Shouldn't a Critique Actually Critique?

Here we see one of the usual tactics by those less-than-stalwart fellows at the Discovery Institute (DI).  Simply put they take the work by other people and rather than doing any actual research, they simply editorialize it to spin it in either an anti-evolution or a pro-intelligent Design way -- or both when they think they can get away with it.  This is one of the anti-evolution ones: "“Shared Error” Argument: Olfactory Receptor Genes Prove Common Descent?"

Professors' Dennis Venema and Scot McKnight co-wrote a book, Adam and the Genome, which has apparently annoyed the DI. One interesting note that instead of referring to the authors as 'professors', Cornelius Hunter (DI talking head, although not a very prolific one), says this:

"co-authored by theistic evolutionists Dennis Venema and Scot McKnight"

Venema has a PhD is Biology and is a professor of biology at Trinity Western University in Langley, British Columbia. McKnight has a PhD from the University of Nottingham and is a professor at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary in Lombard, IL.  Obviously anti-evolutionist Hunter has little regard for them and immediately labels them as an enemy of the ID crowd.  I figure I can call Hunter that in the same way he referred to the two professors as theistic evolutionists.

You see the DI doesn't like Theistic Evolution for a few reasons:

• Theistic Evolution more wraps a theistic explanation around evolution, where the DI wants to throw evolution out completely so they can slide in their own theistic explanation.  
• The DI likes to disavow themselves of their theistic underpinnings and hide their religion.  Anything that smacks of religion is something they run away from as quickly as their little legs can carry them.  
• Theistic Evolutionists tend to be quite critical of the DI and its quaint little notion of Intelligent Design.  As we know anyone critical of the DI and ID is the treated with disdain by the DI.

I believe they would prefer all theistic evolution proponents would drop their religious concepts and get under the big-tent of anti-evolutionism until such time as evolution is abolished and then they can fight out all the details with all the other various theistic groups.

Yes, I am writing about two theists who wrote a book, but I am not critiquing the book, I am critiquing how anti-evolutionist Hunter critiqued the book.  Did he offer any support for the various things he said?  No.  His main argument is a common one at the DI.  Basically, he says biology is complicated, thereby it cannot have happened through a natural process, like evolution.

There, you can read his much longer diatribe, but when you boil it down, that's what you get.  If you really want to dig deeper, look at his basic issues with the book:

• Issue 1: "First, the olfactory system is profoundly complex." See, complex and we know how the DI deals with complexity
• Issue 2: "The olfactory system is no exception. Its several fundamental components, if evolution is true, must have evolved several times independently." A re-statement of being complex.
• Issue 3: " . . . the strength of this evolution argument is lack of function, but that renders it fallacious."  This is not an argument as much as an unsupported statement -- another favorite tactic.  Where is his support for this statement?  Nowhere to be found.

That's pretty much it.  His functionality whine completely ignores the genetic evidence for common descent.  But that's how the DI works, builds up an argument on one facet and completely ignore other facets.  Then they go on as if their argument is gospel without a single supporting fact -- just more opinion and wishful thinking.

Anti-evolutionist Hunter sort of quotes Elliot Sober, which makes me think this is a quote mine:

"Evolution fails to explain how even a single gene could evolve, let alone the entire olfactory system. In fact the presence of supposedly useless structures, such as pseudogenes, is hardly a plus for evolution. As Elliott Sober has pointed out, there is nothing about this story that provides a positivistic argument for evolution."

I believe Sober's quote concerned the discussion whether the gene or the genome is the evolutionary 'target'.  Sober is a noted critic of the 'gene-centered view of Evolution', so the evolution process for a single gene wouldn't be overly important to Sober.  It is funny that Hunter would quote Sober, who is a noted critic of Intelligent Design:

"This article reviews two standard criticisms of creationism/intelligent design (ID)): it is unfalsifiable, and it is refuted by the many imperfect adaptations found in nature. Problems with both criticisms are discussed. A conception of testability is described that avoids the defects in Karl Popper's falsifiability criterion. Although ID comes in multiple forms, which call for different criticisms, it emerges that ID fails to constitute a serious alternative to evolutionary theory."
(Elliot Sober, 2007, What is wrong with intelligent design?, Abstract) 

Gotta love that last piece: 'it emerges that ID fails to constitute a serious alternative to evolutionary theory'.  I bet that's one reason Hunter tries to work in a quote-mine from pro-evolution Sober, I mean if you can use some of your critic's words, you can make it sound as if he isn't really a critic.

I have to wonder how he and Behe, who agrees with common descent, get along?

Defensiveness 101

A week ago the Discovery Institute announced yet another Stephen C. Meyer book, not just a book, but basically an apology for an earlier book.  350 pages rationalizing "Darwin's Doubt" from a couple of years ago, it's called "Debating Darwin's Doubt".  If you haven't heard about it, I posted about it in "That's it? An admission of failure?"

As of today, Amazon says the book has not yet been released.  Here is what Amazon displayed when I went and looked at the book:

So I have an interesting question.  Not only are there already seven reviews on Amazon, but little casey luskin posted an audio file where he discusses an exchange with Biologos "Debating Darwin's Doubt: Casey Luskin on Theistic Evolutionary Responses to Stephen Meyer" about the book.  Here is the description:

"Luskin discusses a series of exchanges with BioLogos, the prominent Christian theistic evolutionary group, exploring several key disagreements between ID proponents and theistic evolutionists over detection of design in nature and methodological naturalism."

So let me get this straight.  The DI has yet to release a book edited by Klinghoffer addressing issues of a book by Meyer that hasn't been released yet and one of the DI's lawyers is having a discussion exchange about it with Biologos and has an interview with another DI mouthpiece about it.

Does anything about this sound reasonable?  To me it sounds like the DI is already getting very defensive about it!  I expect there will be another book to detail the critiques of this one, and I bet it's edited by little casey.  I mean Meyer is supposedly the big gun, klingy is definitely second string (editor rather than a contributor), and casey is usually the the kid carrying the bag of footballs for the real players.  Remember his role during the Dover Trial, handing out pamphlets outside the courthouse.

Why can't the DI let the book see the light of day before have to start defending it?

Intelligent Design: For Entertainment Purposes Only!

I believe that John G. West, yes, that one, from the Discovery Institute (DI), has this form letter and all he has to do is fill in the name of any biologist/journalist/scientist, add a link to their article, and then have it posted on his website. Here check out "A Biologist Misunderstands Intelligent Design (Again)" if you wish, but if you have read any of the standard "They just don't understand ID" posts, you already know what it says. He even acknowledges it with his "(Again)" in the title. If it is so common, Johnny, why don't you get off your butt and publish some valid science that supports ID. then no one could mis-understand it. But that seems to be out of the question.



So what we see yet another biologist, this time Dr. Kathryn Applegate, affiliated with the Biologos Forum, being critical of intelligent design in her article "Self-Assembly of the Bacterial Flagellum: No Intelligence Required" and instead of actually addressing the shortfalls in intelligent design or the details of her critique, he would rather question the biologist's knowledge of ID. In all honesty how much do she need to know? I'm not being flippant, but if you read her article she goes through and explains how the bacterial flagellum, one of Michael Behe's poster children for irreducible complexity, forms through a natural process. ID proponents claim otherwise, including Behe's who's books she references.



So one side claims God-Did-It -- without naming the designer -- and Kathryn Applegate says not so fast. She supports her position with a nicely done explanation, so what's an ID proponent to do? Attack her understanding of ID -- something she doesn't really need to present the natural process by which bacterial flagellum form. Did he address the process she described? Did he address the experiments that developed her understanding of the process? Did he make a case for how the 'Designer' did it? No, that would be too much like work.



So apparently here are the rules -- post something positive about Intelligent Design or the DI will fill out West's 'form' letter and claim you don't understand Intelligent Design. It doesn't really matter what you say, if you aren't an ID proponent, then you must not understand ID. Makes perfect sense . . . in their delusional world.

I think Dr. Applegate understand all she needs to about ID. She doesn't need to read more material about it because it doesn't really matter. Anything she says that is critical will get the same response. Rather than educate, Johnny and his cronies would rather condemn. The entire world has been waiting for the DI to produce anything other than popular press books and articles -- books and articles that show an ever changing concept of what ID is supposed to be. It's like hitting a moving target and unless you kneel before the DI and proclaim their 'Designer' to be the end all of scientific knowledge, they will complain that you really don't understand it. So in other words over 99% of the biologists and scientists in the world all misunderstand the DI and their pet concept, Creationism's little brother. I think Johnny has been hanging around with his cronies too long and needs to get out more for some perspective. I thought the low was when Casey Luskin took on a Canadian Quilter about her award winning quilt "Myths of our time: Intelligent Design", but West hit a new low with his non-critique



I do love how he sneaks in the term "intelligent design theorist", as if they actual had a theory to study. So now they are creating what . . . job titles for imaginary positions? At best he should call them 'intelligent design conceptualizers' or in a fit of self-examination he could call them 'marketeers', but that level of honesty is too much to expect. I guess that would make Dr. Applegate an 'anti-ID theorist' and I am sure that is a title she would wear proudly!



Hmmm . . . so I guess that makes me . . . what exactly? An Anti-ID Blogger? Not really, but I doubt Johnny would understand. I am not against ID, I am not even anti-creationism -- as theology and philosophy. I am against anyone, or any group, who make scientific claims without having done the work. I am against anyone who uses disreputable tactics, lies, and misrepresentations of science in order to garner support for their personal religious beliefs.

If the DI would simply do the work and actually support their contentions with something resembling facts, I would be lobbying for their inclusion in science class. But they seem to be unwilling, or unable, to do so. As long as they remain unwilling or unable, then I will argue that they belong on the same shelf in the bookstore as Astrology, Phrenology, the Psychic Friends Network, and Tarot Cards. Just like the small print disclaimer on those psychic infomercials of a few years back, Intelligent Design is "For Entertainment Purposes Only!"

Faith and Evolution website funnies

I was reading a pdf file from the Discovery Institute's new "Faith and Reason# website, the one they set up to combat Francis Collin's BioLogos website. Well the pdf is titled "The Roots of Intelligent Design" and I was contrasting it with Barbara Forrest's paper "Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals" ad I realized the paper is one big smokescreen.

Basically the paper is an effort to claim that Intelligent Design does not have it's roots in Creationism. It tries to show how the design argument has been around for centuries and quotes Plato and a few others. Actually it makes an interesting read -- but it doesn't address the root issue. It's not the Design argument, which many have voiced over the years . . . but the current modern Discovery Institute-led Intelligent Design Movement that is nothing more than the Design argument wrapped in Creationism underpinnings!

When looked at in that light the "Roots" paper is nothing but more grist for the rumor mill that is the Discovery Institute. Rather than addressing the 'cdesign proponentists' discovered during the Dover Trial, rather than address the obvious Creationist statements of the Wedge Strategy. Rather than address Dembski, Behe, and others, who claim the Intelligent Designer is the Christian God. In fact rather than address the actual reason why the Faith and Evolution website was stood up . . . they take us down a well disguised path full of historical discussions about the argument of Design and try and leave us thinking that the 'argument' and the 'movement' are the same thing, when they are not!

At the end of the 'Roots' pdf are several discussion questions under the heading of 'Conclusions'. I do have a philosophical objections to asking a series of questions rather than drawing an actual conclusions. But I will try and answer them for myself.

24. What are the most important things you have learned from these readings?
25. What do these readings show you about the origins of intelligent design as an idea? Is intelligent design a response to modern court rulings or an outgrowth of “Christian fundamentalism”? Is it dependent on the authority of the Bible rather than the observations of nature and the inferences drawn from those inferences? How long have people been debating about whether there is evidence of design in nature?
These discussion questions are © 2009 by Discovery Institute; they may be freely downloaded, printed, and used for noncommercial purposes.

What are the most important things you have learned from these readings? Not much, I was already familiar with much of the design argument's history.

What do these readings show you about the origins of intelligent design as an idea? Not much other than a blurring between the movement and the argument.

Is intelligent design a response to modern court rulings or an outgrowth of “Christian fundamentalism”? Yes, the modern Intelligent Design movement is an evolution of the design argument based on Court decisions and most certainly related to Christian Fundamentalism. This paper did not address this issue, hence my 'smokescreen' comment.

Is it dependent on the authority of the Bible rather than the observations of nature and the inferences drawn from those inferences? The design argument is not dependent on the Bible, mainly because the Bible doesn't address the design argument itself. However Christian Apologetics have been using the Bible in support of the Intelligent Design Movement for years and therefore should be considered a source document for the movement.

How long have people been debating about whether there is evidence of design in nature? For a long time, but this question still doesn't address the relative youth of the modern ID movement. Plus the author of this paper needs to take a good psychology course on Teleology and the well documented human bias toward seeing design in nature.

As I said at the beginning of this post, the pdf was a short decent read on the roots of the Design Argument, but it never addresses the issue of the fundamental Christian ties and support for the Intelligent Design Movement, which I feel is disingenuous of the Discovery Institute.

Faith and Evolution?

I think the Discovery Institute has finally come out from under their 'not a religion' banner. Why else would the Discovery institute's Science and Culture group, the marketeers for Intelligent Design, put out a website called "Faith and Evolution". If ID has nothing to do with theology, why do they need this particular site?

According to an opinion piece in the New Scientist this site is a direct response to Francis Collins new site "The BioLogos Foundation". Amanda Gefter titled her article "Christians Battle each other over Evolution". So what we have two sites, what is the difference? The difference may be subtle, but it comes down to the DI protecting one of their main strategies, and one I have felt has been a deliberate lie for years. Basically the DI gets both financial and marketing support from people who believe that you either believe in God or you support Evolution. This false dichotomy has been one of their basic strategies. Francis Collins believes otherwise, as his website states:

"We believe that faith and science both lead to truth about God and creation."

According to Jonathon Wells, Senior Fellow over at the DI's Science and Culture group:

"Collins’s defense of Darwinian theory turns out to be largely an argument from ignorance that must retreat as we learn more about the genome—in effect, a Darwin of the gaps."

I really do love this, Wells accusing someone else of an argument from ignorance! My irony-meter just screamed it's last breath. As Ms. Gefter put it:

" . . . can one be a Christian and accept evolution? The answer, as far as the Discovery Institute is concerned, is a resounding: No."

"I think it's interesting that the Discovery Institute – which has long argued that intelligent design qualifies as science – seems to have given up the game and acknowledged that their concerns are religious after all. "

"The Discovery Institute has now made it crystal clear that they have no interest in reconciling science and religion – instead, they want their brand of religion to replace science. "

There you have it, the gloves are off and why, you might ask? I think it's pretty simple. Francis Collins' target audience are not atheists or agnostics, but Christians, the same market as the Discovery Institute. Funny how non-'non-religious' the Discovery Institute really is when they stand to lose their core supporters!