID -- which was not true either. (Skell and Nevin)

So we know klingy is using one of the comment tactics of the DI -- the misrepresentation of the facts . . . or as I was taught to call it -- lying, even lying by omission is still lying.  Next klingy quotes the preface of Scott's book -- and it shows Scott is making the same mistake that the rest of the ID proponents do.  Here, read this:

"Instead of a frank acknowledgment of purposefulness, intentionality, intelligence, and design, we refer to “apparent” design, “apparent” intentionality, “apparent” intelligence."

Now, has anyone -- anywhere -- in the past 150+ years provided any actual scientific evidence for purposefulness, intentionality, intelligence, or design?  Without such evidence, all you have is the appearance of those things.  Science is all about accuracy and when all you have is the appearance, you do not make frank acknowledgements!

The whole modern intelligent design movement started with the assumption that the appearance of design was the same as the actuality of design.  This assumption is used to not only in an effort to tear down actual science, but to push a religious agenda that is not shared by the majority of the world.  But since that movement started, no one had offered anything other than conjecture and wishful thinking to support that assumption.  Scott appears to be making that same assumption.  That might work well for philosophy, but when it comes to hard sciences, like biology, assumptions do not cut it.

So, what do we have . . . is someone who is not new to the cultural debate, whose credentials are mis-represented by the DI and someone who shares the same assumption that the appearance is the same as the fact.  So nothing new at all, just another one who drank the kool-aid and ignored the lack of substance.  I may read his book, but only if it shows up in the religious section of the local library.  

Oh yea, did I forget to mention Scott's new book is being published by Harper-One -- which, as we have pointed out before, is the religious imprint of Harper-Collins.  So if I see the book, it will most likely be in the religious section of the library or bookstore.

I May Have Spoken Too Soon . . .

Just last week I said in a post:

"Rep Butler [R-AL] is using teachers as a kind of scapegoat to justify his actions.  Let's not forget that this same politician tried a similar bill (which failed) and did manage to get a Student Religious Freedom bill passed just last year.  God forbid a politician be honest in his motivations." (An Alabama State Representative Shows His Ignorance)

Rather than hide in the shadows, this State representative (Mary Bentley, R - AR) is sponsoring a bill that states very clearly:

"HB2050 - TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS CODE TO ALLOW PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS TO TEACH CREATIONISM AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN AS THEORIES ALONGSIDE THE TEACHING OF THE ORIGINS OF THE EARTH AND THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION."

With the failure of so many so-called 'academic freedom' bills, you know the bills that have absolutely nothing to do with academic freedom, I guess one politician got tired of trying to sneak their religion into the classroom through the backdoor.  While I disagree with her, I have to respect her honesty!  

Normally, I would say her bill doesn't stand a prayer [pun intended], but then I didn't think America was foolish enough to elect a hamster-haired misogynistic liar for President.  But isn't Arkansas the same state where their law to make teaching of evolution illegal was overturned in the 1960's (Epperson v. Arkansas) and also their effort to teach  a 'Balanced Treatment', that is teaching Creationism (renamed Creation Science at the time) and Evolution side-by-side and on equal terms -- got dumped as well in the 1980's (McLean v. Arkansas)?  

So, again while I do applaud her honesty, I have to question why she wants her religion to be taught in the classroom as if it were science.  Does she also want Numerology in math class or Astrology in Astronomy?  If not, why not?  I also have to ask the people in Arkansas why they keep electing politicians who seem to spend more time focusing on preaching religion than dealing with other issues facing the State.  Let's see, how does Arkansas rank in a few areas?

• Education - Arkansas ranks 43rd lowest out of the 50 states in HS graduation rate, 48th in Bachelor degrees and 49th in Advanced degrees. (Wikipedia: source)
• Violent Crime - 9th highest rank in violent crimes (World Atlas: source)
• Teen Pregnancy - 4th highest rate of teen pregnancy (LiveScience: source)
• Unemployment - Actually not bad, 13th lowest (BLS: source)

Well, it looks like to me Rep Bentley needs to ask herself a few questions.  the first is simple: "Why does she insist on inflicting her religious beliefs on the rest of the State in violation of the US Constitution?" and second is "Doesn't she have any real problems to deal with?"  I guess a third question, and maybe the only one that matters might be "Why does she think teaching religion in science class is going to help any of the real problems facing Arkansas?"Does she actually believe dumbing down science will improve education?  And of course everyone knows theists never commit violent crimes (please add a sarcastic snort after that sentence).  And theists never get pregnant at a young age, seriously?  Check this out:

"With data aggregated at the state level, conservative religious beliefs strongly predict U.S. teen birth rates, in a relationship that does not appear to be the result of confounding by income or abortion rates. One possible explanation for this relationship is that teens in more religious communities may be less likely to use contraception." (BioMed Central: source)

Similar things have been reported in many sources including Live Science, the New York Times, and the Christian Science Monitor.  Not only are they less likely to use contraception, but their sex education is generally lacking.

I doubt she will ever answer any of these questions, after all she is more than likely just 'pandering' for votes.  Oh, I am sure she's a church-goer and holds a set of religious beliefs, but being elected does not give her the right to force those beliefs onto other people!  But sponsoring such bills will probably have the affect of gaining her some votes.  Sorta like a certain hamster-haired politician holding up the Bible, a book I doubt he has ever opened up . . . of course that is strictly my opinion, but has anyone ever seen him actually use it for most than a speech prop?

OK, one last time, I do respect her honesty, but I certainly do not support her efforts.  Intelligent Design and Creationism are religious concepts that do not belong in science class.  No matter how you dress them up, there are standards within science and neither of those ideas meet any of them.  The nearest they come to actual science is being  defined as:

" . . . claims, beliefs, or practices presented as being plausible scientifically, but which are not justifiable by the scientific method"  (Wikipedia: pseudo-science)

DI is celebrating 20 years of Intelligent Design . . . Why?

Here are the stated 20-year goals of the Discovery Institute (DI):

It's a little blurry, but I think you can make them out.  The reason I bring this up is because of this post from the DI: "Intelligent Design -- The Future! Join Us on August 12 to Celebrate 20 Years of Advancing Science and Culture".  I have to ask, what do they have to celebrate?

Look at the goals again, and it certainly leads to these questions:

• Is Intelligent Design the dominant perspective in science?
• Is design 'theory' being applied in any specific fields, in and outside of the natural sciences?
• Does design 'theory' permeate our religious, cultural, moral, and political life?

Can anyone honestly answer 'yes' to any of these?  I know the DI will be placing some spin about how incredible the last 20 years have been, but have they achieved any of their goals?  That answer is not just no, a resounding No!

So one more question, what are they celebrating?  Twenty years of soliciting money from other people while continually failing?  Twenty years of refusing to perform any actual science?  Twenty years of publishing pseudo-scientific books and articles while failing to understand why no one in science takes them seriously? That might sounds kinda mean, but come on . . . what have they achieved?

Let's take a look at another set of goals, these are their five-year goals:

So now I have to ask:

• Is Intelligent Design an accepted alternative and is there any actual scientific research being done form the perspective of 'design' theory?
• Is design theory influencing any spheres other than natural sciences?  For that matter, is it actually influencing natural sciences?
• Are there major new debates in education, life issues, legal, and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda?

Of these three, the only one you might be able to rationalize a 'yes' to is the second one.  But it would be a stretch.  Because the way 'design theory' is influencing natural science, or any other 'sphere', is in a negative way.  Has 'design theory' been used to develop any new scientific theories?  Has it been used to develop new medicines?  Has it been used in anything other than a continuation of the cultural debate that keeps springing up periodically when theists' religious beliefs feel threatened?  No, not at all!  So what does an organization who failed to reach any of their five-year goals in 20 years have to celebrate?

Here is the future, as I see it.  Since ID has been a failure in everything but raising funds for the DI, it's got to be time to replace it with something else.  Something that sounds even more 'science-y' and might have less of a close and personal relationship with Creationism.  

After all wasn't Creationism replaced by 'Creation Science' in an effort to convince some people that there was some rational basis for their religious beliefs?  Creation Science came around after Creationists started losing court cases (1968 Epperson v. Arkansas being the first big one).  And after 'Creation Science' lost it's big court challenge (1982  McLean v. Arkansas) it gave way to the more modern version of Creationism, Intelligent Design. Now if you look at a calendar, we find that losing a court case in 1982, it was 14 years before the establishment of the DI and the heavy marketing of ID. It's now been 11 years since ID lost it's big court case (2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District), so shouldn't the DI be planning for their next pseudo-scientific idea?

I mean that ill-fitting lab coat has got to be wearing a bit thin, so I would suggest keeping the celebrating to a minimum, you might rip it and expose the priestly garments you try and hide.

Less Than impressive Christian Apologetic Law Review Paper

Yesterday I posted a bit about the return of little casey luskin to the cultural debate over teaching religion as if it was actual science.  I hadn't read his actual paper or the Discovery Institute (DI) Evolution 'News' and Views (EnV) post about it just yet, I was focused on where little casey published his paper and why the DI didn't seem to want anyone to know it wasn't a real law review, but a Christian apologetic law review.  I also said that I would be posting today after reading the EnV post and his paper.

Unlike Paul Nelson, when I tell you I am going to do something the next day, I actually make an honest effort in accomplishing it the next day.  So let's start with the DI's post.  Actually it doesn't start well.  The EnV post is "In Court Rulings on Teaching Origins Science, Law Review Article Finds a Double Standard".  Early in the post Sarah Chaffee, the author, said that casey:

" . . . examines the way courts have struck down the teaching of alternatives to evolution because of their historical associations with religion."

I have to question the use of the word 'historical'.  I think casey is going to try and imply that the connection between alternatives to evolution, like Creationism and its little brother Intelligent Design, no longer have a religious association.  That it was in the past and no longer applicable.  If anyone believed that, why is little casey's paper in a Christian apologetic law review publication and not one from a school that is actually approved by the American Bar Association?

We can list many of the current connections between the DI and religion, especially their own wedge strategy document.  But we have done that so many times times in the past (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) and those are just the ones called "So There is Nothing Religious about Intelligent Design parts 1 thru 10.  There are plenty of other posts about the current association of the DI, and their Intelligent Design Movement and religion!

This line really summed up the whole post for me:

"The result is a double standard, as courts hold alternatives to evolution unconstitutional to teach, but evolution constitutional."

That's not exactly true.  What the Courts have said is that Creationism and Intelligent Design are not science but religion and therefore cannot be taught as if they are science because that violates the Constitution.  Seriously, it's not alternatives to evolution that are unconstitutional, but religious alternatives to evolution, specifically Creationism -- which includes Intelligent Design -- that are unconstitutional.  If you disagree, instead of taking casey's word, look at some of the court cases themselves:

• Kitzmiller v. Dover -- ruled against teaching Intelligent Design in science class in 2005
• Epperson v. Arkansas -- invalidated a statute that prohibited evolution whose purpose was to protect a specific religious viewpoints (1968)
• Daniel v. Waters -- invalided a law requiring an equal amount of emphasis on evolution and the Genesis account in the Bible (1975)
• McLean v. Arkansas -- ruled against a statute mandating the teaching of "Creation Science" because it is religious, not science.  (1982)
• Edwards v. Aguillard -- In 1987. The Supreme Court of the US ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools, along with evolution, was unconstitutional because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion
• Selman v. Cobb County -- invalidated the use of stickers designed to weaken science education (2006)

There are others, all basically reached that same conclusion, Creation-based alternatives to evolution are not science and therefore to teach them as if they are actually science is unconstitutional.  These cases span 1968 through 2006, granted you can claim yesterday was historical, but really -- 2006 is historical?  Every single time Creationism and all of its relatives, like Intelligent Design and Creation Science, have been tested, the link between then and their underlying religious basis has never been placed in solely a 'historical' perspective.  No, the links are there even today!  Who are the only receptive audiences for ID?  Where does their funding come from? What have they been desperately trying to hide from for decades now?  Think about it!  The connection from their religious beliefs and their claims cannot be uncoupled, as much as they keep trying to do so.  This paper is nothing but another example.

The other half of his statement is equally misleading, the 'constitutionality of evolution'.  At no time when looking at those court cases did I find them ruling that evolution is constitutional.  I don't think the rulings specified evolution at all.  True, I haven't read them all, but I have read several and while evolution was mentioned in some of the supporting documents, the rulings did not address evolution specifically.  Even in the supporting documents, it's usually just contrasting the Creationism concept with its intended target.  But, in reality, has anyone sued a school for teaching evolution?  No, the court cases were brought about because of religious groups trying to impose their view on science class.

So far Sarah's not off to a rousing start, but when your source material is so weak, what can you do? It doesn't matter how much mayo you use, you cannot make chicken salad out of chicken sh**. Sarah and little casey mention Selman v. Cobb County specifically.  You can read all about it in your link, but I would like to mention that casey did state that the original ruling was 'remanded', which is legalese for sending it back on appeal for consideration.  Of course casey doesn't say why it was remanded . . . which was an evidence issue, not a problem with the ruling.  Final result is basically this was tried twice and both times the Creationists lost and their little efforts to undermine science education failed.

Sarah closed with what has to be a quote from casey:

"But what about evolution? Are courts evaluating neo-Darwinism objectively? In a future post, I will discuss the history of anti-religious activism associated with evolution advocacy."

So he starts off claiming that evolution has been declared to be Constitutional . . . and then bails before addressing this issue , , , promising to address it in the future.  Hmmm, Paul Nelson again?

I read through casey's paper as well as Sarah's EnV post.  In all honesty, it was pretty boring and didn't say anything new.  I will say this for Sarah, she summed things up pretty well . . . but then casey's work has always been pretty basic.  Probably one reason he was never a 'fellow', just the title of 'research coordinator', which was funny for an organization that doesn't do anything resembling research.