Did ProPublica Misrepresent Intelligent Design?

Little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer, one of the Discovery Institute talking heads had a bit of a whine today.  His post: "A Look Inside the Media Sausage Factory: Alternative Facts from ProPublica" continues a theme we discussed a few days back in "More 'Knee-Jerkiness' from the Discovery Institute, Emphasis on Jerkiness".  Apparently he's backing up Sarah Chaffee and her taking issue with ProPublica and one of their writers commenting on Intelligent Design (ID).

One of the reasons klingy complained about ProPublica was because it was mentioned on "Last Week on Tonight with John Oliver".  He doesn't seem to like Oliver saying that it did great investigative journalism:

" . . . donate to groups like ProPublica, a nonprofit group which does great investigative journalism."

If you aren't familiar with ProPublica, they are described as:

"ProPublica is a non-profit corporation based in New York City. It describes itself as an independent non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest. In 2010 it became the first online news source to win a Pulitzer Prize," (Wikipedia: ProPublica)

Other than that, I was surprised that klingy bothered to reach out to ProPublica, His normal course of events is to simply whine, cry, blame, and point fingers . . . usually all from various DI websites.  While he did reach out, I'm not sure of his approach.  He emailed them with this, including links to what he thinks are the significant misrepresentations:

"Writing at Evolution News & Views, which I edit, my Discovery Institute colleague Sarah Chaffee has pointed out significant misrepresentations in your January 30 article for ProPublica. Do you plan to correct them?"

Rather than ask for their sources, he goes immediately on the offensive and in one line basically questions their journalistic integrity.  Now when you question the integrity of the DI, they tend to get up on their hind legs and ad-hominen the hell out of you.  ProPublica is much more reasonable, an editor from ProPublica responded:

"I have reviewed both Annie's article and the critique by your colleague. In my judgment, Annie's article is factually accurate, and therefore we do not plan to publish a correction." 

She had more to say, you can read it at klingy post, if you want.  She stated her reasoning and supported it well.  Please note the term 'factually accurate'.  So in other words, ProPulica's description of ID as just another form of Creationism and the DI's goal of teaching ID in school is factually accurate.  Don't ya just love facts?  The DI and klingy obviously don't.

Klingy went on a much longer diatribe, and she responded to that as well.  Her bottom line was no corrections are necessary because the author did her homework and Sarah, and klingy, failed to make their case of 'misrepresentation', klingy took exception and said:

"So there you have it: a source of "investigative journalism" called out on multiple instances of misinformation in a single article refuses to correct the record, brushing aside objections as no more than a difference in "opinion." But I thought the highly regarded news source is supposed to be a source of fact, not opinion? 

Placing 'investigative journalism' in quotes they way he did was a subtle jab, but one that falls way off the mark.  In the eyes of the DI, ProPublica's crime was simply compounded because they refuse toe a DI-defined line, a line that no one outside of DI and ID circles toes.  The DI doesn't like Judge Jones because he stuck with the actual law, not the DI's version of it.  They also don't like Wikipedia because they won't let the DI define ID as science.  They don't like . . . well you get the idea.  They don't like anyone who disagrees with them.  Maybe one day they will notice me and I get added to that august list (Bucket List item for me :-))!  He continued with:

I'll drop this now, because the parade of fake news about ID and the evolution debate never ends."

Don't you love how he drags in 'fake news' again and tries to associate ProPublica with being a fake news site, like InfoWars (Wikipeda: Fake News Sites).  I do have to notice that while klingy is trying to paint ProPublica as a fake news site, he had nothing to say about John Oliver's characterization of InfoWars as an fake news site.  The reason this surprises me is that in the past InfoWars had nice things to say about ID.  I would expect some sort of defense, unless klingy is afraid to get in bed with a site that thinks Sandy Hook was phony government propaganda and the child victims were all actors.

In any event, the main question here is did ProPublica misrepresent ID?  You know my answer, it's that they did not!  The DI needs to do something more than just whine and claim to have been misrepresented without being able to show how and why.

I did want to make one small point that I do plan on expanding in the future, klingy ends with:

"If you suspect axe-grinding, yeah, it's probably there."

Isn't this exactly what most people think when they read anything from the DI?  Little klingy showed the axe he was grinding, his anti-science and pro-religion axe.  Funny how they [the DI] always seems to use the precise tactic they accuse other people of using. ProPublica isn't grinding any axes, they are reporting facts -- like investigative journalist are supposed to do.  You can disagree with them, but that doesn't mean the fact are false.

ProPublica has proven itself over and over again to be focused on the public interest.  While we already said they were the first online reporting website to win a Pulitzer back in 2010.  They also won one for investigative reporting in 2011, and a third Pulitzer for explanatory reporting in 2016.  Their list of awards goes on for 7 webpages.

Can the DI claim the same motivation, public interest, as ProPublica?  I'm sure they will eventually try and make such a claim, but then their claims of 'critical thinking' has nothing to do with actual critical thinking and their claims of 'academic freedom' has nothing to do with actual academic freedom, so if they ever claim to be doing whatever they do for 'public interest', I thnk we would find that it has nothing to do with actual public interest.

Do As I Say, Not As I Do

A couple of stories caught my eye, one from the Discovery Institute and the other from the Facebook posts of one of the all too many Christian Evangelistas.

The one from the DI is almost funny, if it wasn't so pathetic.  Many times in the past I, and many others, have watched the DI use tactics that on the one hand they claim to abhor, yet are perfectly willing to use the tactics themselves.  For example claiming that scientists are discriminating against Creationists when the reality shows that it's not discrimination for getting fired (or not receiving tenure) when you refuse to do your job.  Or claiming that they cannot get published in mainstream scientific journals because of some hidden conspiracy -- when they aren't even submitting to mainstream scientific journals.  My personal favorite is scream discrimination when someone like David Coppedge or John Freshwater get fired yet when a Christian school fires a science teacher for teaching actual science, why aren't they screaming discrimination then?

You see, they have a habit of using disreputable tactics while frequently accusing the opposing side of using those same tactics, regardless of lack of evidence of their opposition actually using those same tactics.  So I want to talk to you about religious indoctrination for a moment and then get back onto the DI's back.  When does religious indoctrination start?  Well in most cases it starts pretty much at birth.  Children are exposed to the religious traditions of their parents.  Examples include baptisms, confirmations, bar mitzvahs and bat mitzvahs  . . . the list is pretty endless.  Children get quite seeped in it, various schools like Catechism classes, Jewish life classes, and many other religious themed community events geared toward children.  And yet . . . if anyone dare suggest science classes at an earlier age, the cries of 'brainwashing' get thrown around immediately.

Back to the DI, and their Evolution 'news' and Views site, "Evolution in Kindergarten: Now Brought to You by the National Science Foundation".  Now, the accurate part of the post is that the National Science Foundation  has awarded a grant (http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1561401) designed to address a fundamental problem in education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education, that natural selection is one of the most misunderstood biological processes.  Now, wouldn't you think an organization like the DI, who make public claims about wanting to improve the education of our young, would support such efforts?  But no, the DI calls it brainwashing and are dead set against it!

Anyone else see the problem here?  It's OK to start kids down a religious path from birth, but the very idea of correcting an identified problem with an important part of biological study is considered brainwashing?  Like so many other times, it's a case of 'Do as I say and Not as I do!"  They, and other religious organization, want, and in my opinion, need to start on kids when they are young.  The very idea of teaching real science at a younger age is the equivalent to brainwashing?  Seriously?  Remember this is the group who supports some Ohio teachers who wanted to inject Intelligent Design into the science curriculum back in 2004 and who have developed whole lesson plans for teaching ID to pretty much any age group.

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/qcQR0psc44s/maxresdefault.jpg)

I've said it before.  If we don't let children drive, drink, or vote before a certain age, they shouldn't be exposed to religion until that age either.  Haven't the dangers of religion been clearly identified over the years?  How much bigotry and intolerance have their root in the religious beliefs of the offenders, and how young were they when they started down this path?

---

The second one, and the one most egregious was identified to me by The Friendly Atheist (TFA), "Franklin Graham: Boycotting Companies Is Only Okay When I Say It Is".  In the article TFA posts copies of two of Franklin Graham's Facebook posts.  Here are the links to the actual posts if you want to read them yourself (Hobby Lobby post and Target post).  The comments are somewhat interesting too, but be prepared, especially if you do not know who Graham is.

In the first post he equates the boycotting of Hobby Lobby over their discrimination of employees because of the company owner's religious beliefs as:

" . . . calling for a boycott. Doesn't this sound like bullying, intolerance, and discrimination . . ."

In the second post he is promoting the boycott of Target stores because of their LGBT bathroom policy:

" I'm glad people are standing up and letting them know this is wrong."

If you're not familiar with Graham, don't worry.  Just think about any one of the Christians Evangelista that you are familiar with, and you'll get the picture.  I have trouble telling any of them apart.  They want to tell me how to live and to make me pay them for the privilege of telling me how to live.  I prefer the John Oliver discussion on televangalistas:

But as to the subject at hand . . . to me this is another example of 'Do as I say and not as I do'.  Boycotting Hobby Lobby is bullying, intolerance and discrimination . . . but boycott Target because it's the right thing to do, according to Graham.  Of course you see the difference, Graham agrees with Hobby Lobby and disagrees with Target. 

Reminds me of when little kennie ham whined and cried about on of his pet creation 'scientists' getting sandbagged into a debate with an actual scientists just about a year after he did the exact same thing and sandbagged a scientist into debating him.  It was OK when he did it because a little "Lie for Jesus" is OK because it's for God, but it should have been criminal when the same tactic is used against him (Turnabout is fair play!).

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!

We'll see that IC remains as potent a weapon in ID's arsenal as it was in 1996.

While waiting patiently for the posts that will lay to rest any idea that Intelligent Design vs Evolution isn't a viable scientific controversy (as promised by the Discovery Institute here ) I read a couple of new posts over on the Discovery Institute's Evolution News and Views blog.

"Biophysicist Matt Baker Is an Intelligent Design Critic Who Doesn't Understand Irreducible Complexity" was one, and since apparently little casey luskin felt so strongly about it, he had to post a second one three days later: 

"Why the Type III Secretory System Can't Be a Precursor to the Bacteria Flagellum".

Typically what drove little casey to such lengths is an article by Matt Baker: "The bacterial flagellar motor: brilliant evolution or intelligent design?"  Good article and is a pretty typical example of something that happened during the Dover Trial.  Remember when Michael Behe, the father of Irreducible Complexity, was cross-examined?  You can read how he addressed one specific issue here.  He was presented with over 50 peer-reviewed publications, 9 books, and a number of textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not “good enough.”

Just so you know the players:

• Dr Matt Baker was awarded a John Monash Scholarship to complete a PhD in biological physics at Oxford University studying the effects of low temperature on the mechanism of the bacterial flagella motor. He returned to Australia in 2013 and is currently based at the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute where he uses DNA nano-structures to modify bacterial flagella motors to understand how they have arisen. Matt was one of RN's top 5 under 40 scientists in 2015.
• Mr. Casey Luskin is an attorney with graduate degrees in science and law.

I know, doesn't seem like a fair fight, on the one hand you have someone who specifically studies bacterial flagellum and on the other you have one of the Discovery Institute's lawyers.  Little casey was mentioned in Lauri Lebo's book about the Dover Trial (The Devil in Dover), he was handing out pro-Id pamphlets during the trial.  But don't worry, casey quotes one of the big guns of the Discovery Institute, Wild Bill Dembski.  Maybe that will help his case.

Now I am not going to try and dissect any of the articles.  First of all, I am not a biologist and have never pretended to be one.  Yes, I know that might someday have the DI comment on one of my posts claiming that I am wholly unqualified to have an opinion.  It's one of my bucket list items that I will annoy someone at the DI enough to respond.  But as for being wholly unqualified, I have to disagree.  I am one of the people who the DI aim their marketing campaign toward.  They don't aim at  scientists, they aim at people who vote for various politicians, are school board members and parents of students who can influence the directions school curriculum can take, they aim people who don't have advanced science degrees because they have never offered any evidence that their 'work' is in any way scientific.  They also prefer to aim at people who already believe in their particular brand of kool-aid.  Well by that list I am mostly qualified then, but since they like aiming at people like me, I feel perfectly justified in shooting back. 

What I am mostly interested in tactics.  For example, what tactic did Michael Behe use in his original books 'Darwin's Black Box'?  He took a short list of very complex things, made some completely unsupported claims about they being irreducibly complex and called it a night.  Do you disagree?   Don't forget that during the Dover Trial, he admitted that no one, including himself, was doing any work to support his claims of irreducible complexity.  Has anything changed since he published in 1996?  Remember that he also said similar things in 1993 (his part of the infamous 'Of Pandas and People'), but hadn't coined the phrase 'Irreducible Complexity' yet.  So in the past 22 years, who has done the research and offered the real scientific proof supporting Intelligent Design or Irreducible Complexity?  No one, particularly not casey!

No support places Behe's claims strictly in the realm of supposition and wishful thinking.  Intelligent Design adherents wants there to be a designer they can later claim to be God (remember the Wedge Strategy made that very clear), so they see design where there is, at best, the appearance of design.  When faced with actual scientific evidence that is contrary to their claims, they simple say 'it's not enough'.  That's what I think it took Casey two posts to say.

Here is where little casey quotes Wild Bill.  He [casey] seems to agree that if the biologist cannot provide a complete evolutionary path, that it's not good enough.  My question is why is that?  Behe offered claims with no support at all.  Baker offers support for his example, as did the 50+ documents presented to Behe at the Dover Trial.  But there seems to be a dichotomy here.  On the one hand if you fail to offer an absolute 100% perfect explanation, along with some level of scientific support, your claim just 'isn't good enough', yet when you offer no support at all, it gets accepted as gospel by people like little casey.

Baker never intended for his claim to be a complete answer, but it does contradict several of the points specified by Behe.  Points that were also presented during the Dover Trial which pretty well ruined Behe's day.  In fact, rarely is real scientific work ever complete.  People work on a part and parcel and other scientists come along and add to the knowledge pool.  This tactic of demanding 100% absolute perfection in evolutionary examples and yet offer no corresponding level of support when pushing forth Intelligent Design is, unfortunately all to common.  These two articles are perfect examples.

I do have one last question for little casey.  Why did he quote Wild Bill Dembski's "Rebuttal to Reports by Opposing Expert Witnesses"?  This was written in 2005 in response to reports of the 6 expert witnesses that were going to be testifying for the plaintiffs in the Dover Trial.  In case you forgot, Dembski was not on the side of the plaintiffs.  Wouldn't Dembski's responses gone over better during the court case itself?  I mean if his rebuttal is such a wonder piece of scholarship, why is it hidden away on a website to be used  a decade later in a very defensive way.  Let us all not forget that Dembski had his chance to testify and backed out.  So I take  his rebuttal with a large bag of salt.  He didn't present it where it might have done his side some good.  but here we are a decade later and little casey trots it out like it is a viable rebuttal.

So when little casey said "We'll see that IC remains as potent a weapon in ID's arsenal as it was in 1996."  I can only agree with him, although I might word it a little differently.  I think the word 'potent' is not used correctly here.  Usually when something has the 'potency' that IC has had over the past couple of decades, the better turn of phrase is 'impotent', unless the object is to sell books to believers, then I guess it did its job.  Hasn't impacted science very much, but it did help Behe's book sales.