Is the DI Joining the AiG Ministry?

Little kennie ham has some help, apparently he's not the only group pushing how science is not secular and, of course, claiming the mantle of science of his religion. Over at the DI, Michael Engor posted "Atheism Is a Catastrophe for Science", claiming:

"Modern theoretical science arose only in the Christian milieu."

To him, I give the same answer I gave little kennie (Christianity is the Source of All Science, Well According to AiG is it.).

• Where in the scientific work, from all the names you drop, do you see the part about the Christian Deity?
• Why are you discriminating against every other religion on the planet? 
• What do we gain from inserting homage to a deity in a scientific theory?

Micheal, in other words what part of the work is based on their, or your, religious beliefs?  Seriously, where does you version of a deity play in real science?  Little kennie ham claimed that his God's role was establishing the rules, but does that really matter?  How is adding homage to a deity add to our understanding?  Seriously, take any theory, explain how your God fits in and then tell me how the theory changes!

All the Christians you name, all the other Theists you like to ignore, and all the Atheists (Larry Moran over on Sandwalk has a nice list) have made multiple scientific advances and in not a single one of them do you see evidence of any deity taking a hand.  There are no boxes or clouds exclaiming "Goddidthis!"  The best you have is making unsupported claims:

"It is astonishing (and beautiful) that the very retinaculum of the universe, from the subatomic world to the cosmos, is drawn in elegant abstract mathematics. The universe screams intelligent authority. "

Why, because you cling to a belief set so strongly that you demand we acknowledge it for you?  Seriously Michael, what does adding in a deity do for our understanding?  Let's put the ball in your court, take any scientific theory, maybe Thermodynamics.  Look at modern thermodynamic theory and tell me what changes if all the scientists and engineers who work on and with this theory (or set of theories to be more accurate) would change by answering your demand for a universe screaming for your God?  Come on, Mike, put up!  I am offering you a chance here.

Another foolish quote:

"The fact is that during the 20th century atheist ideological systems that "assum[ed] that the world is a product of natural, undirected processes" governed a third of humanity. What's the scientific "track record" of atheism? Atheism had its run: it heralded a scientific dark age in any nation unfortunate enough to fall under its heel. Atheism is as much a catastrophe for science as it is a catastrophe for humanity. The only thing atheist systems produced reliably (and still produce reliably) is corpses."

So now Atheism is equated to economic systems like Communism and dictatorial governments?  You like to build strawman, just like the rest of your Discovery Institute ilk.   Hate to break the news to you, but those systems welcomed religion, after all wasn't it Marx who called 'religion is the opium of the people'.  Didn't Hitler extort and use Christianity to justify all of his actions?  If you don't think so then you are as much a student of history as you are a student of science, more's the pity.  Do your homework for a change! 

Your own link is to North Korea lists the causes of the famine as

"The famine in DPRK is the result of the cumulative effects of a fractured economic infrastructure and inadequate food production."  

It also cites natural disasters and politics as issues acerbating the problem.  They even have a national religion, Cheondoism.  While your religion is illegal, they are not nearly as atheistic as you seem to believe.

How long did Christianity have a stranglehold on  many countries?  How many wars were started, how many diseases flourished, how widespread was starvation and famine under Christian religious regimes?  You really need to read a bit deeper into history, and not just the rosy-colored history that people like kennie ham want you to think, or even the history re-writes from the DI's own 'pseudo-historian', Michael Flannery.  Care to explain the millions who died during the Thirty-Years War directly from the war and indirectly through disease and famine caused by the war.  Go ahead, try and blame that one on Atheists.

I bet you think that's all ancient history, how many people have died from AIDS in Africa due in part to the Christian religious objections to condoms?  Estimates range widely but keep climbing annually.  You own a share of 38,000,000 deaths over that one. How about the religious genocides of the Congo and Rwanda.  You own a share of those 15,000,000 people as well.  Religion is much more to blame for those atrocities than Atheism is responsible for Communism!

The bottom line here is you have a set of religious beliefs and you are trying to demand that the rest of the world somehow justify your own beliefs by inserting them where they are not needed and, in fact, do damage.  Are you forgetting how your Christianity controlled the educational system is many countries for decades, even centuries, and how hard it was to get an idea across if even it was perceived to be contrary to the teaching of the Church.  Disagree, well I would ask you to talk to Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler, just to name a few. If you have an honest bone in your body, you know the list is much longer!

Not very long ago people believed things like the Sun, the Rain, even the Death of a loved one was all because God did it.  Tell me how scientifically advanced they were?  We know a great deal more about many topics, and all without needing to thrust a deity into the mix.  Must raise some serious feelings of inadequacy -- but it's OK, there's a little pill for that . . . developed by scientists and no one prays over each batch as they are created!

You really had your eyes closed on this one.  Like kennie, you seem to have a thick pair of biblical-colored glasses to view the world through.  You might try taking them off once in a while because they certainly aren't doing you any good.  Maybe I should say they are doing you as much good as they do kennie ham.

The Return of casey luskin

When he departed the Discovery Institute, lawyer and pamphlet distributor (at the Dover Trial) I figured wherever casey luskin landed we had not heard the last of him.  The Discovery Institute's Evolution 'News' and Views website had this little article about something little casey had written. However, something seemed off to me.  Here is the link: "In Court Rulings on Teaching Origins Science, Law Review Article Finds a Double Standard".  Of course, since this post is on the DI's site, it needs to be taken with a large bag of salt.

Before reading their post or even the link to the article itself, I had to wonder about the source. According to the DI, this is article was published in 'a' Law Review.  OK, which one?  They don't say. Isn't that just the tiniest bit suspicious to you?  The link to the article itself is another DI link, not to the source.  Normally when quoting an article, you go to the authoritative source, not a copy.  Why would the DI not want to identify the source?  If it was something like the 'Harvard Law Review', I'm pretty sure it would be a large part of the article, if not the overwhelming content.  So, where in the world did casey's little missive get published.  It's going to take a little more research on that.  In the mean time, here are a few examples of other times the DI tried to hide things.  You can check it out while I do a little Googling.

1.  First up, back a while ago, in a post "So there is nothing religious about Intelligent Design? Part II" I discussed Heather Zeigler. One of my points was that the DI described her as:

"[NOTE: Today we welcome a new contributing writer to Evolution News & Views, Heather Zeiger. Ms. Zeiger graduated magna cum laude from the University of Texas at Dallas with a B.S. in chemistry and a minor in government and politics. She received her M.S. in chemistry, also from UTD; her research was in organic synthesis and materials.]"

and yet forgot to mention all her credentials, like [the bold were the words they used, the rest they forgot to mention.  I added the underlines for emphasis]:

"Heather Zeiger graduated magna cum laude from the University of Texas at Dallas with a B.S. in chemistry and a minor in government and politics. She received her M.S. in chemistry, also from UTD; her research was in organic synthesis and materials. She interned at Probe Ministries prior to graduate school and now serves with Probe as a Research Associate. Her interests involve science and culture issues, including bioethics, origins, and the environment. She is currently working on a M.A. in bioethics from Trinity International University. She is married to David, another former Probe intern and teacher at Trinity Christian Academy. "

In other words, they decided to not mention that Heather is one who already drank their kool-aid and tried to pass her off as somewhat objective.  Of course, when you look at her a little bit closer, you realize that she probably won't be particularly objective at all.  I don't think they hired her for her objectivity.

2.  A while back the DI discovered the power of polling, we discussed in "A New 'Poll' conducted by the DI says what the DI says, what a surprise!" The DI announced the results of a poll, yet they forget to tell you it was their poll and they worded the questions and twisted the results for their own purposes.  In another poll they even forget to tell you what questions were asked ("Another poll from the Discovery Institute, oh boy, oh boy!"), they only presented their spin on the results.  Their version of a poll is something like one kid asking another, "Have you stopped beating up your sister?  Yes or No."

3. In "Klinghoffer lies by Omission" we discussed a new 'Biography' of Alfred Russel Wallace written by the Michael Flannery.  In the piece, little davery klinghoffer described Flannery as:

"Michael A. Flannery is Professor and Associate Director for Historical Collections at the Lister Hill Library of the Health Sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) and editor of Alfred Russel Wallace's Theory of Intelligent Evolution (2008)."

For some reason little davey forgot to mention that Michael Flannery is also Fellow at the Discovery Institute. Now why in the world for davey not bother mentioning that little item? He says so many nice things about Flannery, but not once does he mention that he and Flannery are buddies who share the same political masters, the DI. Why would that be?

Are you sensing the same trend here?  When there is information about any subject that might cast the slightest doubt on whatever point the DI is trying to make with anything resembling honesty and maybe a little objectivity, the DI always seems to fail to mention it.

4.  Sometimes the lie is pretty blatant, like in 2010 when I posted "Intelligent Design, Sh** or get off the Pot!"  When Stephen C. Meyer was quoted as saying:

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

My response back then:

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

Continuing that trend, it took a little digging to uncover where little casey had his article published, "Trinity Law Review", which is published by the Trinity Law School. Now that might sound prestigious, but it's not. If just the name 'Trinity' doesn't give it away, their own website states:

"At its core, our community is shaped by our commitment to the Gospel – the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. We exist to serve Christ by championing a biblical view of human law and government through our students, graduates, faculty, and staff." (Trinity Law School: About Page)

You can check them out in Wikipedia (Trinity Law School), which has a bit more to say like:

"Trinity Law School ranked second on The National Jurist's list of "Most Devout Christian Law Schools,"

"At present, Trinity Law School is not approved by the American Bar Association (ABA)"

"[They are the] publisher of Journal of Christian Legal Thought, a publication of Christian Legal Society"

OK, so without even reading little casey's missive, we know that it was published not in a prestigious law review, but a Christian Apologetic version of a law review.  No wonder the DI didn't publicize the venue.

So what else does that tell us?  I am pretty sure this is going to be nothing more than what casey used to write for the DI.  A fluff piece that takes an unsupported, and possibly even unsupportable position and make it sound like ID is not the religious proposition that we all, including the DI, know it is.  Anyone want to take a bet on it?  OK, this is long enough and it's getting late.  I will post again tomorrow after I read the DI post and casey's 'Christian Law Review' article. 

Pseudo-Historian Michael Flannery is in charge of 'Re-baptisms'

With the departure of little casey luskin, it seems that Michael Flannery, the Discovery Institutes's idea of a Historian, is now the Chief Re-Baptismal Officer.  He's the one who writes up which safely dead figure from history should now be treated as an Intelligent Design Advocate.  You might remember Flannery, he's the one pushing, among other things, how Darwin is responsible for Hitler and how ID is a much older line of  . . . thought . . . than even current members of the DI realize.  

Sounds weird, but we've written about this before.  How the DI has taken the Mormon technique of re-baptizing someone into the Mormon faith well after they are safely departed, regardless of whether or not they were a believer in that particular faith or not.  The way it was explained to me . . . and yes, I know this is hearsay . . . but there are certain levels within the Mormon Church you cannot reach if you are not descended from someone of the faith.  The way around that is to pick a dead relative and be a proxy for them and have them re-baptized.  Lo-and-behold, you are now descended from someone of the faith and I guess get taught the secret handshake that admits you to the 'special' mysteries.

The DI does it for less  . . . honest . . . reasons.  It's part of the Marketing plan.  I mean if Thomas Jefferson, Alfred Russel Wallace (DI's next cruel trick -- re-baptizing Alfred Russel Wallace), and even Superman were all re-baptized as ID proponents, whether they knew it or not, then it must be a valid and viable scientific theory.  Of course, the fact that the people in question, which also include James Clerk Maxwell, Abe Lincoln, and Charles Darwin himself, are all either safely dead or completely fictional, doesn't seem to matter much.  They cannot defend themselves, so obviously they are great candidates for membership in the DI.

Flannery's been playing this tune for a while and other than allowing him access the Evolution 'News' and Views for posting, even the DI doesn't seem to take him overly seriously.  This time, in "Intelligent Design Is Older Than You Think -- A Lot Older", he's playing that old standard and trying to convince us that Anaxagoras, pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, is really an ID proponent.

What we do know is that what we call the modern Intelligent Design Movement, spearheaded by those less than sharp pointy-ends of the spear, the DI, has it's history in about 1991 when Phillip E. Johnson published "Darwin on Trial". Johnson organized a few meetings, helped raise some funds and is one of the founding fathers of the DI.  No one has ever claimed the concept of ID started there, Johnson and the rest have simply dressed up the old, discredited idea in a new lab coat and started marketing like mad. Drafting Anaxagoras does nothing to establish any credibility for ID. Or maybe I should say that drafting the ancient Greek does exactly the same thing for ID's credibility as the DI's inability to defend ID in court, the lack of any scientific support, and the failure to achieve any of their 5 or 20 year goals.

I think I will add a codicil to my will, starting that under no circumstances are any of my descendants allowed to have me re-baptized into any faith, including the Mormons and the DI.  Yes, remember I like many others, do not see the DI as a scientific organization but as a religious ministry.  So I want to make sure that even when I am safely dead, the DI cannot get their clutches into me if they even still exist by then.

So far luskin and dembski have left, who's busy polishing their resume?  I bet ICR is hiring, or do they have enough lawyers and philosophers? Flannery is an adjunct professor University of Alabama at Birmingham, so he might not be in the market just yet.  But you never know,  I mean doesn't 'adjunct' basically mean it's a part-time gig and not tenured?  Ah, yes, here it is, right from the school website itself, Non-Tenure Earning Faculty Appointments:

"Adjunct should be used to designate individuals who are not full-time employees of UAB but who are appointed to the faculty of a school to perform instructional, research, and/or service functions. "

So he might be available, let's help him out . . . do you know anyone who might need a pseudo-historian?

I think the Discovery Institute has been enjoying Washington's new Marijuana Laws

That's about the only explanation I can come with to explain this 'gem' "For Your Labor Day Weekend Consideration: Alfred Wallace Russel, Scientist and Working Man".  We all know that the DI likes to re-baptize folks as some sort of Intelligent Design proponents, of course well after they are safely dead so they can't possibly defend themselves.

If you want to learn more about Alfred Wallace Russel, I certainly do not recommend anything from the DI, especially their self-published bio by Michael Flannery.  An interesting blog post was done back in 2008 by Olivia Judson:  "Wallace Should Hang".  There are many great references for the contributions, a little Googling brings up tons.  I would suggest starting with a site that I am pretty much the DI dislikes, which is always a positive reference:  "Natural Selection:  Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace Russel".

OK, why do I always seem to stall before reading DI stuff.  I guess experience would be the best reason.  It's nice and late, just a few minutes before Labor Day, so I think a good belly laugh is a great way to end the day and get a little sleep, so here goes.  For some reason they open with "impact of labor on the development of evolutionary theory" . . . which has me scratching my head.  Russel spent years collecting samples and documenting his results, as did Darwin.  What does 'labor' have to do with it?  They both worked incredibly hard.  But let me guess, will to DI try and portray Russel as working harder than Darwin?  Maybe, since they tend to canonize one while vilifying the other.

Oh for pities sake, they are claiming that since Wallace came from the middle class and Darwin had family money, OBVIOUSLY that makes Wallace better for some stupid reason.  They have a video, but is it really worth watching?  They quote their in-house 'historian' Flannery, so this looks like nothing special, just stuff they have been saying before.  One of the many negative reviews about Flannery's book was:

"If you're looking for a creationist take on evolution and Wallace, this is the book for you. This is not an in-depth biography of a complicated, wonderful person but a short treatise on why evolution must have had an intelligent designer behind it."

Under the Alfred Wallace Russel website, Flannery's book is listed not under the biographies, or scholarly work, but under the heading of 'other'.  Plus Flannery is identified as an ID proponent on the site, which would certainly be a red flag to anyone who wants to know more about Wallace.

At the end they take a swipe at a Disney movie coming out that features a young Charles Darwin.  I have to assume the movie will present Darwin in a positive light, which would annoy the DI to no end.  Since I don't expect historical accuracy from Disney movies, my expectations for such a movie would normally be pretty low, but if the DI wants to start whining about it months/years before it's released, I have to raise my expectations.  I mean anything that makes the DI act as if someone pissed in their cornflakes has got to have many redeeming features!