So there is nothing religious about ID? Part III

I was bored and went and peeked at the website for the new Centre for Intelligent Design (CID) that just stood up in Glascow. Funny, the site lists three people, including the director, Alastair Noble, who was quoted in the Guardian Article. But unlike the Discovery Institute, the CID doesn't like a bio for anyone involved. So on a lark I tossed Alastair Noble into Google to see what floated to the surface.

It identified an Alastair Noble as a sculptor living in NY. I figure that isn't the same one. but then I ran across this:

"Alastair has been a high school chemistry teacher, adviser, schools inspector and educational administrator. He has also worked on educational programmes within the BBC, the CBI and the Health Service. He currently works as the Field Officer of The Headteachers’ Association of Scotland and an Educational Consultant with CARE in Scotland – a Christian charity which works across a range of public policy issues. He is married to Ruth, has two grown up children, is a lay preacher, an elder at Cartsbridge Evangelical Church, Busby, and lives in Eaglesham." (Mission Scotland)

Ah, not only religion, but Evangelical as well. But is this the same Alastair Noble? Well according to Adam Wilcox it certainly is. Adam also hit whois about c4id.org.uk site and it is registered to Peter Loose-

"who, (by some amazing coincidence), is a trustee of ‘Christian Unions’ which “exists to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ in the student world.” "

OK, the other two names from the CID site were Norman Nevin and David Galloway. Norman was a familiar name and it took me a moment to remember where I had heard it. In my post "Intelligent Design, Sh** or get off the Pot!", Nevin was one of the 'scientists' who was identified by Stephen C. Meyer who 'enthusiastically endorsed his recent book, and not having been previously known as an ID proponent. Meyer lied. I posted that 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. Here is another link that talks about Nevin defending 'Truth in Science".

Dr. David Galloway doesn't seem to want to hide anything. on his own website is this gem:

"You will find a discussion on the origin of biological life together with some reasons why the Darwinian model utterly fails to cope with the specified variety and complexity evident in the available data. Also take time to marvel at the amazing machinery behind the replication of DNA and the mechanisms used to manufacture proteins. There are some cool flash files which neatly demonstrate the biochemistry. Also - check out the Reason4Faith Microsite!"

His site also specifies his membership in Lennox Evangelical Church, Dumbarton.

So to sum up, we have yet another group of Evangelicals who open a Centre for intelligent Design whose motivation is strictly religious. Oh yes, and ID has nothing to do with religion! Sorry Scotland you deserve much better than this US export!

That didn't take long UK Intelligent Design meet US Intelligent Design

It was just this past Sunday that I posted about us exporting the foolishness colloquially known as Intelligent Design to Great Britain ("It's about time we got even"). As I said there the link to the Discovery Institute might not be official, but the DI was trumpeting like it was an actual victory. Well it's more than a philosophical link now. The UK-based Centre for Intelligent Design has just announced a fall lecture tour featuring Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Michael Behe.

The press release is from the Discovery Institute, so lies, exaggerations, and distortions are a matter of course. So when they say "Controversial ID Scientist tours the UK" are they really serious? Let's see -- this is the man whose own organization, Lehigh University, does not agree with his hobby horse. This is a man who under oath admitted that no one was doing the scientific work needed to support his own ideas. This is the man who stated that in order for Intelligent Design to be accepted as science the very definition of science would have to be expanded to the point of making Astrology a science . . . get the idea? Michael Behe will do for Intelligent Design in the UK what he's done for it in the US -- damn near nothing at all!

I mean, really is he so controversial? I think by now even the DI would question his ability to help their cause. I will say one thing about Behe is at least he had the intestinal fortitude to stick to his beliefs and testify during the Dover Trial -- unlike other members of the DI. But as a controversial figure he rates pretty low on the scale.

Just as a reminder, here is what Lehigh University says about Intelligent Design:

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

Here is another exaggeration of the DI. When Michael Behe is stumping for the DI and waxing poetic on Intelligent Design, is he acting within his scientist persona?

It's something to think about. I mean if my dentist discusses the cyst I have on my back, he's not being a dentist, right? When the butcher offers portfolio advice, he's not acting as a butcher. Are my dentist and butcher free to offer an opinion on something other than their specialty? They certainly are -- but when they do so they are acting outside of their professional persona. Of course no one would take my butcher seriously if I identified him as the source of my stock advice!

However, when Behe speaks, the DI is quick to cloak him in his scientist cape -- but should it? Lehigh University says Intelligent Design has no basis in science, so calling anyone an 'ID Scientist' really has little to no meaning! Yes, Behe is a scientist when he is teaching and working in Biochemistry -- but Behe himself is not doing the work to support his own ideas (by his own admission). He's not being a scientist when he writes and speaks about Intelligent Design.

Yet, according to the Discovery Institute Michael Behe is a 'Controversial ID Scientist'. At the very least the DI is overstating the case -- at the very worst they are doing nothing but smoke and mirrors to catch some of the glint over having an actual biochemist selling their snake oil. But that's pretty typical for the Discovery Institute.