Another example of Cherry-Picking

It has been long been theorized that North America was originally populated by people coming over a land-bridge across what is now the Bering Sea.  Evidence of such migration has been presented often and little disputes it.  There are disputes over the exact dates, number, and duration of such migrations, in other words some of the details, but the basic theory is well supported.

Well, I caught a new headline from The Christian Times from my Google Alerts.  I know, I know, it's not exactly an authoritative source for much of anything, but it does support something I have said often -- creation pseudo-scientists are perfectly willing to accept some science, providing they can cherry-pick only certain parts of it and discard anything that disagrees with their religious beliefs.  Here's the story: "Discovery of ancient DNA in Alaska supports Tower of Babel account, creationists say".

"A team of researchers . . . sequenced the infant's DNA and compared it to that of modern Native Americans as well as to other ancient and living people across Eurasia and the Americas . . . The team believes that the infant's group and modern Native Americans shared common ancestry with people who crossed from Asia to North America through a land bridge called Beringia some 25,000 years ago."

OK, a study in Nature provides more evidence supporting the Bering Land Bridge.  That's fine in and of itself.  But then a creation pseudo-scientist who works for little kennie ham at Answers in Genesis (AiG) claims that this does support the Genesis story of the Tower of Babel's migration -- however the dating is flawed because it couldn't possible have happened some 25,000 years ago, kennie and his Hamians at AiG doesn't believe the Earth is that old.

So . . . according to kennie and co. when God messed with the people building the Tower and changed all their languages so they could not communicate and continue building a tower that would reach God's front door, they traveled from the Middle East, through all of Asia, crossed the Bering Land Bridge and settled North America all at once.  At the same time they migrated across Europe, Africa, Australia, and all the other islands of the world.  Hmmm, no stretching credibility there.

Of course, there isn't any real support for the Tower of Babel story, it's an origin myth to explain why there are so many human cultures and languages.  But notice how the AiG guy takes part of an actual scientific discovery and spins it to support his religious beliefs -- and yet dismisses other parts of the discovery because of those same religious beliefs:

"Nathaniel Jeanson, a Harvard-trained research biologist with Answers in Genesis (AiG), believes that the dating of the infant girl's DNA was not accurate. However, he said that the other details of the discovery support the Genesis 11 account of mass human migration after the attempt to build the Tower of Babel."

Does anyone really wonder why no one takes creation pseudo-scientists seriously?  AiG's Jeanson is joined by another pseudo-scientist:

"Kurt Wise, a Southern Baptist and Harvard-trained paleontologist, suggested that the 11,500 "radiocarbon years" cited in the study "amount to many fewer true (chronological) years (probably closer to 4,000-4,100 years).""

Were either of these two researchers on the team that made this discovery?  No!  They are simply taking other peoples work, cherry picking some of it, tossing aside the rest and declaring some sort of religious victory.  Have either of them provided evidence that the dating techniques are wrong?  No, they simply wave the Bible and use something called 'biblical chronology', which is somewhat interesting because there is no clear understanding of such a chronology, since it seems to change from sect to sect.  But details like that matter little to the dedicated pseudo-scientist!

Just to be clear, I am not using The Christian Times as an authoritative source, just as an example of how real science is cherry-picked by armchair pseudo-scientists.  I love how they work in that these two are Harvard-trained, like the education they may have been exposed to at Harvard means anything at all to them.  I would be very surprised if they were honest with their beliefs system or their planned use of their education while they were at Harvard.  In my opinion, these are two more examples in the 'Liars for Jesus' club.  Like so many others who misrepresented themselves for the purpose of having an assumed credibility based on their education.  

  I've written about Jeanson before "It's Late, but Answers in Genesis might be joining the 20th century . . . finally!"  I don't recall Wise, but I am sure his name will come up again.  He's a consultant at AiG as well as working at a private Christian college.  Well if that doesn't work out for them in their current positions, maybe the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), Access Research Network (ARN), or Liberty University is looking for help.

So Who is Censoring the Intelligent Design Community's Free Speech?

As expected, the Discovery Institute (DI) has renewed their free speech whine.  "Evolutionist: Free Speech for Me, Not for Thee, Certainly Not for ID".  So the question is are the rights of free expression being taken away from the DI and the few others who are part of the Intelligent Design (ID) Movement?

We discussed something close to this last year, "Is anyone actually censoring the Discovery Institute?".  We determined that the DI's cries of censorship were unfounded and nothing more than another marketing scheme.  They weren't being censored, nor was anyone talking about censoring them.  Disagreeing with them, absolutely!  Keeping them from being taught as science in the science classroom, certainly!  Making fun of the mental rationalizations they use to justify their existence (and funding), oh most definitely!  But those are neither censorship or a violation of free speech.

Now for today's post, it's a teaser for one of their pod casts. In the post they claim:

"Dr. Coyne favors it for people who agree with him, not so much for those who disagree."

I disagree completely. Jerry Coyne's blog "Why Evolution is True" is not about free speech only for those who agree with him, but about telling truth about those with a bone to pick with real science, among other topics. When groups like the DI push pseudo-science as if it was actual science, he's often there to correct them. When they try and hold Darwin up as a poster boy for Hitler, he's quick to point out how wrong they are.  He blogs on many topics, not just Evolution, but often current topics, like the Charlottesville shooting, Feminism, Wildlife pictures (animals and bird, not people).  His blog is interesting and informative.  I don't always agree with him, the differences are usually one of degree, not position.  He is opinionated, for sure, and pulls no punches, so when he called the DI "creationist mushbrains", he means it.  I think he's giving them too much credit, but it is his blog, after all.

I find it hard to think the DI will miss Jerry if he stops blogging.  Their comment:

"The University of Chicago biologist has said on various occasions that we’re “obsessed” with him, but the truth is he is just very useful, very helpful to us. If there ever comes a time when he tires of blogging at 'Why Evolution Is True', that will be a very sad day."

As often as I, and many others, point out the DI's many lies and obfuscations, anyone who has been a thorn in their side for as long as Jerry has will not be missed if he stops blogging.  Jerry has one huge advantage over the DI, he's an actual biologist, not a philosopher or lawyer pretending to be one.  That gives added weight to the topic of evolution and intelligent design.  Can anyone tell me one time Jerry took the DI to task and he turned out to be in error?  Just one?  Neither can I.

One last quote from the DI, which caused me to choke a little on my Diet Dr. Pepper:

" . . . Dr. Egnor [Michael, on of the DI's talking heads] . . . first getting interested in intelligent design, something that impressed him was the way ID proponents are absolutists about letting opponents talk, write, and teach freely, never, ever stooping to the tactic of threatening someone’s job at a university, or the like.  Meanwhile, Darwinists are keen on shutting down conversation — not a hallmark of a strongly supported scientific theory"

So, ID proponents let opponents talk, write and teach freely?  A couple of points here, sort of in reverse order.  Are any ID proponents in a position to not allow science teachers to teach science?  Well the DI would like you to think that even if they had the power, they wouldn't exercise such power.  I do not believe them, for a very simple reason, how many teachers have been disciplined or fired from non-secular schools for teaching actual science?

I'm sure the DI will claim that those had nothing to do with ID -- because they like to claim ID is not Creationism. But we know that is nothing but another lie and marketing campaign. Teaching real biology in a private school can, and has, gotten teachers fired. J.B. Stump is one example, as are Thomas Jay Oord, Pamela Hensley, and Stacy Mendrick.  They aren't the only ones.  All are examples of the close-minded condition of the theological brain.  

One famous, or infamous, example is from the DI's own past, William Dembski.  Anyone else remember :

"While serving as a professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dembski wrote The End of Christianity, which argued that a Christian can reconcile an old Earth creationist view with a literal reading of Adam and Eve in the Bible by accepting the scientific consensus of a 4.5 billion year of Earth. He further argued that Noah's flood likely was a phenomenon limited to the Middle East. This caused controversy and Dembski's reading of the Bible was criticized by Tom Nettles, a young Earth creationist, in The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, Southern Seminary's official theological journal. In 2010, the dean of Southwestern's School of Theology, David Allen, "released a White Paper through the seminary's Center for Theological Research defending Dembski as within the bounds of orthodoxy and critiquing Nettles for misunderstanding the book. The paper included Dembski's statement admitting error regarding Noah's flood." Southwestern Seminary president Paige Patterson, a young Earth creationist, "said that when Dembski's questionable statements came to light, he convened a meeting with Dembski and several high-ranking administrators at the seminary. At that meeting, Dembski was quick to admit that he was wrong about the flood. "'Had I had any inkling that Dr. Dembski was actually denying the absolute trustworthiness of the Bible, then that would have, of course, ended his relationship with the school,' he said." (Wikipedia: Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary flood controversy)

Now the reason I want to remind you of that is because just recently the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) reported this: "Dembski and the Scandal of the Evangelical Mind". In it they quote Dembski about that particular controversy:

" . . . this entire incident left so bad a taste in my mouth that I resolved to leave teaching, leave the academy, and get into a business for myself, in which my income would not depend on political correctness or, for that matter, theological correctness."

How quickly the DI tends to forget the idea of 'Theological Correctness'.  So while the DI continues to deny their religious roots, we can see that the theological minded are much more close-minded than the science community, even more close-minded than the claims the DI likes to make against the scientific community, unsubstantiated claims, in my opinion.

If you disagree, just point to a single teacher, professor, administrator who was fired for teaching Intelligent Design?  Not one!  The nearest was John Freshwater, but he was fired for a number of things, including failing to teach the science curriculum he was supposed to be teaching.  So he wasn't just trying to teach ID in addition to real science, he was replacing the curriculum with one of his own choosing.  If that was all, he still might be employed, but remember Freshwater is also the one who lied to investigators, encouraged his students to lie for him, burned crosses into students arms, and lied about leading prayers for one of the student athletic groups.  The others the DI likes to claim were fired, or disciplined, for their support of ID is another set of lies.  Click the links yourself to read about them:

• Crocker's contract was up and she was not re-hired partly because she was failing to teach the subject she was hired to teach..
• Gonzalez was not given tenure because he failed in his responsibilities as a professor with graduate students.
• Sternberg was the already outgoing editor of a minor biological journal who, on his way out the door, violated the journals review procedure to publish one of his friend's ID papers.  A friend he now works for -- imagine that!
• Coppedge was simply downsized and tried to turn it into a religious discrimination suit and failed.  Of course he looked pretty bad when all the evidence showed that he was a poor employee (there were complaints), liked to preach his religion to his co-workers (there were more complaints), and refused to keep his skills current.

There are a few others, but when you did a little you find that the DI's characterizations of the stories are more than a little suspect.  We discussed some of those here: "Skepticism vs. Scholarship (From James F. McGrath)"  It's amazing the spin the DI places on their martyr stories!

Now a new question, Are Darwinists (DI pejorative for Biologists) really shutting down the conversation?  Just how are they doing that?

• One way is to fight letting ID into the science classroom.  Is ID science?  No one has provided any support that ID belongs in the science classroom, especially not the DI.  So this isn't a matter of free speech, but a matter of teaching an actual science curriculum.  Should be also add Astrology to the science classes of Astronomy?  Numerology to Math classes?  Of course not, ID is just like those other area, pseudo-science at best.
• Another way is by reviewing ID literature.  Pointing out the many procedural and factual errors is not a violation of free speech.  Funny when the DI complains about a negative review, they never address the contents of the review, but attack the reviewer.  Did you notice in this very post there isn't a single factual error of Jerry Coyne pointed out, is there?  ID literature is also never published in any forum where the requirement includes actual empirical support.  
• Most scientists refuse to engage in the debate.  For years, real scientists have ignored groups like the DI, Answer in Genesis (AiG), the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and the Access Research Network (ARN).  Only recently when they try and threaten science education have some scientists spoken up.  The majority refuse to engage because of the tactics of such groups. One of the best responses to such a debate request was "How to respond to requests to debate Creationists", it's a great read, especially the actual response.  This, again, isn't a free speech violation, but an example of using comment sense and professional ethics.  Here, I just have to quote this from Prof Gotelli:
  "So, I hope you understand why I am declining your offer. I will wait patiently to read about the work of creationists in the pages of Nature and Science. But until it appears there, it isn't science and doesn't merit an invitation."

So in what other ways do you think the DI complain about?  Not all complaints, just the ones they keep trying to characterize as issues of free speech?  If we got into their whines about 'academic freedom' -- which I do not believe they understand what that phrase means -- we might be here all night.

In closing no one is inhibiting the DI in the area of free speech.  What they are doing is not giving the DI every platform they seem to think they are entitled to have.  Until they perform real science, they do not belong in the science classroom;  until they support their fanciful ideas, no one is obliged to take them seriously; and until they engage openly and honestly and stop using their many Tactics of Mistake, they deserve every scathing review, every turned down debate request, and not being taken seriously by the scientific and educational communities.

So, to answer the title question, just who is censoring the Intelligent Design Community's Free Speech?  No one, no one at all!

The Discovery Institute is Mad (again)!

A while back we commented on how the Discovery Institute (DI) doesn't get invited to the good parties.  For example, in 2009, when the Vatican hosted a 5-day conference to mark the 150th anniversary of Darwin's 'On Origin of Species', with a main topic of the compatibility of science and creation, the DI was not invited, and that made them sad.

Then just last year (2016) when the Methodists were holding their General Conference, not only was the DI not invited, but the Methodists wouldn't even let them host an Intelligent Design (ID) information table.  That must have made the DI cry because they were so upset they named the United Methodist Council (UMC) as their 'Censor of the Year'. (Which is a Badge of Honor as far as I am concerned!)

Well the "March for Science' is in the running this year -- not only did they not invite the DI, but when the DI asked to be included, they were reminded that they aren't a scientific organization and apparently it made them very, very sad.  There are several posts already on the DI's Evolution 'news' and Views site and I am sure more on in the works.  When the DI had their little tiff with the UMC I stopped counting at 20 different posts, all saying the same whine.  I'm sure there will be plenty of more posts.

Here is a post I saw on the subject: "John West: March for Science or March for Secularism?"  According to West, so of course please take this with a little skepticism, the organizers of the March for Science said:

“it is not our policy to advance specific worldviews or ideas outside of current consensuses of scientific fields.”

Now before you ask, my skepticism is two-fold.  First of all, this is coming from the DI and over the last 10 years of blogging, which include many posts about the DI, I don't immediately trust anything they say.  Secondly, and more specifically, this quote is only part of one sentence and with the tradition of quote-mining the DI holds near and dear to their hearts, I would rather see their request and the March's response in their entirety, rather than let the DI pick and choose which parts to display for me.

However, if that is an accurate quote and if that is within the context of the March's reply, I would have to say they were being exceedingly polite.  Think of what they could have said concerning the DI as a pseudo-science organization, a ministry, one whose continuing efforts damage science education . . . I mean there is a litany of reasons why any organized activity that includes science should exclude organizations such as the DI.  I wonder if Answers in Genesis (AiG), the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) or the Access Research Network (ARN) tried to wrangle invites as well.  How about the American Federation of Astrologers?  I mean if you are going to let in pseudo-science, you might as well get a diverse group.  Plain and simple, I don't trust the DI.

Something else this post does is misrepresent some of the organizations that are invited.  Here is a quote from the post:

"West notes that these include American Humanist Association, Secular Student Alliance, and the Secular Coalition for America—all of which use science to argue that God doesn’t exist. "

That is not what those organizations argue, that's another DI strawman. Here from the Secular Student Alliance:

"Sometimes people use “secular” to mean absolute neutrality toward religion, or as an umbrella label for nonreligious people. When the Secular Student Alliance uses the word “secular,” we as using it as an adjective describing a person who forms their identity independent of any assumptions about the supernatural, is willing to rethink their beliefs in light of empirical evidence, and forms their values based on concern for the present and future world."

It's not that they argue God doesn't exist, but what they are supporting is that they do not need to kneel down to a deity to have full and meaningful lives.  If you really look at those specific organizations, you would see they do little to interfere with peoples actual religious freedoms, but they do defend the rights of people not to have religion forced upon them.  What they also sometimes do, which tends to annoy theists to no end, is to provide valid and verified scientific explanations for many of the things theists attribute to one deity of another, particularly when a theist is trying to force their belief onto others.  I have never seen a member of any of these organizations claim there is no god, but I have often seen theists claim science is wrong because their own explanation includes their deity.  We discussed some of this during the Kim Davis fiasco in Kentucky.

There is a difference between actual religious persecution and what theists like to claim is religion persecution:

Of course, West and his friends can't admit that and probably don't see it that way.  Without their religion they don't seem to feel that have a life, let alone one with meaning.  The problem is they can't conceive of the idea that everyone doesn't feel that way.  So instead of honestly representing these organizations, they get more mileage out of claiming such organizations are some sort of militant organization.

If you have to ask why I would say such things about the DI, I offer one last piece of evidence . . . well, one out of this particular post.  The DI is teaming up with The Stream for a series of posts whining about not being invited.  Well, just what is 'The Stream'?  It self-identifies as (I added the underlining for emphasis):

"The national daily championing freedom, smaller government and human dignity. The Stream offers a rich and lively source for breaking news, Christian inspiration and conservative commentary while challenging the worst in the mainstream media."

They include the following basic tenets:

• Every human being has equal value and dignity.
• We are inherently and specifically social.
• Marriage and the family are the fundamental social institutions.
• We can know God and moral truth.
• Judeo-Christian religious faith guards our freedom.
• We’re all sinners.
• We need a state strong enough to protect and maintain the rule of law but limited enough not to violate it.
• We are meant to be free and responsible.
• When we’re free, we can create wealth and value.
• Culture comes before politics.

So basically, one ministry is teaming up with another ministry to complain about a secular activity that rejected one of the ministries because they are masquerading as a scientific organization.  Gee, how surprising!  And let me remind everyone, tongue firmly embedded in cheek, how there is nothing religious about the Discovery Institute!

A Brief History Of Darwin Bashing (From Forbes)

Interesting article on Forbes "A Brief History Of Darwin Bashing".  Here is my favorite quote form that article:

"The basic pattern most of these pieces follow is simple: Ignore the science; don’t bother talking to working specialists in the field; selectively quote long-dead sources (or emeritus scholars in unrelated fields); enthusiastically cite the work of self-described revolutionaries without critically examining the scientific merit of their work; and impugn the character of the theory’s founder."

Tell me if any of that sounds familiar?  John Farrell, Forbes Contributor, just describes the tactics used by folks like the Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, and the Institute for Creation Research in a nutshell: Ignore science, quote-mine, push their own writings without a single critical thought, and denigrate Darwin!  

Farrell's article digs deeper into one specific example, Tom Wolfe's "Kingdom of Speech".  While it has a number of 5-star reviews on Amazon, mostly from folks who apparently already have issues with real science and evolution, it's the 1-star reviews that are much more entertaining.  You might read a few, but here are some of the headlines to whet your appetite: "Preening Ignorance", "His White Suit is Unsullied By Research", "Backward in Every Sense", and "Glad I Could Get a Refund From A Kindle Purchase".  It certainly looks like not everyone is buying into Wolfe's Darwin Bashing!

We seem to live in a time when expertise is less valued than opinion.  Maybe the Internet is partly responsible for at least making us aware of it, but I was always taught that opinions are like . . . armpits (yea, armpits!) everyone has one or two and they usually stink.  But nowadays people seem to think that a voiced opinion should be taken as gospel and when an expert chimes in, their 'expertise' should be distrusted.  

A historical example that I've used before, Leaded additives in gasoline.  In the 1920's it was discovered to be dangerous, but it took 40 years to get it removed and fix some of the damage it was causing.  The leading advocate for lead additives was sponsored by the company who made the additives.  The principle tactic used was to develop a feeling of mistrusting experts on the subject.  That tactic helped delay removing those additives for over 40 years!

We saw something similar with tobacco and we are also seeing it with the current arguments about climate change and vaccinations.  We are developing a culture that mistrusts expertise.  Darwin bashers are doing their best to use that mistrust in pushing their own religious agenda. That appears to be exactly what is happening here.  According to the many critics, Wolfe blatantly ignores current science, takes other things out of context, and gets support from other bashers . . . and many of the folks who wrote those glowing comments on Amazon gush how wonderful it all is . . . because the idea of relying on expertise has become foreign to them.

What I have noticed is that this disregard for expertise seems to be of the cherry-picking variety.  For example anti-vaxxers whine about science, yet use the Internet for their whines.  Vaccinations and the Internet share the same scientific methodology . . . yet one is bad and the other is useful.  People still take their cars to mechanics.  While I see holistic foolishness for people's health, I have yet to see a holistic car repair place.

I feel foolish for having to defend expertise, the most often heard argument is that experts are defending their territory because funding would dry up and they would be unemployed.  In a recent conversation with a climate-change denier I attempted to address this point, but he wasn't listening.  My point is that I find it funny is that, according to him, the whole reason climate scientists support climate-change it because of their funding.  How does he know this?  Well that's what he hears on Fox News.  So . . . as I tried to tell him . . . climate scientists, whose average annual salary is $95K a year are arguing the reality of climate change and you [he] is getting his science from a political pundit who makes millions each year . . . and it's the $95K a year scientists whose expertise is getting ignored because that's how they make a living, yet the millionaire pundit with no expertise is telling you the truth?  (source)  Really?

Experts shouldn't need to be defended, we rely on people's expertise every day.  I work on a computer using others expertise in networking.  I use still others expertise in manufacturing to help me develop the software I build.  Ask any computer programmer, you might have a ton of expertise in programming, but you need subject matter experts to develop software for any industry!  I rely on the people creating the food I eat, not only in restaurants, but what lines the aisles of the grocery store.  I have my car maintained by several car mechanics, just recently I had the windows and doors in my home replaced.  I have made more than one visit to a doctor in the past year.   I do not have the expertise to do all of these things myself, so I have to rely on the expertise of others.

Why is it so hard to accept that same sort of expertise from biologists, climatologists, and the developers of vaccines?

Christianity is the Source of All Science, Well According to AiG is it.

Here's something . . . well not new, but certainly consistent . . . from little kennie ham: "Is Science Secular?"  Now before getting into the article, I want to consider just the title, 'Is Science Secular?'.  Looking at all of the scientific advances, from Newton to Einstein, from the Industrial Revolution to today's most cutting edge science, can you find one iota of religion within those scientific theories?

I've asked this before -- when you look at something like Newton's work, where is the part where you say "And here is where God does his thing!"?  You might notice that there isn't one.  There is nothing that identifies where the 'magic' happens.  How I see it is that there are many Theists who have advanced many scientific theories, but when the science conflicts with religious views, they manage to rise above those views and see the world in a much clearer and sharper light.  Does anyone really think this is how Newton did his scientific work:

I don't believe it, but one of the many arguments made over the years is that many of the greatest scientists were Christians.  I would even phrase it differently, many of histories greatest minds were Theists!  I word it that way because often Christians forget that many advances were made by other-than-Christian believers, I do have to wonder if kennie will forget that little item.  OK, with my point made, I have to wonder what direction little kennie is going to take his article?  OK, here goes -- time to get muddy.

"Many people today insist that science can only be done by people who have a secular worldview—or at least by those who are willing to leave their religious views at the door as they enter the science lab."

Strawman alert!  While little kennie and his Hamians may think this, this is not what is being said. Many current scientists are Theists and believe in one religious tradition or another.  What has been said, and proven over and over again, is that if you let your viewpoint blind you to the realities of the world around you, you aren't doing much in the way of science.   This goes for religious or other viewpoints, for example political.

A perfect example is little kennie's concept of the 'same evidence but different conclusions' nonsense. Little kennie's 'creation paleontologists' do not look at the same evidence as an actual paleontologist, his start by rejecting the majority of the evidence because it conflicts with kennie's story of a 6,000 year old Earth.  How is that starting from the same evidence?  An honest answer is that it's not, but don't expect kennie to admit that.  A real scientist starts with a much cleaner plate than one of kennie's.  Imagine if one of his pet 'scientists' put out a paper even suggesting an older Earth.  How long do you think they will be employed by kennie?  Not for very long, I would think.  Or, like what happened to Wild Bill Demski, the 'scientist is question would have to retract any suggestion to the contrary, or he will get kicked out of the club.

"Strictly speaking, my project in The End of Christianity  . . . at the very end of the book, I raised some questions about Noah’s flood in light of an old earth . . . At the meeting with president, provost, dean, and senior professor, the president made it clear to me from the start that my job was on the line.  . . . My questioning the universality of Noah’s flood meant I was a heretic . . . I said just enough to keep my job, and just enough to give me room to recant, as I’m doing here." (Dembki Interview)

What kennie has done here is create a strawman to tell you one thing and then he will try and demolish the strawman and claim victory.  He tried it a few months ago when he was bragging how one of the inventors of the MRI is a creation scientist.  But back then I pointed out that at no point in kennie's bragsheet was any evidence that supported how Creationism was involved in the MRI.  His second sentence compounds his error.

"Several popular atheists and evolutionists have contended that people who reject the big bang and the evolution of living things are so backward that they cannot even be involved in developing new technologies."

No, that is not what is normally said.  What has been said over and over again is that someone's belief set is in no way part and parcel of any scientific breakthroughs.  I don't care how many prominent Theists you can name, and I figure name-dropping is next, but at no point can you point to their work and say "God did this part!"  It's not part of a single equation, it's not listed in the documentation and explanations.  If there is a conflict, the scientist has to be able to see clearly, and Biblical-colored glasses don't allow that.  How many new technologies has kennie and his cohorts actually developed using their religious beliefs?  Again, none!  OK, let's read the rest of the article before commenting further.

OK, a few more comments:

"If science is a strictly secular endeavor without any need for a biblical worldview, then why were most fields of science developed by Bible-believing Christians?"

As expected, kennie focuses on Christians, ignoring contributions from any other religion.  But it does lead me to another comment.  Is kennie forgetting that the education system, for decades and centuries, was dominated by religious groups?  Even Charles Darwin went to religious schools and even once studied to be a Parson (Wikipedia: Charles Darwin Early Life and Education).  

So, now that I think about it, would kennie classify Charles Darwin as a Christian?  Based on his early life and education, an honest person would.  If you look at the details of his religious views (Wikipedia: Charles Darwin Religious Views), you would see he was certainly a Christian in his many viewpoints -- at least a Christian as defined by his times.  What you could never call him is a Christian as little kennie ham see it.  Simply put, one of the areas Darwin and kennie would disagree on is the Bible as a history book.  The list would grow from there.

So the bottom line here is no one is saying Theists or any religious tradition cannot be scientists or perform actual scientific work.  However, that is more than just hanging a label on a door.  You have to be willing to set aside your religious viewpoint if and when it conflicts with your scientific work -- either that of set aside your scientific work and add the label 'creation', as does kennie and his stable of pet 'creation scientists'.

"The U.S. will lose out in “science” when its education system limits science in the classroom exclusively to the religion of secular humanism."

Wow another strawman!  US science classes do not teach secular humanism, science is guided by a philosophy called "Methodological naturalism", which states:

"Methodological naturalism is concerned not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what nature is. It is the idea that all scientific endeavors, hypotheses, and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events." (Wikipedia: Methodological Naturalism)

Science is, and has been for a long time, based on the natural world, on explanations that can be repeated and explained without the involvement of any supernatural causation.  Little kennie hates that because it doesn't pay homage, or even address, his personal deity.  What kennie can't handle is that science does not address such things on purpose!  How do you replicate an occurrence when it relies on the actions of a deity?  It's not possible!  Science may not be the only world view, but it's the only one that gives us repeated results and rational and usable explanations, isn't it?  Drop something, does it fall because a deity wanted it to fall, or does it fall because of the attraction between two objects of mass as explained by the Scientific Theory of Gravity?  Learning about Gravity doesn't require paying homage to one deity or another, and even paying such homage wouldn't advance our understanding of it, would it?

Now when it comes to something like Gravity, kennie tries to tell us that the whole basis for Gravity is his version of a deity.  So, how does that add to our understanding of Gravity?  Think it through, look at current gravitational theory, where does adding in a homage to a deity add anything?  You see my point, science doesn't address it because it adds nothing to our understanding.  Injecting the actoins of a deity does nothing but give kennie a warm feeling.

Little kennie tries to take things up a level and claim this:

"Real science is observable and repeatable experimentation that only makes sense in a biblical worldview where God’s power keeps the laws of nature consistent. In other words, science proceeds from a biblical worldview."

He was close, but he should have ended his comment after the word 'experimentation'.  What has the Biblical worldview offered in the way of explanation?  Does our understanding of any scientific discipline improve when you try and insert a religious viewpoint?  No, it doesn't improve, it degrades.  For example denying geological evidence of the age of the Earth or trying to explain geographic biodiversity using log rafts after Noah's flood.  These viewpoints limit our understanding, they do not improve it.

Here's another quote from kennie:

"In the secular view, where all matter originated by chance from nothing, there is no ultimate cause or reason for anything that happens, and explanations are constantly changing, so there is no basis for science. "

Why does there have to be an 'ultimate cause'?  Seriously, I can't have any answers to any questions until I know absolutely everything 100% perfectly, including how it all started billions of years ago? So science has no basis, and yet science took us to the moon, science built that stupid ark pseudo-replica kennie is so proud of, science cures and treats diseases that would have killed people if they tried to rely on prayer . . . science has more of a basis, and one based on rationality, than any of the thousands of religions that exist or have existed in the world, including kennie's narrow version of Evangelicalism I like to call 'Hamian'.

After all his name-dropping, as expected, he goes on to the tired argument how science is supposedly some sort of religion.  Really?  What religion took us to the Moon?  What religion explains thermodynamics that lets us build engines?  What religion developed this world-wide communications system we call the Internet?  If science was just another religion worshiping a book, meeting once a week to self-flagellate ourselves with guilt, and keep our minds as closed as possible to other people and ideas, we wouldn't have left the cave!  No, I take that back, we wouldn't have gone into the cave to seek shelter, because since God created the rain, seeking shelter is obviously a form of blasphemy!

One final point from kennie:

"Christians will continue to conduct scientific inquiry and invent things, processes, and science fields as we always have."

Again I would say 'Theists' rather than just limiting it to Christians..  I would have to add and just like the past few centuries, not one of those scientific inquiries or inventions will reference any part of ham's, or anyone else's, religious dogma.  If you disagree, I offer anyone another chance to explain how Newton's specific religious beliefs are used in his work?  If you don't like that one, tell me how even little kennie ham's religious beliefs are used in actual scientific inquiries?  What box do they put God in on the diagrams?  If there a PowerPoint clip-art defining 'God'?

Between kennie and his Answers in Genesis (AiG) Ministry, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and the Discovery Institute (DI), they have many people on staff they like to call 'scientists'.  Just how many scientific advances have been made by any of them using their religious beliefs?  I believe the answer is a resounding 'None!', not a single one!  Oh they will still make claims, but nothing validated by reality.  Just keep kneeling in front of the Bible, kennie, and maybe one day you will understand the lessons it was trying to teach instead of just worshiping the words.

How about an Example of Creationist Obfuscation

One of my Google Alerts pointed me to this article on the Christian Today website: "No evolution? Ancient lizards preserved in amber support Creationism, say Christian scientists"  The article quotes a couple of Creationist mainstays, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and the Answers In Genesis (AiG). Here's a couple of quotes from the article, although you probably don't need them.

"Brian Thomas of the Institute for Creation Research said the discovery of these ancient lizards clearly debunks the theory of evolution, since they did not evolve at all for 99 million years."

"Supporting Thomas' assertions, Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell of Answers in Genesis pointed out that these newly discovered reptile species completely cannot be explained by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.  'There is no evidence for upward evolution through a transitional form in this lizard's amber tomb—just evidence for the sort of variation that ordinarily occurs within the created kinds of animals God made,' Mitchell said."

Of course, me being me wasn't going to take their word for it.  So I Googled "Lizards in Amber" and came across a Smithsonian article, "Pint-Sized Lizards Trapped in Amber Give Clues to Life 100 Million Years Ago".  Guess what?  The Smithsonian article says things quite a bit different than the Creationists.  Here is the best part:

"The set includes creatures similar to modern-day geckos and chameleons, as well as a range of species that sport a mash-up of features from both ancient and modern reptile relatives, according to the study published Friday in Science Advances. These animals help fill in the patchy evolutionary history of pint-sized lizards."

While the Creationists say that no evolution occurred, the Smithsonian article disagrees and points out several examples, particularly the . . . and I am going to use this term because I know how much it annoys Creationists . . . particular the Transitional Forms mentioned, although I am sure the Creationists simply neglected to mention the "species that sport a mash-up of features from both ancient and modern reptile relatives" in their article.  What AiG's Mitchell did say was:

"'There is no evidence for upward evolution through a transitional form in this lizard's amber tomb—just evidence for the sort of variation that ordinarily occurs within the created kinds of animals God made,' Mitchell said."

So, according to ICR there was no evolution, and according to AiG there was 'variation', just no transitional forms.  How did they come to those conclusions?  Oh wait . . . I keep forgetting.  They already have their conclusion.  They have to 'explain' as new evidence is uncovered how it absolutely has to fit into their already predetermined conclusion.  Here is a quote from AiG's Statement of Faith which demonstrates that point, in case you thought actual evidence might change their minds:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. "

I do have to wonder if they even bothered to read the actual study.  On last quote form the Smithsonian article:

"The fossils also help sort out when many of the modern reptile traits appeared. The tiny chameleon-like fossil shows early development of the lizards’ ballistic tongues—evidenced by the presence of a large bone that supports the modern chameleon’s sticky weapon, says Stanley. But the fossil did not have the specialized claw-like fused toes modern chameleons use to hang onto branches. Similarly, one of the gecko relatives has preserved toe pads with the modern designs already present."

Certainly contradicts the Creationist claims of no evolution and nothing but 'variation'.  Just in case you didn't catch it, the whole 'variation' argument is nothing more than a restatement of the whole micro-macro evolution nonsense that has yet to gain any actual traction with real scientists.  We've discussed it multiple times, including "Macro - Micro Evolution" and "Micro-Macro re-dux".  But you know it won't matter to most Creationists, especially hard-core ones like ICR and AiG.  They really need to stop looking at everything through their Biblically-colored glasses.

Is Creationism Harmful to Children

I have said on a couple of occasions that I don't consider Creationism Child Abuse, an example is my post "Is Creationism a form of Child Abuse?"  I still stand by that, but an article about the Ark Park certainly made me think. Recently the Boston Globe paid a visit to little kennie ham's ark ministry, the article is "Noah’s Ark, dinosaurs, and a theme park".  It's loaded with the usual contrasts between what kennie and his 'Hamians' say and what the real world says.  I did enjoy a couple of small points, for example:

". . . the Ark Encounter will host between 1.4 million and 2.2 million visitors in its first year . . ." 

Why I find this enjoyable is simple.  Since the announcement of the ark park the visitor estimate has been bounced all over the place.  Now, logically, and this was true for kennie's Creation 'Museum', the first few years usually the highest attendance.  After that it tends to slowly, or in some cases not so slowly, reduce down.  In fact in recent years the Creation 'Museum' is said to be in financial difficulties due to low attendance. (Kentucky’s ‘Creation Museum’ in Financial Trouble Due to Declining Attendance (VIDEO)).  So since the most recent estimates from kennie say about 1.2 million annually, other estimates, from people without a vested interest in the ark park (Hunden Strategic Partners in Chicago), said:

"estimated in the first year the park would receive roughly 325,000, with a peak attendance in the third year around 425,000, declining to 275,000 after that." (Source)

Which is roughly in the neighborhood of the Creation 'Museum' which took one month shy of three years to reach 1 million visitors.  I wish I knew what kennie's original estimates for his 'museum' were, I wonder if those estimates were as inflated as his ones for the ark ministry seem to be.  Another interesting point is:

"Science educators likely see that low and steadily decreasing number [of Creationists who follow little kennie's line] as good news. Ham isn’t so happy with this trend, which he blames on “evolutionary indoctrination through the public education system, secular museums, and much of the media.”
Ham sees AiG’s role as stopping the downward spiral. He wants to show people that all of the seeming impossibilities of Scripture can be scientifically reconciled with a little creativity." 

"With a little creativity" is such a fascinating phrase.  On the one hand you have what kennie and his followers calls the ultimate authority, and yet he needs to use creativity to get people to accept his version.  Do those two seem diametrically opposed to you?  They do so to me.  Which is why I do not consider kennie to be a Biblical Literalist, but a Biblical Revisionist.  He cherry pics from the Bible stories he likes and then he embellishes them to the point of unrecognizability.  For example, here is a photo from my visit to the Creation 'Museum':

Little kennie, in a effort to justify his position that humans and dinosaurs co-existed had to explain what dinosaurs ate.  So this little gem, they were all vegetarians.  Of course there is no evidence to support any of this, but kennie can't leave a question unanswered.  A couple other favorites is his rationalization of where Cain's wife came from and how animals were geographically dispersed after the ark landed.  Here is the explanation why Cain was able to marry his sister:

 All the Bible says about Cain's wife is a mention of the Land of Nod, east of Eden.  Little kennie took it from there and concocted this explanation.  As for biological geodiversity, that is how similar organisms exist in many part of the world, he dreamed up log rafts:

Doesn't he have a great imagination?  See why I refer to him as a Biblical Revisionist more than a Literalist?  He's not interested in what the Bible says, he's much more interested in what he claims it says.

OK, back to the Globe article.  This is the part that had me thinking about whether or not Creationism is harmful to kids:

"But is creationism is harmful to children? Compared to the risk of anti-vaccination pseudoscience in causing physical harm, the answer is no. More worrisome is the harm to children’s intellectual growth. Everyone at AiG was incredibly kind and seemed well-meaning, and the same goes for many creationists — but even people with the best intentions can end up, well, harming children who are paying attention.
Pete Enns, biblical scholar and author of “The Evolution of Adam,” sees creationism as harmful because it sets children up either to experience a crisis of faith or to become unflinchingly rigid about their own faith and closed off to their own human development. Both are tragic, he says."

There are more ways to harm children than what is considered abuse.  I had discussed how Creationism is a poor basis for many careers.  I mean aside from places like little kennie's Answers in Genesis (AiG) or the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), how many places are willing to hire an astrophysicist who insists the speed of light is a variable so we really have no way of knowing how far something is from Earth.  The article mentioned that little kennie likes to bring up the fact he has hired some people who hold PhD's, but in reality, how much actual scientific knowledge have those PhD's managed to pass on?  Has anyone seen a single actual scientific paper referenced from places like AiG and ICR!  As the writer said:

"People at my evangelical church used to talk the same way [as kennie and his pet PhD's] about celebrities who became born again — as if people of such caliber somehow legitimized everything we believed."

I know there will always be some who get their education and then turn on the subject to support their religious beliefs, but they will never be in the majority or even mainstream within those fields. The fact they have a degree in no way legitimizes their belief set.

What I hadn't considered was the inevitable reaction once they start learning the reality of the world around them.  They might have some sort of crisis in faith, or they might become so rigid they become a caricature of a theist, like little kennie.  I'm not sure I agree with the article that the crisis in faith is a tragedy for most folks.  I think whether or not it is a tragedy depends on the person more than anything else.  As we mature we discover many things that were told to us by authority figures that were later found to be untrue.  From childish things like the truth about Santa or even how your life will go.  Think about what you were told as a child about how your life was going to go?  Even as a teenager in HS or an adult in college.  How has that all worked out?

If you are like most people, things haven't followed any pre-explained path.  I never expected to serve 20 years in the AF, get into IT, or end up living in Ohio.  What I am trying to say is that you LIVE your life, you deal with things as they change, no matter what they are.  What was it John Lennon said, "Life is what happens while you are making other plans."  If a 'crisis' in your faith cripples you, then my only suggestion is don't subject any other child to the beliefs that hurt you!  But in all honesty, you have to get over it eventually.  I'm not sure you can consider discovering the faith you were raised in wasn't what you were taught it was as a reason for PTSD, but even that degree of a problem can be overcome.

As for the other reaction, the significant rigidity that can result.  I can't consider them tragic figures.  But I do feel a level of pity for the people they come into contact with or, God forbid :-), any children they might become responsible for.  But they do have to freedom to shut down the functioning parts of their brain.  My only objection is that they do not have the right to force me to belief as they do.  Which is why I object to pretty much everything little kennie does.  As I have said before, his idea of religious freedom is to let him believe as he wishes and let him force everyone else to believe as he does as well.  That's not religious freedom, that's more a form of religious tyranny. 

You really should consider how long various religions have had control over people's lives and how all that turned out.  Look at history . . . not the history kennie and any of his pet 'creation historians' try and sell you in the Creation 'Museum' Gift Shop, but actual history.  Religious tyranny is not some panacea that will solve all the world's problems! 

So there we have it, yes, creationism can be harmful to both adults and children, but how harmful is really up to the individual.  Without a doubt it damages potential career paths, at least until the individual overcomes their belief system, like the many theists who made incredible scientific advances.  Theists are capable of great things, but they simply have further to go because of that extra hurdle they have to overcome.  Little kennie sees that hurdle as an absolute limit, luckily most folks don't accept that.

When Rationalization is the Only Tool in Your Toolbox, What Do You Do? You Rationalize!

Many, many years ago I read a small cartoon that struck me not funny, but something all too real.  I don't remember the source, it could have been anything from the New Yorker to Mad Magazine, but I remember the cartoon well.  It was the clearest example of racism I had ever heard and one I took a lesson from.  I wish I had the image, but while it left a lasting impression, the original source apparently did not.  I tried a web search, but my parameters are too wide.  Well anyway, it went something like this:

 A man was sitting in his easy chair watching a baseball game.  It was the bottom of the ninth, two outs, based loaded, and his team was down.  Visually he was pretty much an Archie Bunker type.  In fact you could easily picture Archie Bunker doing exactly this. 

The announcer names the next batter, an African-American player and the man is livid.  He goes on to proclaim the game to be over and how the next batter is a choker and can't handle the pressure of playing baseball all because of his race. . . you can easily picture this little bout of verbal diarrhea.

On the first swing of the bat the baseball the player hits it out of the park and wins the game.

The man now proclaims that the man was super-strong from all those years in the jungle.

Actually I paraphrased it a great deal, but I hope you get the gist.  You can probably well imagine the actual words used, so there is no need to repeat them verbatim.  The lesson I learned was that no matter what really happens, a racist goes into any situation prejudiced toward a certain result.  If the outcome is in line with his prejudices, he uses it as reinforcement.  If the actual results are contrary to his prejudices, he is going to find a way to rationalize the results to support his beliefs.

So as I was spending a small part of my weekend going through some news feeds I saw a great many articles about the discovery of Gravitational Waves.  It is very exciting news and also confirms a prediction Einstein made a century ago.  Here is a video from one of the many items I found in my news feeds on the subject.

Needless to say this is an incredible achievement!  But . . . me being me, I had to wonder if any of the Creationist organizations were going to say anything about it.  I haven't seen anything from ICR on it yet, but little kennie ham's Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute just had to start their spin.  Here are some quotes, and the links if you want to read their whole posts.

First up a few 'thoughts' from AiG (What Does the Detection of Gravity Waves Mean for the Creation Model?):

"What does this mean to the creation model? Not much. Some creationists may wonder about the distance, but we already know about many objects even farther away. Creationists are well aware of the light-travel-time problem, and we have proposed several solutions. By the way, the big bang has its own light-travel-time problem, the horizon problem."

 "This first direct confirmation of gravitational waves is just another example of how far out and cool God’s creation can be."

AiG pretty much dismisses the whole thing, they do try and remind true believers that the distances spoken of with the discovery isn't something they should consider to be real.  Their 'scientists' have postulate a rather creative 'problem' so they can dismiss the actual evidence.

Next the DI weighs in (What Should We Make of Gravity-Wave Detection?):

"In other words, the universe began to exist, and there is no physical explanation in cosmology or physics for why this happened. "

"The only causal option left is an immaterial transcendent personal agent of immense power and wisdom."

While AiG tried to dismiss the discovery as irrelevant, the DI tries to use it as justification for their mythical designer . . . you know the Christian God they never want to 'officially' recognize.  Simply put, if there is no physical explanation, there must be a supernatural one.  I see this as nothing but a re-statement of the God-In-The-Gaps argument.  Even if it were true that there is no physical explanation, that doesn't mean there will never be one, only that we may not have one right now.  The reason I worded it this way is because I really don't feel the need to dig into the research and see if the DI is telling the truth, about there being no physical explanation.  As you know, I don't trust anything the DI says -- and that's based on their history.

Now do you see the connection to my opening story.  No matter what actually happens in science, be it the discovery of new planets, new fossils, gravitational waves, whatever . . ., Creationists will find a way to use it to further rationalize their own beliefs. 

But really there is no surprises here.  Science will keep on moving forward and pretty much ignore the efforts of folks like these to drag down science in order to shore up their belief systems.

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?

Will the Discovery Institute start petitioning the Louvre?

This post is kinda convoluted.  It started as a response to a conversation and ended using a quote from the Wedge Strategy document.  I spotted something I hadn't noticed before, so I have re-arranged the post a bit, to lead with that item because . . . well you just have to see it.

 . . . The American Education System has problems, but we are not going to fix them by substituting real science with pseudo-science.  Plus, if you have been reading some of the material from the DI, you know that science is just a start.  After all, one of the 20 year goals from the famous, or infamous, Wedge Strategy Document is:

"To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts."

I do have to question . . . fine arts?  What the hell does that mean?  Let me guess, someone at the DI will start painting and they will immediately start demanding it be included at the Louvre!
Here is the original post . . . that will place the end comment in context, but I couldn't resist leading with it.  The down-side is I could picture the DI doing exactly that . . . more's the pity.

Had a conversation the other day and the gist of it was what gives me the right to be critical of folks like the Discovery Institute (DI) and Answers in Genesis (AiG), after all I am not a scientist.  My flippant answer was simply that I agreed that I am not a scientist, I'm certainly not a biologist, but then the majority of the folks at the DI, AiG, and the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) aren't scientists either.  Yet they seem to feel criticizing science, scientists, and science methodology is OK for them to do it.  But there is more to it.  When you look at those organizations, are they really targeting scientists with all their press releases, publications, and posts?

No, they seem to be targeting everyone BUT scientists.  Seriously, if they were targeting scientists, wouldn't they do that with actual science?  Instead they are targeting people who vote for politicians, school board members, parents active in Parent-Teacher Associations, church-goers, really anyone but scientists.  In other words they are after anyone who can sell their ideas to influence and push other people, especially school boards and politicians.  Look at how many of the current crop of politicians love to pander to the Christian Right.  For them it's all about votes.  Two of them, Huckabee and Cruz, even have been supporting the latest Kentucky State Bigot, Kim Davis (Someone needs to tell Ken Ham that Religious Freedom is not a license to Discriminate and Ed Brayton's Facebook post).

Look what they tried to do down in Texas.  The extremely Creationist School Board Head, Don McLeroy, wasn't happy with scientists determining science curriculum so he formed a committee and invited the DI to 'help' (Texas regains some Sanity!).  Luckily the State legislature had enough to Don's antics that they finally ousted him.  The DI 'helped' the Dover school board, or I should say the former Dover school board.  The DI 'helped' the Louisiana Family Forum write what eventually became the poorly named 'Louisiana Science Education Act' (Louisiana Politics over Science and The Discovery Institute and Michael Engor are at it again).  The result, at State with the worst reputation of being pro-education to the point science groups are no longer considering Louisiana for their conferences and meetings.  The DI helped a California part-time soccer coach try and teach a 'Philosophy of Design' class that was remarkably lacking in philosophy (Coexistence III - Tejon CA).  Do you see them as 'helping' scientists?

What give me the right?  Nothing, really.  I don't see it as a right, I see it as an obligation.  After all,  if I am going to be a target, aren't I obliged to shoot back?

I am a person that folks like the DI and kennie ham (AiG) take aim at.  I am someone who has had children in school and have a grandchild and nieces and nephews currently in school.  I am a voter who elects people to represent me at the local, state, and national level and who votes on issues like school funding.  I support the local PTA and school board and have even attended meetings when certain things are on the agenda.  I have had letters to the editor published in the local papers and have also mailed/emailed my representatives to voice my opinion.  I blog and have several thousand posts around the Internet news site, like Topix.  Google my email ID and you might be surprised!  You might have noticed that I don't mind sharing my opinions.  I am not afraid to disagree, something my wife can tell you all the time.  But since I am one of the people that are being targeted by these folks, I figure I have obligation to respond to being a target, and this blog is one of the ways I respond.

It really is more a way for me to get my own head around ideas.  I like to capture elements of the arguments and write to clear my own thinking.  If that happens to be critical of the DI and AiG, and others, then so be it.  There are plenty of religious blogs out there critical of real science!

What I found funny when thinking about the conversation later is that I am doing something that gets paid a great deal of lip service by the DI.  I am engaged in critical thinking.  The DI advocates

'teaching methods that introduce intelligent design ideas (and textbooks) indirectly through a campaign to "Teach the Controversy" by portraying evolution as "a theory in crisis" and "presenting all the evidence, both for and against, evolution" and teaching "Critical Analysis of Evolution"'

For example the 'Teach the Controversy' campaign attempts to disguise itself as a way of improving education and increase critical thinking, the reality is they do not want critical thinking.  Here is an excerpt from the Dover decision:

"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. The goal of the IDM [Intelligent Design Movement] is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID"

Teaching the controversy has been slammed so hard, they changed the name of the campaign to "Critical Analysis of Evolution".  Since they cannot teach the 'science' behind their ideas -- because they keep forgetting to do any science to support their ideas -- they are manufacturing artificial issues, like fomenting an artificial 'controversy' to portray evolution as a theory in crisis.

Anyone, and I mean anyone, who critically analyzes Intelligent Design will discover how bereft of science it actually is.  ID writings claim to be science, but at best they are philosophical mental meanderings.  The DI opened their own lab, and still no science.  Their ID campaigns are all dishonest because they cloud their intent in innocuous ideas.  We talked about the 'Teach the Controversy' and 'Critical Analysis of Evolution' campaigns.  We can add a few more:

• Sternberg Peer Review Controversy -- they frequently mischaracterize what actually happened in order to continually paint Sternberg as a victim of imaginary discrimination.
• Guillermo Gonzalez failure to be granted tenure -- he failed not because he supported ID, but because he failed in his responsibilities as a professor. 
•  Academic Freedom Bills, which have absolutely nothing to do with Academic Freedom.  "They purport that teachers, students, and college professors face intimidation and retaliation when discussing scientific criticisms of evolution, and therefore require protection.  Critics of the bills point out that there are no credible scientific critiques of evolution.  Investigation of the allegations of intimidation and retaliation have found no evidence that it occurs." (from: Academic freedom campaign)

When faced with such tactics, everyone should recognize it and respond accordingly!  That's what I am doing and I certainly do feel an obligation to respond.  The American Education System has problems, but we are not going to fix them by substituting real science with pseudo-science.  Plus, if you have been reading some of the material from the DI, you know that science is just a start.  After all, one of the 20 year goals from the famous, or infamous, Wedge Strategy Document is:

"To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts."

I do have to question . . . fine arts?  What the hell does that mean?  Let me guess, someone at the DI will start painting and they will immediately start demanding it be included at the Louvre!

Since when is Richard Sternberg known as an 'Evolutionary Biologist'?

You might criticize me for not listening to the audio, but I really triggered on the title: "Listen: Evolutionary Biologist Richard Sternberg on the Problem of Whale Origins".  Since when is Richard Sternberg known as an 'Evolutionary Biologist'?

Biologists at places like Answers in Genesis (AiG) and the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) refer to themselves as 'Creation Biologists', and while those two terms really don't work well together, that's their title.  Shouldn't Richard be calling himself a 'Intelligent Design Biologist'?  After all he works at the Discovery Institute's pet lab (Biologic) and is working on a 'research' project funded by the DI. 

Calling yourself an Evolutionary Biologist usually has meaning that involves an acceptance of the Theory of Evolution, not every nook and cranny, but the overarching theory.  The signatories of Project Steve put it well with this part of their statement (I added the underlining):

"Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. "

It doesn't seem to me that a signatory of the DI's dissent petition would agree with the Project Steve statement.  If I recall, Sternberg was also one of the many signatories . . . well you can read it here:

"Also, in early editions of the list [the dissent petition], Richard Sternberg was described as "Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution" though Sternberg was never a Smithsonian staff member, but an unpaid research associate. At the time of signing the list Sternberg was the outgoing editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a minor biology journal, where he played a central role in the Sternberg peer review controversy. Later versions of the list dropped mention of Sternberg's affiliation with the Smithsonian in favor of Sternberg's alma maters, Florida International University and Binghamton University. "

I don't know, but it all seems very misleading to me, but then I often feel misled when reading things from the Discovery Institute.  Maybe Richard just hasn't run out of business cards from one of his previous jobs, you know the ones before the peer review controversy?

If Evolution is ever replaced, it won't be by the Discovery Institute!

I hadn't run in this before, which is not surprising since I took a bit of time away from blogging, but after it being pointed out to me on Facebook, I just have to add it to my collection.  It's from Karl Giberson, Ph.D, posted on HuffPo two years back: "Evolution's Refusal to Die".  It ties well into things I like to say, like science's self-correcting nature.  I do love this line:

"Evolution is no more ill than heliocentricity, atomic theory or quantum mechanics is ill."

and his closing:

"The historical lesson is clear, even if the anti-evolutionists can't see it: Science is open to correction. In the event that evolution does become a "theory in crisis," we will read about that in Scientific American, Nature and Science, not the blogs of the anti-Darwinian culture warriors." 

I, and many others, have said time and time again that when you look back at all the things Creationists like to point out as weaknesses in science, like Piltdown Man or Cold Fusion, you will find that it certainly wasn't the armchair Creationist that discovered the problem, but other scientists replicating the work.  When you see the advancement of science from Newton to Einstein and beyond, again the armchair Creationist were nothing but a nay-sayer and the actual work was again done by real scientists, not folks like those at Answers in Genesis (AiG), the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), or the Discovery Institute (DI).  I have asked and no one has bothered answering, what scientific advancement can you point to that had Creationism at its core?  Not a single one!  Pointing out historical scientists that may or may not have been theists is not the same thing.  What scientific advancement can you lay at Creationism's door, not a single one!  Should make you think, shouldn't it?

If ever the current Theory of Evolution is replaced by a better, more encompassing explanation, it's not one dreamed up by theists as a way to bolster their own faith in their particular religion, but by real scientists, doing actual science, in accordance with methodology that doesn't require the actions of a deity.

Religion = Crazy? It might work!

Jesus and Mo has done it again!  You have to see this one:  Wow.  After you read it and stop laughing, think for a second.  What tactic has not been tried by folks like kennie ham, the Institute for Creation Research, or those less-than-reputable folks at the Discovery Institute?  How crazy have some of those tactics been?  Is there anything they won't do in the cause of their religious beliefs?  Lying for Jesus, misrepresenting real science and science methodology, Quote-mining, and re-baptising historical figures as Creationists are just a few examples.  While I wouldn't be surprised if they tried what Jesus and Mo are suggesting, I think their next crazy tactic is to try and limit free speech by outlawing any criticism of a religious belief, sort of like the old-style blasphemy laws.  Of course, as usual, any law would only apply to Christianity, since Evangelicals tend to not accept any religion is a real religion except for theirs.  Burning Bibles is bad, but burning Korans would be a perfectly acceptable hobby.

Kirk doesn't like Peer Review

Kirk Durston wrote his first 'faith in science article' and he takes aim at 'Peer Review'.  Does he do a good job, well sort of.  He's not saying much of anything new.  Peer Reviewed journals, well real ones anyway, need to be very careful because when they mess up, they can look pretty bad.  Nothing really new here!  Have there been problems, certainly!  Will there be problems in the future?  More than likely.  But what does Kirk offer instead of peer review?  Nothing!  He just doesn't like it.

Actually that makes a certain amount of sense, I mean the Discovery Institute, whose blog he is posting on, has numerous reasons for not liking peer review.  Imagine you have come up with a way to package and market your religion under the guise of science.  Remember, that's where Intelligent Design started, a repackaging of Creation Science.  But you have your own package and you try and market it and real science gets in the way.  One, of many, of the arguments is that your 'work' hasn't been properly peer reviewed.  I've used this quote before, and it is still applicable.  Dr. Chancey, Chair of the Religious Studies Department at SMU said:

"Many religious groups-Christian and other-do not regard evolutionary theory as a threat. For many people of faith, science and religion go hand in hand. When scholars criticize ID, they are not attacking religion. They are only asking ID proponents to be transparent in their agenda, accurate about their representations of scholarship, and willing to play by the same rules of peer review and quality control that legitimate scholars and scientists around the world follow every day."

I added the underline to make my point.  ID 'theorists' would be welcome to submit their work for peer review if they are willing to play by the same rules.  The question is why aren't they?  I look at things pretty simple, either they cannot play by the same rules, or they will not play by the same rules.  For example anyone remember the Sternberg Peer Review Controversy?  There was a clear example of trying to bypass the process in order to get a paper published.  If you get bored one day look it up in Stephen C. Meyer's 'Signature in the Cell' and see how Meyer re-wrote history in his rationalizing the controversy.  Wikipedia seems to have a much more objective read on what happened.  Funny where Sternberg ended up working.  According to the DI website:

 "Dr. Sternberg is presently a research scientist at the Biologic Institute, supported by a research fellowship from the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute."

So he works at Meyer's place, and Meyer was the author of the paper Sternberg violated procedure to publish.  You know if a HS football coach gets caught helping a particularly talented player get into college and then shortly thereafter gets a job coaching at the same college, the NCAA takes a very long and hard view, frequently to the detriment of the coaches involved.  But I guess that's not an issue at the DI.

So the DI doesn't like the current peer review process.  No surprise there.  They don't seem to like the legal system or even the Vatican.  Remember the legal system is where they lost a landmark case (Dover et al.) and the Pope didn't invite them to the Vatican to discuss Religion and Evolution.  So what does the DI do when there is something they don't like?  I am not surprised to find the DI attacking peer review.  After all, how successful have they been at having their papers published in legitimate peer review journals?  Actually to be more honest, I am not aware of them submitting much to peer review journals, they just keep claiming some sort of discrimination.  Of course there isn't any proof of it, other than their whines.  

Grab a name and hit PubMed and see how often a paper by someone like Meyer, Dembski, or Marks is cited.  You might not be surprised at the answer.  I wasn't able to find any, can you?  There was one Dembski W listed, but it wasn't wild Bill.  Meyer we've discussed numerous times.  Marks is Robert J. Marks, the current editor and chief of Bio-Complexity.  he is also an old friend of Dembski and involved in the Baylor Evolutionary Informatics Lab controversy with him.  He was also one of the alleged victims of intelligent design persecution so hilariously discussed in the Ben Stein abortion 'Expelled'.  On last note on Marks, he is an Electrical Engineer, which makes his just a qualified to head a journal supposedly about biology as Meyer (philosopher of science)  is to write books on it or Dembski (mathematician/historian) to develop theories about it.

Well their first effort seems to be to try and co-opt it.  Since peer reviewed journals don't take them seriously, invent their own!  Their current attempt at co-opting peer review is the in-house online journal called 'Bio-Complexity'.  There they claim to have peer-reviewed articles.

The National. Center for Science Education had a lot to say about Bio-Complexity shortly after it was announced.  Here is my favorite comment:

"Unable to convince the scientific establishment of the merits of their views, creationists have long been engaged in the project of constructing a counterestablishment, which mimics — or perhaps the mot juste is “apes” — not only peer-reviewed journals but also professional societies, textbook publishers, media organizations, natural history museums, and graduate programs at accredited universities."

 Real science peer review is not the same thing as having a few people who already agree with you read your papers and pat you on the head.  Real scientific peer review is more adversarial than that.  It's not people who agree with you, but other experts in the same field.  That's one of the reasons Sternberg got into hot water, he was unqualified to be a reviewer for Meyer's paper for several reasons first he was the journal's outgoing editor so reviewing the paper himself was more an ethical conflict of interest.  His support of ID was well known, as was his relationship with the author so he should have disqualified himself.  Secondly the paper dealt more with Paleontology than his expertise in Taxonomy and Systemics, so he was certainly not a peer based on the subject.  Finally the organization had many much more qualified reviewers, yet Sternberg failed to have one of them review the paper.  So setting himself up as a reviewer violated policy.  So in order to claim their 'work' can be peer reviewed in the future, they create their own journal.  Actually they've done this before (Origins & Design from ACN and Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design  from Dembski) and it hasn't worked yet.

In fact on the subject of peer review, Dembski's PCID had it's own little controversy about the subject.  More than likely one of the things that helped in it's demise.

"PCID's peer review process where ISCID Fellows are reviewers is in contrast to the process described as proper peer review by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, where "reviewers are experts in the relevant scientific fields who have no conflict of interest with or especially close personal relationships to the authors or requestors" and refers to ISCID specifically. (from Wikipedia)"

No one actually buys into their stuff being peer-reviewed, except maybe Access Research Network (ARN) or the Institute for Creation Research (ICR).  But then would that surprise anyone?

So if co-opting doesn't work, go on the attack!  That's what I see Kirk's post as, an attack on peer review.  If you are unable or unwilling to play by the rules, you try and discredit it to weaken science in general.  Will it work?  Doubtful.  Yes, peer review has issues, but the Discovery Institute isn't the group that's going to fix them.  In fact has the DI fixed anything?

Kirk's, and the DI's attacks on peer review sort of remind me of the kid who takes his football home because the other kids don't want to play with them.  Only in this case, they are trying to take away a football that doesn't belong to them, the Peer Review Process.