Another Meaningless Name Change

It was pointed out to me by a Commentor (Thanks again Matthew) that the Discovery Institute pseudo-blog has changed it's name.  It was called "Evolution News and Views (ENV).  Of course, I usually referred to it as "Evolution 'news' and Views (E'n'V)" because news was not it's forte.  It was always bringing you their [the DI's] view on nearly any topic.  Oh, they might reference other pieces of information -- including someone else's actual science -- but the purpose of E'n'V was never to educate, but show you the Intelligent Design (ID) perspective.

So, they would sometimes point out some actual science and then spin their ID magic on it and lo-and behold one of two things usually happened.  Either the real science could be spun in such a way as to appear to support ID or they declared that the real science must be wrong because of ID.  Of course, they never bothered to support either contention with anything resembling evidence or scientific experimentation, it was all rhetoric*.

One other point, I also normally referred to it as a pseudo-blog because they never, ever let people comment on it.  For all their talk about 'free speech', letting people comment would probably show more of the weaknesses in their arguments than identify any actual strengths -- but then strengths and weaknesses aren't their forte either (pun intended).  To my knowledge, they never even tried to moderate comments, which is how many other sites control views they do not like.  To date, I have only removed comments that were abusive (once) or sales marketing (three). All other comments are still there.  Funny, I've had more authors remove their own comments than anything I have done.

Back to the topic at hand, the DI pseudo-blog changed it's name.  It's now called "Evolution News and Science Today (ENST)".  I took a quick look through the postings for this month and it really doesn't look like anything has changed.  Sarah Chaffee is talking about a subject she doesn't seem to know anything about -- free speech, pseudo-historian Richard Weikart is busy trying to re-write history, and little davely 'klingy' klinghoffer is bragging that this pseudo-blog is now available in Spanish.  -- which I thought was almost interesting because their new intelligent design center is in Brazil, and their official language in Portuguese.  Nope, nothing new and still no commenting allowed.

Which means the new name is even more misleading than the old one.  I mean not only was it not presenting news, now they are hiding their views under the label of 'science'.  Does anyone actually believe actual science will be coming out from the DI, let alone published in their pseudo-blog?  But then, like their other avenues of publication, be it books, articles, or posts, there is no standard for supporting their 'work'.  Which means E'ns'T will continue in the less-than-proud traditions of E'n'V and give us things to laugh at rather than actually enlighten us!

*rhetoric: language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.

Bait and Switch, Discovery Institute Style

A new post over at the Discovery Institute site is pretty typical of their tactics, what I like to call their 'Tactics of Mistake'.  Here it is: "Helpful Atheist Makes a Case for God".  In it they summarize something PZ Myers said and then do the something typical -- moving the goal posts:

"But we can ask an interesting question . . . How far back can contingency go? . . .
Myers would likely reply that “the primordial universe is the start. The universe is the fundamental existing thing.” That’s the stock atheist answer. But it’s wrong — the universe can’t explain contingency completely. Here’s why."

Look at what they did, they ask a question -- which is fine, but then they form an answer as they claim Myers would answer it.  I don't know how Myers would answer it, but even if he gave the answer they claim, within the context of what Myers said, it would still be a perfectly acceptable answer.  The context wasn't 'essential cause chains', what they did was change the context and then spend the rest of the post explaining why Myers, and Evolution, is wrong.

What's funny is the artificial distinction they use to explain 'accident contingency' and 'essential contingency'.  There is nothing in the definition of an contingency that requires the continued existence of the parent contingency.  Here is how they define it:

"Essential causal chains are causes and effects that depend on the continued existence of the entire causal chain to produce an effect."

Does this make any sense to you?  They are trying to create this new concept called 'essential causal chains' and claiming that everything in the chain must continue to exist or the end result cannot exist.  Then they end with:

"So evolution, as a contingent process in nature that contains some essentially ordered series of causes, requires a First Cause that is outside of nature. Of course, that First Cause is what men have called God.

Really?  Other than twisting around words, what have they provided that supports their contention that Evolution requires a first cause?  And even if one is required, why does it have to be outside of nature?  That's the part of their explanation they never seem to support.  The only reason seems to be that they have to have something outside of nature or they will never accept it.

There is no evidence that however life started, it required a first cause to be outside of nature.  Remember it's not a requirement for the Theory of Evolution to explain exactly how life began, only that once it did, it evolved and been evolving ever since.  Yes, word games can make all this sound important, but the reality, all the DI's efforts to insert God into the equation have amounted to nothing.  Now they go a further step and try an tie in the concept of Atheism:

If P.Z. Myers follows his own argument about contingency a bit further, he would see that atheism is inconsistent with the contingency on which evolution necessarily depends."

Is the Theory of Evolution and Atheist theory?  Seriously, what in science addresses the concept of God?  God has always been within the realm of philosophy and metaphysics -- not science.  So, in fact, all of science can be considered atheistic.  Just like all of mathematics, cooking, finance, language . . . it's a pretty long list of all the things that fails to pay homage to a deity.  But does that make them inherently atheistic?

Of course not, but that doesn't stop folks like the DI from making the claim.  It's their belief set that requires it, and that's why they play these sort of 'bait and switch' games.

First, customers are "baited" by merchants advertising products or services at a low price, but when customers visit the store, they discover that the advertised goods either are not available or are not as good as expected, or the customers are pressured by sales people to consider similar, but higher-priced, items ("switching")." (Wikipedia: Bait and Switch)

The DI baited their argument with PZ Myers words, changed the definition and then went on to make their point about evolution and then somehow turned it into a atheism hit piece.  Creative, maybe, but not very well done at all.  Pronouncements like these require more evidence than 'Because I said so!"

"People critical of religion may fear it", Sort of!

In a letter to the editor "People critical of religion may fear it" may have a point, but I do not believe it is the one Joe [the letter-writer] is trying to make.  First off, a few things from his letter:

"My children were taught in public schools that their ancestors were monkeys, then perhaps they evolved all the way back to the ooze in the Nile River. "

He obviously doesn't really understand what evolution is, let alone how it's being taught in the classroom.  But that's pretty typical of theists.  They seem more afraid of something causing them to actually think about their religious beliefs than damn near anything else.  As for morality:

"Hollywood immorality seems to have crept into our society. If we are but evolved animals, any established morality is out the window. "

Is religion a viable source of morality?  I know theists like to make such claims, but when you look at not only the scores of differences between the moral beliefs of the multitude of religions in the world, but also look at many of the things done in the name of a religion!

Yes, some of the ideas of what is considered moral today and what is not may stem from one or more religious beliefs -- but it is not the belief in a particular religion that makes something moral, but societies decision of what is considered moral!  If that was true then theists wouldn't be committing any crimes let alone the most heinous!  How many religious leaders have been found to be much less moral than their own teachings?  How many children have to die from medical neglect due to someone's religious beliefs. No, as we have discussed many times, morality and religion do not go hand-in-hand, as many theists like to delude themselves.  And Joe, your information about Hitler is just plain wrong:

"By the way, Adolf Hitler, of no known religious affiliation, was an angry man who killed thousands of religious people."

Hitler's words often invoked Christianity, for example: (I underlined for emphasis)

"The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality.
Today Christians stand at the head of our country. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit. We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during recent years." (Adolf Hitler from the address he gave after coming to power in Germany (from "My New Order, The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, 1922-1939", Vol. 1, pp. 871-872, Oxford University Press, London, 1942)."

As you can see, Hitler agrees with you about your Christianity being the very basis for morality, don't you feel special -- you have the same moral code as Adolf Hitler!  Yes, if you read any of Hitler's speeches, you will see Hitler invoked Christianity often!  Joe, you said:

"This country is about freedom of, not from, religion. "

Freedom 'of' includes the freedom to not believe -- or else it's not really freedom is it?  Just another form of religious control and oppression.  Joe, I have a question, supposed we did turn the US into a theocracy, which seems to be what you are preaching.  Suppose it didn't pick your particular version of Christianity.  What would you do then?  Freedom of Religion is what should be preventing that, but you aren't really about Freedom of Religion.  Your idea seems to be Freedom of religion, as long as the religion is yours.  That's not freedom!

OK, enough of his letter for the moment.  I would like to talk about fear!  I am not afraid of religion, and every non-theist I know isn't afraid of it.  If there is some deity that I will meet after I die, I will stand by my life!  Instead of trying to use a deity as an excuse, I live my life here and now!  When I make a mistake I pay for it now!  I make amends with people, I have committed no crimes, nor contemplated any, I don't even cheat on my taxes.  And I live my life without the need to beg forgiveness from anyone, let alone your version of a deity.  You, on the other hand, live in fear!

Yes, look at your religion, it's based on fear.  You try and live some aspects of your life by a set of rules handed to you by other men -- in the hopes your deity has the same set of rules.  You refuse to take responsibility for your actions because you regularly ask your deity to forgive your trespasses, instead of getting the forgiveness from the people you have hurt.  You believe because you are scared of some eternal punishment.  If you disagree, tell me how do you preach to non-believers?  Look at this article from the World News Daily, "Will scientists who reject God face greater judgment?".  While the WND isn't great source for news, I see this article as an example of the fear Christians keep trying to play upon.

"Are those who have a science degree and have rejected Christ going to be held more accountable before God based upon Romans 1:20?"

Why could this be the case, because -- according to the author:

"The holder of a science degree has had a high level of exposure to irreducible complexity, information science and special design, clearly illustrating the existence of God and His attributes."

So . . . since you have a science degree, you are more exposed to pseudoscience . . . and if you fail to recognize pseudoscience as God's work, you will be judged by God more harshly than anyone else.  Anyone else see the 'fear' at work.  It's not' believe because it's right', it's not' believe because it's good' . . . no, the message is 'believe or else'.  It's not just being judged more harshly, but your condemnation will be greater because you refuse to agree that pseudoscience is really some deity playing around..

"They spend years, if not a lifetime, being exposed to an unlimited amount of detail of special design, and many still reject it. As a result, will their condemnation be greater? I believe so."

You typically hear things along this line from theists when they mention things like 'going to hell!' . . . I have a question . . . why do they feel they have to threaten to gain adherents?  The first thing I usually hear is not all the good things done in the name of a particular religion, but that if I don't join their particular branch, I will burn for all eternity.  Fear is the marketing message!

If you read the whole WND article, don't you just love the author's analogy at the end.  Eating high cholesterol food isn't bad for you!  How can it be bad for you, it's in the Bible:

"Since her restrictions were completely contrary to what I can eat based upon Scripture, I knew it was her source of information, “man’s wisdom,” that was wrong and not mine."

Scientific evidence has supported for years that saturated fats and high level of cholesterol are bad for your arteries and your heart.  But, this guy treats the Bible as a nutritional textbook!  Even the research he hints at claiming that it's not really bad for you is misleading.  The degree is what has changed, not the unhealthy aspects of such a diet. But it doesn't matter to the author, if anything is based on man's knowledge, it gets immediately dismissed.

Back to the original article and the idea of 'fear', you are afraid to live your life, to take responsibility for your actions, to live without the crutch of an ancient belief set. And you think it's others that are afraid?

There is one thing I fear, it's the damage theists do, all in the name of their religion.  Your homophobia, your intolerance, your willingness to execute your own children through a lack of basic medical care, your efforts to destroy science education in the name of your belief set, your need to pass laws protecting your rights at the expense of the rights of others -- are just a few examples.  Disagree?  How about your own intolerance.  Let me repeat:

"This country is about freedom of, not from, religion. "

You see?  You can't even handle the idea of non-believers, whether they are atheists, agnostics, or apathists.   What you seem to be afraid of is a dissenting point of view.

Technology at an Decidedly Non-Technological Ministry

Maybe it's just my sense of humor, but where in the Bible does it mention Lasers?  Little kennie ham is hawking his latest attraction to bring in contributors. "Ark Encounter Introduces Christmas Light Show":

"Christians and non-Christians alike will enjoy this technologically cutting-edge program,” said Ken Ham, president and CEO of Answers in Genesis, the ministry which created Ark Encounter."

Yes, technology and cutting-edge are words you don't associate with kennie's ministries.  He, and his Hamians, spend most of his time trying to destroy science and science education.  Of course they have no issue with using the technology that was developed by the very science they cannot accept because there isn't a hint of deference to their version of a deity.  Anyone else see how hypocritical that is?

I am sure little kennie will find some rationalization as to how lasers aren't anti-religion, but evolution is.  But that's all that is, a rationalization.  Science does not address issues involving the supernatural, that doesn't make any scientific discipline anti-religious.  The problem here isn't science, but kennie.

You see kennie, like most theists, have a list of things they insist one deity or another did.  It doesn't matter if the action is written in one of their religious tracts or not.  If they claim it, then they defend it, regardless of reality.  They will fight tooth and nail to protect their religious beliefs, even though they have nothing concrete to stand on.

Since lasers don't brush up against on of those beliefs, it's OK to use them, but evolution, geology, cosmology all brush up against their creation stories and that scares them.  I mean if they have to accept that maybe their deity didn't create everything in 144 hours, then what other parts of their 'holy' books are not real?  Just because there is no evidence of it, doesn't stop them from protecting their beliefs, no matter how far they have to stretch their minds to come up with am explanation that allows them to not actually think.

I hate to break the news them . . . actually that's not true, I enjoy saying things like this:  "The theories behind lasers were developed using the same scientific methodology that was used in the Theory of Evolution!"  I actually enjoy pointing out such hypocrisies.  I know hard-core believers won't accept anything I say, but when I see some of the less-hardcore react to some of the things I -- and many others -- have said, I still have hope.  Of course my laughter when I get told I am going to burn in Hell really pisses them off!

So, in the meantime enjoy the fact that little kennie uses the very science he denigrates to push his messages of homophobia, divisiveness, fear, and hatred.

Why The Earth May Not Be Round!

We are not advocating teaching the Earth is Flat, we are advocating to expand science education by teaching the controversy over why the Earth may not be round.  Sound familiar?

The official (cough, cough) policy of the Discovery Institute (DI) of not advocating the teaching of Intelligent Design (ID) is pure BS.  If it were true then they would not be writing lesson plans, politicking politicians and student groups, nor supporting legislation designed to weaken real science education, among other tactics and strategies.  What they claim to be advocating is expanding science education by teaching the controversy over Evolution. They re-iterated this in a recent post addressed to Utah (Dear Utah: Teach About the Scientific Controversy Over Evolution, Not About Intelligent Design)

I have a question, does teaching this 'controversy' really expand science education?  It would be one thing if there really was a scientific controversy over Evolution, but since the only controversy is an artificial one, a culturally-contrived controversy over whether or not religious beliefs should be taught instead of actual science -- is this really an expansion?

What this does is weaken science education, and this was found to be true during the Dover Trial.  Imagine a science teacher who covers the scientific theory of evolution, and then is required to introduce religious arguments against it -- arguments without any factual support or evidence.  What would be the outcome?  The Dover Decision made that pretty clear -- confused students because of a weakened science education.  Teaching religion as if it was science is a bad idea because  . . . well for one reason, it doesn't work.

Buildings are not held up by prayer, cars do not run because of the wishes of a capricious deity, medicines do not work because of wishful thinking.  They work because of the science and applications of that science in architecture,  engineering, and medicine.

I have to argue about one statement they made:

"In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can’t be questioned."

Is Evolution really taught as dogma and not open to any scrutiny?  That's what this statement implies.  So my next question is whether or not it is taught dogmatically.  So what evidence would support that?

• Textbooks covered it as dogma
• No changes to Evolutionary Theory since it's inception
• An increasing number of scientists/science group advocating a non-religious alternative

First up textbooks:
However, I have look at a number of textbooks, including my own, my daughters', and my granddaughter's and there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that.  In my last visit to a local college library (Wright State University), I looked up several biology texts and also found it taught as a scientific theory and not dogmatic at all.
-
There is one point that I do keep hearing from creationists or varying stripes as evidence for this dogmatic approach -- evolution being explained as a fact and not a theory, but that is more word play than anything else.  Gravity is a fact -- hold something out at arms length and drop it, it falls -- only please don't do this with an iPhone, they seem to be more disaster prone than others (as my granddaughter can attest).  The fall of an object is a fact, and we call that fact Gravity.  Gravity is also a theory, it is the explanation of why things fall as they do.

Do you see the difference?  We use the same term to describe both the fact and the explanation.  We do the same thing in many areas of science, Light is a fact, the Theory of Light is the explanation.  Germs are a fact, Germ Theory is the explanation.  Evolution is a fact, the Theory of Evolution is the explanation.  Calling Evolution a fact isn't dogmatic, but contextual use of the word.  When you look at the evidence for life changing over time, you see the fact of evolution.  When you see the genetic differences and similarities between organisms, you see the fact of Evolution.  What you want to understand how those facts occurred, you look at Evolutionary Theory.

OK, how about whether or not evolutionary theory is open to scrutiny:

Has the Theory of Evolution changed and is it still changing?  The answer is 'hell yes!'  Since Darwin's day there have been many changes.  There have literally been thousands of scientists questioning all or part of Evolutionary theory on a daily basis and coming up with more and better explanations.  That's how science works.

If scientists thought Evolution was not open to scrutiny, would any of this come to pass?  There would be very few, if any, scientists working on it.  There would be very few changes, again if any.  Major changes would be unheard up.  Things like Punctuated Equilibrium, Genetics, Genetic Drift, and many others wouldn't possibly exist if Evolution was some untouchable sacred cow.

The reason they do exist, and new ideas and theories that will come in the future, is because science treats little as untouchable.  We've learned the lessons of the past that when ideas are considered inviolate, we cannot ignore evidence that appears to violate them.  Ignoring evidence is not how science advances. We learn by asking questions and finding answers, and when those answers don't match current theories, we keep going and figure out why, then adjust the theories with the new knowledge.

The reason I think folks like the DI keep making this 'dogmatic' argument is mainly because their failure to formulate and actual scientific theory that includes their religious beliefs.  Several years ago even the daddy rabbit of ID, Philip Johnson, even admitted it:

"I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world." (Berkeley Science Review, Spring 2006, retrieved from Wikiquote)

That's why they make this argument, not because they really think it's being taught dogmatically, but because they have not made any headway in an actual opposing scientific theory.  Without their cries of 'dogmatisim', they would have little else to say.  So the real question is not whether or not Evolution is taught dogmatically, but why haven't you, DI, been able to formulate a scientific theory that can compete with Evolution?  The Dover Decision included this little gem on why they argue the controversy instead of focusing on actual science:

"ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard"

One last thing, are there non-religious alternatives to Evolutionary Theory?
If there are, no one seems to be talking about them, anywhere.  The only alternatives that people hear about are Creationism and it's little brother Intelligent Design.  I know the DI likes to claim ID is not religious, but no one seems to believe them.  Their own actions, strategy documents, even the audience for their marketing materials all prove that ID is nothing more than re-packaged Creationism.  One last quote, and it's from the Dover Decision:

"The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism."

And that is why Intelligent Design will remain in the same section of the bookstore where religion, physic powers, numerology, and tarot cards are sold.  You can get your 'Flat Earth' conspiracy books there as well.  It should also be the reason why states, including Utah, should pass real science standards which focus on science and not religious beliefs.

So You Want To Know What's Wrong With Religion? (7)

Caught this little gem from the Sensuous Curmudgeon, one of the blogs I read quite religiously (pun intended), "Creation alone!", by an Aaron Swartzentruber.  It's hilarious!  Here is his opening:

"Athiests or evolutionists who flat out reject God and Creation is one thing, God have mercy on them and open their blind eyes, but what is worse yet is that there are now many “professing Christians” who are trying to mingle evolution with creation."

Aside from misspelling 'Atheist', I started immediately wondering about his justification for assuming anyone who agree with evolution is an atheist or all atheists agree with evolution, but the rest of the opening made me realize his real target are the multitude of Christians who understand and support real science and real science education.

This guy is setting himself up as the one who gets to decide who is a 'real' Christian and who is not.  Doesn't he know little kennie ham keeps trying for that job himself.  Maybe we will get a pseudo-Christian cage match!  I guess the over 13,900 signatures of Christian Clergy supporting the science of evolution and the teaching of such science to our child just burns his ass!

The rest of his letter is a mix of Bible quotes with him interspersing his own take on what it all means.  Did you ever heard the phrase "There are liars, damned liars, and statisticians"?  What it means is that when you take a set of data, you can often twist it to mean whatever you want it to mean.  Religion is like that as well.  Let's jumble a bunch of Biblical reference, ignore the ones we don't like and force them into a narrow viewpoint that we demand everyone follow.  So how many religions are there that do that and conflict with each other over and over again?  How about all of them!  Even those who use the same starting point, like the Bible.

His final paragraph starts with this line:

"If you are one of those who are mingling evolution with creation, you are doing the Devil’s work and I would be doing you, and God, a disservice to tell you otherwise"

Obviously he doesn't see anyone who doesn't agree with his incredibly narrow viewpoint to be an actual Christian (have to mention again the over 13,900 Christian clergy who disagree with Aaron).  Of course if you look at the claims of the Bible of what Jesus taught, Aaron here wouldn't be a real Christian either.  But he's managed to convince himself that he's doing us all a favor by telling us this.

No, he's not doing me any favors because I don't share his narrow views and I will never share his narrow views!  Apparently the majority of the world doesn't share it either!  But do you think he would listen to anything resembling an opposing view!  Yea, neither do I!

Imaginative . . . sort of

Just recently one of the DI's Senior Fellows referred to Evolution as:

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

I don't recall which talking head said that, we discussed it here.  I would like to introduce you to something that fits that description considerably better. In this post, also from the DI, "Intelligent Design Changes Everything, Thanks to You!".  What post is about is a plea for donations, but the 'loose collection of narratives' is how they try and sell this idea of contributing to the mis-education of America.

They create an imaginary family visiting a museum:

"Imagine taking your family to a museum where you are transported back to prehistoric times. In every direction are recreations of creatures you’ve only seen in books. Unfortunately, in every direction there are placards informing your family that fossil succession, biogeography, homology, and natural selection prove that evolution is responsible for these amazing creatures and their modern day counterparts…including you."

This family just happened to run into Stephen C. Meyer, one of the DI senior guys and have an imaginary conversation:

"He tells you that the sudden appearance of the Cambrian creatures cannot be explained by Darwinian evolution. Rather, the reams of information needed to create these novel life forms point to intelligent design. You’ve never heard of this theory before, but his explanation makes total sense."

Here's where things take an even more imaginary turn, the family thinks that Meyer's imaginative stories, stories that have been shown to be false and the product of poor scholarship, makes total sense? That's the unbelievable part.  They are surrounded by museum artifacts, items supporting the evidence of evolution and biology -- items that are so cavalierly dismissed by Meyer.

No one at the DI seems to think it might be a little weird having a stranger preach to you something without a shred of evidence and then they claim it 'makes total sense'. While they seem to want us to believe this really happened to a family at the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Paleontology in Drumheller, Alberta.  I have serious doubts.  Aside from rarely trusting anything the DI talking heads like to say, I would find this much more credible if it happened at the Creation pseudo-museum in Kentucky.  At a real museum, it's much harder to believe.

They further compound the story by having them run into another DI talking head.  Talk about stretching credibility.  This time they claim that the family's son had his picture taken with Meyer.  Sure, that's just the kind of thing you do with strangers at museums, let your child get his picture taken with a complete stranger who just finished preaching his religion to you.

But even if this did happen, I bet Stephen failed to mention a few things, like:

• How his book has been completely dismissed by actual Paleontologists due to his failure to actually understand or reference any real paleontology.
• How there is no debate about Evolution within the scientific community, only a cultural debate driven by religious beliefs.
• How a US Federal Court ruled Intelligent Design was Creationism re-labeled, and that the  judge who made that ruling was a Conservative  by a Republican President. 
• How, even after opening their own lab, they have failed to produce any evidential support for their ideas.
• How, even after opening their own publishing group, have failed to gain any traction in academic circles -- and their response to that is claiming a centuries-long, multi-cultural and multi-national conspiracy against them as the reason for their failure.
• How his organization continually uses tactics like lying, quote-mining, re-defining real science in order to keep financial support coming in.

No, I doubt Stephen would have mentioned any of that.  No, he told them a very loose and unsupported narrative that appealed their their religious sensibilities and then claimed they thought it was a life changing experience.

So just what is life changing about Meyer and his claims?  To date, what, if any, life changes have come about due to Intelligent Design?  Are there any scientific advances based on it?  Are there any new actual scientific theories because of it?  Has anyone invented anything that uses it?  Has a single medical treatment or medicine been developed based on their pseudo-scientific religion?  There is nothing life changing about ID, other than your wallet being a bit slimmer if you cough up a donation.

If it had been my family, I would have been laughing at Meyer and would have kept him away from my children.  Even if he had managed to corner them, I would enjoy watching one of my daughters take him down with a look of either sheer incredulity or significant laughter.  Even better to see the face of one of my nieces, who is majoring in Biology, as she cuts him off a the knees.  I don't know of a family member who studied paleontology, so it might not have been a clean sweep.

Meyer might have tried to engage in a debate, but that would be a waste of time.  DI's folks don't debate, they pontificate and obfuscate, they don't seriously engage in a debate.  They prefer to tell you both sides of the cultural debate, of course heavily bent in one direction while build strawmen out of science for the express purpose of knocking them down and claiming a victory.

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?

'Weeding Out' Does Not Mean Actual Weeds -- Unless You Work For the Discovery Institute

As usual, the Discovery Institute can't seem to keep their stories straight.  Check out: "On Controversial Science, Skepticism Is Now “Social Deviance,” Skeptics Are “Weeds”"  That isn't what the 'offending' article said, but it did say we need to 'weed out' people who would fill roles in the wrong way.  Here's the quote the DI used:

"Requiring [mandatory evolution training] it though would, for one, provide teachers “with more confidence to teach evolution forthrightly,” they write, “even in communities where public opinion is sympathetic to creationism”; and two, it would help weed out creationists who want to teach high school biology by either converting them or encouraging them to “pursue other careers.”"

The DI's talking head, davey 'klingy' klinghoffer, responds with:

"Look, I wouldn’t want my kids taught creationism either, but the idea of casting human beings as “weeds” has an unhappy history."

Where does the first quote cast anyone as a weed?  The phrase 'weed out' does not do that!  It's an expression, and if klingy was being honest he would recognize it as such.  Weeding out, as defined by Merriam-Webster is:

": to remove (people or things that are not wanted) from a group.  'They will review the applications to weed out the less qualified candidates.' "

I 'weed out' things all the time.

• Not too long ago it was a set of resumes, weeding out the ones who didn't have the required qualifications.  Sounds unfair, but when you have 100 resumes for 1 position, and most do not have any of the mandatory qualifications, you have to have some way of filtering through them because 100 interviews would be unwieldy.  Plus, why would you interview someone without a single qualification for a job?
• I also 'weeded out' companies several years ago when I was looking for a new job.  Does that mean the other companies who made me an offer were weeds?  No, just not the best fit for me at that time.  Now the ones who didn't make me an offer . . . oh never mind :-), just teasing.
•  In addition I 'weeded out' software application frameworks when we were looking for one for a new application.  There are plenty of frameworks, but only a few were serious contenders.  How much time were we supposed to waste on frameworks that can't possibly meet our needs?

Somehow I managed to do all that 'weeding out' without characterizing a single person, company, or product as a 'weed' -- something apparently beyond klingy's abilities.  So if I was looking for someone who could differentiate between an expression and a literal label, I guess I could weed out klingy!

Back to the example actually mentioned in the first quote and not klingy trying to drag us into the weeds of obfuscation, is the very idea of a Creationist teaching biology.  It's probably a bad idea if, and only if, the teacher would insist on teaching religion instead of actual biology.  Being a Creationist doesn't make you unable to do a job, but refusing to actually do the job certainly makes you unwilling to do the job and you should be held accountable -- as Abraham, Coppedge, and Freshwater, among others, found out.

Just because the article used the term 'weeding out' doesn't mean people who are skeptical of evolution are weeds.  The DI even had to stretch the story by a quote from 1924 to try and make their case.  As usual, they are quote-mining a dead horse.  There have been a number of 'weed' quotes attributed to Margaret Sanger, and according to Snopes.com, nearly all of them are crap.  They found that she may have used the term, but metaphorically, not literally.  I noticed he didn't complain that Sanger may have called American Youth 'flowers'?  Yes, Sanger was a controversial figure in her day, even today.  But this little maybe 'quote' is just another tactic, trying to tie actual science to someone controversial.  You might have noticed that klingy also brought in the Nazi's  . . . again.  Don't they get tired of this sort of nonsense?  Anyone else want to hazard a guess why no one takes klingy, or the Discovery Institute, seriously?  One reason might be writings like this.

But, as usual, the DI misses the point and tried to spin it into something it's not.  Skepticism and Denial-ism are two separate things.  People who are skeptical question, consider, and usually think about the subject at hand.  Deniers deny, regardless of the evidence in front of them.

A couple of year back, we discussed 'skepticism' before in "Skeptics vs Deniers, is there a difference?" in response to the NY Times article where they stopped using the term 'climate skeptic' and started using 'climate deniers' and we determined there is a difference, and it's not a subtle one.  A skeptic will be convinced when faced with the actual evidence of whatever they are skeptical about.  A denier will never be convinced, no matter what evidence is placed before them and if they have to go look for themselves, you know they will rarely make the effort.  It's easier to deny than face the possibility you are wrong.  You see it in anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, and most certainly in evolution deniers.

For example, I was skeptical that 'sushi' will be something good to eat, until I actually tried a pretty wide variety of sushi -- Thanks Cathy -- and came to the conclusion I didn't like it.  The vinegar-tasting rice needed something to cut that taste, plus the texture of most raw seafood wasn't to my liking.  While the California Roll wasn't bad, if we go to any restaurants that offer sushi, I make sure it has a wider menu than just sushi or sashimi.  I was a skeptic, now I am simply not a fan.  Denial-ism doesn't work that way.

A denier, most likely, wouldn't have given sushi a try -- even if they had, they would come out of the place not being skeptical, but actively not wanting other people to have a chance to even try it.  A denier wants to make the decision for everyone!  Look at anti-vaxxers whose refusal to allow their kids to be vaccinated while ignoring the risk to hurting other children!  Evidence of the success of vaccinations means nothing to a vaccination denier.

Referring to a denier as a 'social deviant', especially within the context the term was used is entirely appropriate.  It takes an Intelligent Design proponent to cast such aspersions as comparing them to prostitute and other criminals.  But let's look at the whole Wikipedia quote:

"Social deviants"—prostitutes, vagrants, alcoholics, drug addicts, open dissidents, pacifists, draft resisters and common criminals—were also imprisoned in concentration camps. The common criminals frequently became Kapos, inmate guards of fellow prisoners."

Did klingy forget to mention this quote was at the very end of the Wikipedia page on Holocaust Victims?  Of course not, that wouldn't play well.  This example of 'social deviants' is not a denier of scientific consensus, but anyone the Nazi's didn't like as an afterthought more than anyone else.  Only an intelligent design proponent would try and equate this to science denial.

Look at the Discovery Institute, they have gone well past the idea of skepticism, they are active science deniers of the highest order.  Not only do they deny the evidence supporting real science, but they keep trying to pretend they are scientists and want to insert their religious beliefs into the science classroom.  Failing that, their most current tactic is to offer political protection to teachers who do manage to teach their religious beliefs instead of the actual science they are supposed to be teaching.  The DI is not just skeptical of evolution, they deny it over and over again while trying to hide their religious agenda.

Why is this important?  Simple, skepticism can be addressed by actually examining the evidence.  Once you face the evidence, further refusals put you in denial, and denial-ism is dangerous.  Not only are deniers of science seeking political protection for their own views, their views can cause actual harm.  The most common example are the anti-vaxxers.  Evidence, again, shows over and over again that failing to have your children vaccinated results in increasing cases of preventable diseases -- occurring not just in the un-vaccinated children, but the vaccinated who interact with them.  Vaccinated children are less likely to develop the disease, but vaccination is not immunity.

One of my favorite bloggers, and biology teachers, Allison Campbell, wrote up this just recently: "1896, and the consequences of refusing the smallpox vaccine".  It's a prime example of dealing with skeptics, deniers won't change their mind, even if they bother to read it.  They already have all the answers they need, regardless of the human consequences.  Like all deniers, the DI doesn't care about the human consequences, as long as their religion wins the day.

Denials of evolution impact the environment, medicines, and medical treatments -- all well supported by the science of evolution!  Climate denial has resulted in a significant delay of examining possible methods for dealing with a potentially catastrophic problem -- one supported by all the evidence, unless your research is funding by an oil company.  Tobacco deniers caused million of dollars in medical costs, not to mention deaths, due to denying the dangers of tobacco for decades.  Gasoline lead-additive deniers also cost countless dollars in medical costs and deaths, even if we didn't call them deniers over the 40 year fight to get the lead out!  Science denial kills real people, not nearly as much as religion has over the centuries, but that's another discussion the DI keeps trying to avoid.

Skepticism is a rational response to validate the information before adopting it, but once you have been presented with the information, you are no longer a skeptic if you continue to argue against it, you are a denier, and your actions end up affecting much more than yourself.  Education is the key to dealing with skeptics, I'm not sure what the best way to deal with deniers may be, but, if history is any example, eventually deniers as a group discover how wrong they have been.  Oh, there will always be a few whining that cigarettes aren't harmful and lead in gasoline doesn't hurt anyone, but, for the most part, they get relegated to the crackpot status, like flat-earthers.  One day we will be able to look back and laugh even harder at folks like klingy.  In the meantime, I'll just laugh my normal laugh when I see he's made another post trying to muddy the waters.

BTW, klingy, 'muddy the waters' is another expression, you might look it up.  I haven't actually been casting dirt in water and stirring it up.  

When Does Opinion Trump Evidence?

Several researchers used the word 'perfect' in their paper "Perfect chemomechanical coupling of FoF1-ATP synthase" and you know what that means to the Discovery Institute (DI), here is the DI's last paragraph on the topic:

"If you can think of any machine in your experience that is perfect yet flexible, it probably did not come about through blind, aimless natural processes. Let’s stop allowing Darwinians to get away, unchallenged, with saying they “have evolved” to perfection." (Evolution 'news' and Views: Molecular Machines Reach Perfection)

Because the researchers have shown a transfer of energy without loss and used the word 'perfect', that should immediately discount Evolution.  Now, what evidence does the Discovery Institute offer to discount the possibility of this molecular construct having evolved?  None what-so-ever!  What they are offering is their opinion, nothing more.

You see, whenever anyone doing real science offers results of any kind, the Discovery Institute tries to take it and either casts it as support for Intelligent Design or a negative against Evolution -- or both -- but they keep missing a key point, evidence.  Where do the researchers, not the DI talking heads, but the researchers discount evolution?  They don't!  In fact, did the study include how such a system came about?  It doesn't look like it.  But the DI takes the abstract for a spin and lo-and-behold it supports an anti-evolution argument.  Imagine that?  When all you have is a nail, everything looks like a hammer!

Yes, the energy transfer in this example appears 'perfect', that is 'without loss', but nothing in the research discounts evolution.  Look at the footnotes, look at the references and tell me where evolution is discounted.  Don't look in the 'minds' of the DI talking heads because they discount evolution as their default position.  It doesn't matter what they are looking at, it discounts evolution!  Their perspective is 'We don't agree with evolution because of our religion, therefore evolution can't possibly explain anything -- and someday, God willing [pun intended] we will prove it!'

Now, new question, an odds question.  What are the odds of this specific molecular construct not having evolved?  I would say the odds are pretty low.  No, I am not going to bore you with a nonsensical calculation (that's Dembski's job), but I ask that you look at the evidence.  Has anything stayed exactly the same?  Has any current molecular construct been found to have not evolved?  Look at Behe's 'Darwin's Black Box' where he detailed his opinion on a number of biological constructs and claimed they could not have evolved . . . and yet when faced with over 50 papers describing the evolution of those constructs (during the Dover Trial), papers he had not reviewed, he said they were not enough.  The odds of this specific construct not having evolved seem pretty minuscule.

Things are always evolving, changing.  While some organisms haven't done a great deal of changing, there is still evolution in their past right through to the present.  There is absolutely nothing that says they will not evolve as time goes on, just like there is nothing that says humans will not evolve.

One common theme in Creationist circles are examples like the Alligator and how it hasn't evolved in millions of years . . . that is those Creationists who buy into the Old Earth.  The problem is they think too small.  If Alligators didn't evolve, where did Crocodiles come from?  They really need to do their homework a little better.  All they have done here is insert their opinion as if it is a conclusion, all designed [another intended pun] to cast doubt of evolution -- without a single bit of evidence supporting their doubt.  I recently read the term "Merchants of Doubt", which seems extremely applicable.

So if what the DI says is true, then these molecular constructs should stop evolving -- yet once again the evidence is stacked against them.  There isn't anything that we know of that has not evolved nor that does not have the potential to continue evolving, no matter how 'perfect' is may appear to us today.  The best the DI has is things that an evolutionary path hasn't been described . . . yet.  And they get upset when they get reminded that they are nothing but a re-statement of the old god-of-the-gaps argument.

Intelligent Design Summed Up in One Line

A quickie little post today from the Discovery Institute's little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer: "Stenophlebia amphitrite, a Stunningly Gorgeous Dragonfly from the Upper Jurassic":

"When you see something like that, a creature that is so transparently a work of art, how in the world do you jump to evolutionary explanations dependent exclusively on blind churning?"

What he is talking about is a fossil dragonfly, and to be honest, it is gorgeous.  Take a look:

Yes, that's terrific, but is this all you need to toss away real science and climb on one of the multitude of religions?  I don't think so.

When I read something like this, it simply shows me not only how little the talking heads from the DI know about actual evolutionary theory, but how insistent they are that everyone should also know even less than they do.  I have a few issues:

1. The world's biologists didn't 'jump' to anything.  Questions about a deity doing this stuff have been around since the first person made such a claim.  It took decades, if not centuries, to formulate explanations that actually meets the evidence.  It wasn't a 'jump'.  Darwin didn't wake up one day and say 'Eureka, God is Dead!', as much as you like to portray him having done so.
2. Where in evolutionary theory is 'blind churning'?  That's a strawman explanation of evolution the DI would like everyone to believe.  It goes with the 'tornado in the junkyard' and many other discredited analogies of evolutionary theory.
3. 'Work of art'?  So, opinion is now replacing facts?  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, right?  It is a gorgeous fossil of a creature that evolved a long time ago and whose descendants will soon be appearing in my neighborhood, but calling it 'art' in no way negates the evolution behind it.

Fossils such as this don't make people turn away from real science, I believe it supports it.  Look at all the evidence of paleontology, it's one of the areas of study that had people questioning religious explanations well before Darwin.  Look at the discoveries, read about how people were looking for answers as to when did those discoveries live, why have they disappeared, why are they so similar to many modern forms.  These are just a few of the questions that tarted with fossil discoveries and has grown into the discipline of Paleontology.

Look at the evidence linking current forms with those of the past.  Do we have a perfect line from one to another, no we do not, scientists readily admit that.  But each new find changes how we look at the past.  We are learning new things all the time, it's exciting!  Nothing we have learned has negated the overarching theory of Evolution, nothing!

The Discovery Institute would like you to join their religion.  Don't think, just appreciate the beauty but don't look any deeper.  God forbid [pun intended] you engage your brain and think about where this fossil came from, when it lived, how it might be related to current forms.  It seems to the DI that thinking will reduce your appreciation for the beauty of the fossil itself.  They can't possibly imagine someone can find something so beautiful and not fall on their knees to pay homage to one deity or another.  

Well, they are wrong . . . but what else it new!

And The Whining and Spinning About Texas Is On!

Now that the March for Science is over, the Discovery Institute (DI) Talking Heads are turning to other things, including Texas.  As I said just a few days ago:

"I'm sure the whining will come eventually, after all the Dover Trial was over 12 years ago and they are still trying to spin it! Who knows, they might be spinning things a different way, like this guy:
Don McLeroy . . . yes, that 'John Donald McLeroy', the conservative dentist, former member and former president of the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) . . . is claiming the changes are a 'victory for science'." (Not as Much Whining As Expected, Maybe a Different Tactic)

Yes, like Don, they are trying to spin it as a win for themselves in this post "Despite Reports to the Contrary, Texas Preserves Language Calling for Critical Analysis of Evolution"  While I will admit it wasn't a complete victory for Science, you really can't call it a win for them.  The amount of time and energy they spent to first get Texas to approve the wording the standards in the first place and then the complaining about what happens to their version of science education if those phrases are removed . . . makes it hard to accept that they consider any re-wording, let alone the removal of many of the key phrases that real scientists and actual science teachers objected too, any form of a victory, especially re-wording that makes it easier for science teachers to teach science without having to bring in pseudo-science just for the sake of 'analyzing and evaluating all side' of one specific theory -- but we are talking about the DI here and spin is what they do best.

The original phrasing, for all the marketing by the DI, had one purpose -- the deliberate undermining of science education.  Don't agree, well from my point of view this whole critical analysis thing reminds me somewhat of some of the things that happened in Dover PA over a decade ago.  What I am talking about was the requirement to read a statement in biology classes.  Remember the statement?

"The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.
As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments." (Wikipedia: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District)

What the statement does, in a nutshell, is tell students that all of science is just a collection of guesses and that religious guesses are just as good as scientific guesses.  Look at the words, before a theory is taught, this statement makes it sound as if a theory is just that, a guess.  The first paragraph mainly says that they are going to learn evolutionary theory because the State mandates it, not because it has any validity.  It denigrates each and every scientific theory out there and then inserts Intelligent Design (ID), unsupported -- unexplained -- never tested -- never even used -- ID as an alternative, an alternative explanation that isn't even a scientific theory.  Don't believe me, you might try reading the Dover Trial Decision for yourself.  It's boring a loaded with legalese, but it gets the point across.

When the biology teachers refused to read the statement, a school administrator read the statement to students.  Seriously, what part of that statement didn't undermine the science students were going to be taught.  While it's loaded with innocuous sounding phrases, the reality is it was contrasting real science with imaginary pseudo-science to an audience ill-equipped to understand the difference.

That's what the wording did, it placed an unreasonable expectation on an audience ill-equipped to handle it. How do you 'analyze and evaluate' without the tools and knowledge needed to do so? By definition Analysis is:

"a detailed examination of anything complex in order to understand its nature or to determine its essential features : a thorough study" (Merriam-Webster: Analysis)

From the science standpoint, think of the amount of time an examination of this sort would take.  To properly 'analyze' evolution would take more time and other resources than any school system can afford.  This level of detail is beyond the scope of any high school not just because of the subject, but the requirements of performing an analysis.  What other subject matter requires an 'analysis'?  None!  Therefor the tools and skills to do such an analysis do not exist in the normal high school curriculum.

The 'all sides' was the part of the Creationist wording that was least able to be defended.  What 'sides' exist within science?  Intelligent Design (ID) is a religious concept and is not, has never been, nor is anticipated ever being science.  so basically without using the phrase 'Creationism' or Intelligent Design', the 'all sides' is an opening to bring those religious ideas into the classroom.  I know the DI will disagree and point to language that says it prohibits religious alternatives -- but when you start looking at the 'sides' what alternative sides to science are there?  ID isn't science, after all, where is the science they have been promising for decades?  Religious books and articles, presentations to religious audiences, and covert declarations as to the identity of their intelligent designer certainly haven't helped them make their case.

Of course an 'analysis' of the DI's pet 'alternative' to evolution would take considerably less time, because there is very little to analyze.  No scientific experiments to replicate, no peer-reviewed papers (real peer review, not the DI's pseudo-peer review), nothing but religious books and articles boiling down to whether or not you want to pretend a Deity created everything around us.  Such an analysis would be fairly quick and  . . . well . . . it has been done a number of times and each time to the detriment of its proponents.  Science has rejected Intelligent Design so many times that its proponents have to try tactics such as these word games because their pet 'theory' cannot stand the light of day.

This was the first whine I saw, they've already put up two more and I am sure more are on the way.  

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?

Noticed Something New on EnV

The Discovery Institute has re-designed their 'Evolution news and Views' website.  One of the things they did was categorize their posts.  Here's the first page:

I know it's small, but the part I wanted you to see isn't the small print, but the category headings.  On this page there are three different headings "EVOLUTION", "CULTURE & ETHICS", and "INTELLIGENT DESIGN".  What I found the most interesting is confirmation of a common critique about Intelligent Design (ID) and it's proponents, the Discovery Institute (DI) in particular.  Rather than supporting their own ideas, they spend much more time tearing down existing ideas rather than offering anything viable in its place.  Just look at this page, six posts on Evolution and only one on ID.  If you think that's unusual, here are the next two pages:

Nine more on Evolution and and only one more on ID.  So just the ratio on the first three pages is 15 to 2.  For fun I went through the next several pages and it held true, on every page there were not just more posts attacking Evolution than ID, but it was 3, 4, 5, even 6 times as many.  On some pages there were absolutely no posts concerning ID, just more Evolution bashing than anything else.  Yes, I am talking about Evolution bashing.  The various talking heads, usually folks like little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer or Sara Chafee, quote-mine from some actual scientific paper and place an ID spin on it.  However, does the DI do any actual scientific work to support their opinions?  No, never.  It's just spin plain and simple.

What does this tell you?  Well, it's something that has been said often about ID.  That instead of offering a viable alternative, they spend more of their marketing muscle trying to convince people Evolution isn't the answer than trying to convince people on ID being an answer, let only the answer.  Why is that?

An example I have used over the years is a simple analogy, if you can convince people that 1 + 1 does not equal 2, then you stand a better chance of telling them the answer is 3.  You see, to me, the best action would not be trying to tear down 1+1=2, but coming up with the evidence than 1+1=3.  But for some reason the DI seems unable or unwilling to do this.  So instead of coming up with evidence that 1+1=3, they spend 87+% of their time trying to convince people that 1+1 does not equal 2, but they do so without any evidence at all.  Am I making any sense?  My problem with this approach is that even by some incredible leap of the imagination they manage to convince people that 1+1 does not equal 2, they still have a long road ahead of them to convince then it equals 3.

That's what I have seen for years, and these categories reinforce it.  It's apparent that the DI has little to offer in the way of actual science, so they spend most of their resources in trying to tear down real science.  Since they cannot hope to replace Evolution  with ID on its merits, they are more than happy to try and tear it down assuming that their pseudo-science will be the only potential replacement.  In my opinion their failure at providing an actual replacement will continue to haunt them.  They might win an occasional political battle, but when it comes to actual usable science, they will continue to founder.

The reason O see that is simple.  Look at history.  At one time Creationism formed the basis for most of our education, especially in the sciences.  Why did that point of view get replaced?  Simple, it didn't work.  Seriously, as we learned more and more about the world around us, the invocation of a Deity just didn't add anything to the equation, in fact it did more damage than good.  I bet and ancient Norse complained when his various Gods as explanations for the world for alternatives that actually fit the evidence.  I doubt he complained as loudly as some of the DI's folks.  But if you want to replace an actual scientific theory, you have to come up with something as good or better.  So far Creationism in all it's forms, including it's most recent incarnation Intelligent Design, have failed to do anything at all.

The amount of resources the DI has spent trying to tear down actual science supports the fact that ID never will amount to much of anything.  After all, no one seems to be doing much to support it.  I guess it's easier to tear at something than build up something else, especially if you want to build without a foundation.

If You Don't Know It All, Then You Don't Know Anything . . . Really?

A recent post from the Discovery Institute (DI) repeats a common theme.  It goes something like this, if you don't know something to the absolute 100%, then you really don't know anything at all.  This is a common whine that Creationists like to use every now and then.  They complain that scientific knowledge might change as we learn new things and they, of course, parade that as some sort of weakness.  The reality is that is one of science's strengths, the ability to reformulate ideas and theories as we learn more and more.  As I have said before, Darwin would barely recognize the details of the current Theory of Evolution, although he would recognize how much of his ideas remain and have been expanded upon.  Newton would probably not recognize the current Theory of Gravity, but he would certainly recognize the underpinnings.

Little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer took aim at something else, 'matter' -- as in the stuff that makes up all the other stuff.  His post "Astrophysicist Adam Frank: Materialism’s Fatal Flaw Is…Matter".  You can read it for yourself, but it's mostly a cut and paste from an essay from the astrophysicist.  klingy explains his basic whine with this:

"It seems that, when we’re confronted with theories of origins that dogmatically insist on an active role for matter and material forces alone, a reasonable question before going any further is: Define matter. What is it? If Darwinists can’t answer that one, then I’m not sure by what right they command our agreement to any of the rest of their theory."

First off, 'dogmatic' is a lie.  Science has shown over and over again the evidence supporting matter and material forces play in scientific theories.  It would be dogmatic is such evidence didn't exist, but since it does, a 'dogmatic instistance' does not apply.  Can klingy say the same thing about Intelligent Design?  Care to show any actual evidence?  I didn't think so.  To continue . . .

Before going into the rest of his particular whine, I would like to remind you of something very basic.  Whether you realize it or not, we do not know all there is to know about anything, including the scientific theories explaining such things as the Atom, Gravity, Aerodynamics, Thermodynamics, Germs, Disease . . . but the real question is "So what?"  

Without a complete understanding, at least to the degree folks like klingy and the other Discoveroids seem to want, we have made pretty solid use of these theories.  We fly aircraft, went to the Moon, have cured and treated an incredible number of diseases and prevented even more with our, admittedly, less than perfect understanding of germs and biology.  We create electricity with that limited knowledge of what it is and even command light appear and disappear without fully understanding if it is a particle or a wave.  How are we able to do all this?  It's called science, something klingy and his pals really wish never came into being.  He's apparently more comfortable with a Deity than any understanding, even a partial understanding.

What's most personally annoying is that understanding science doesn't prevent you from believing in one deity or another, but it does get in the way when you try and rationalize your belief.  Think about it, science isn't making any claims against a deity, but what it is doing is showing how the many claims about what a deity did or did not do  . . . claims made by man . . . are crap.  There is very little difference between an ancient Greek citing Apollo when looking at the Sun and klingy making claims for his 'designer', is there?

So in answer to his asinine question, we do not know everything there is to know about matter.  But since when would something like that stop us from using it, exploring about it, and even codifying how it works? We know a great deal about matter, if we didn't, then building anything would be impossible. Look at Materials Science and the incredible materials they have created, everything from quark-gluon plasma to Aerographite, which, if you have never heard of them, are both the most and least dense man-made materials created so far.  I think Aerographite weighs in at 0.2 grams per cubic meter.  For a reference  - steel is 8,000 kilograms per cubic meter and a cubic centimeter of quark-gluon plasma would weigh 40 billion tons -- which is denser than a neutron star, for all you science and science fiction buffs.

Cool stuff, huh?  Not bad for not being able to define something to the satisfaction of the DI.  Now let's look at what I think little klingy is really up to, it's got a bunch of names, but I prefer to call it 'moving the goal posts'.  The DI knows that real scientists are perfectly willing to admit that we do not know everything about any subject, even evolution.  They use this as a tactic frame the conversation in such a way to try and negate the entire subject by moving the goal posts every time we learn something new.  And yet where are those goal posts set for klingy's Intelligent Design and the often mentioned, but never officially identified, intelligent designer?  Think about it.

We don't know everything about any one subject, but we do know a lot -- and we use what we know to do stuff -- like fly airplanes for example.  But when it comes to the DI's Intelligent Design, what do we know?  Not a damn thing!  We don't know, and the DI has never bothered to explain, what ID is, how it works, or even why it's a better explanation than Evolution when discussing Biology.  Now be honest, ID proponents, can you answer any of these questions?  If you can, then you are miles ahead of the ID 'think-tank' called the Discovery Institute!  Little klingy is whining because we do not know 100% of everything about matter, so therefore we cannot use 'matter' or 'material forces' in any explanations about biology.  But . . . you had to see this one coming . . . we know absolutely nothing about ID, how ID works, or even who the 'designer' is, and yet this is a better explanation?  Really?  How is that even possible?

It's possible because klingy and his buds are moving the goal posts.  When a real scientist steps up to the line of scrimmage, he lines up on his opponents goal line and the only allowable play (remember DI is setting the rules in this example) for him is fully 100 yards away, nothing else is allowable -- no first downs, no short yardage gains, not even long yardage -- it's score or nothing.  That's where klingy sets the goal posts for real biologists.  Yet when an ID proponent steps up, he is lined up already in his own end zone, the goal posts are already behind him and without even running a play, he declares 'Score!'

Am I over-exaggerating?  I don't think so.  If you think that, then please list for me all of the scientific advances and achievements that have been done using the DI's Intelligent Design?  I am not talking about their claims that using your brain is the same as ID. I'm not talking about their undefined 'Design Inference Detector'.  I am talking about a valid and verified (by someone not associated with ID and the DI) implementation of Intelligent Design.  Show me or stop helping the DI rationalize themselves as anything other than a ministry!