Self-Censorship and the DI

A while back I wrote about censorship and how there doesn't seem to be much support for the Discovery Institute (DI) claims of censorship.  In "Is anyone actually censoring the Discovery Institute?" there doesn't seem to be any actual censorship . . . so of course, the DI annually award a 'Censor of the Year', and so far there awardees have done little in the way of actual censorship.

Previous 'winners' for 'Censor of the Year' are Jerry Coyne, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and the United Methodist Church (UMC). The DI says Coyne's 'crime' was encouraging Ball State University to stop teaching Intelligent Design. That's not exactly true. What Ball State University did was stop teaching Intelligent Design as if it was science.  Now, what did Neil deGrasse Tyson did to offend the DI? He hosted the updated Carl Sagan series Cosmos, which presented a few segments on religion's negative impact on scientific inquiry over the centuries. The DI really took exception to that.  The UMC had the audacity to decide that their annual convention was for their members and not to let the DI present their belief set at their own convention -- a belief set not shared by the UMC.

One of this years contenders seems to be something called 'self-censorship'. In this post from their blog "Quiet Self-Censorship and the Academic “Consensus”" they describe a phenomena in which Intelligent Design supporters never admit to being supporters because it might have an adverse impact on their academic and professional life.

I certainly hope being an ID supporter would have an impact!  After all, if you are in, or are entering in, a scientific field, shouldn't you be focused on actual science and not pseudo-science?  That's the point folks like Sarah Chaffee, the author of this particular piece and a regular DI mouthpiece, seem to miss.  She mentions this:

"We know a tenured science professor who in giving presentations in a private setting needs to begin his talks with a peculiar slide — a disclaimer that he does not speak on behalf of his university. He must include it, even though, again, he is speaking at a private event."

I would be surprised if she wasn't talking about Michael Behe, one of the few tenured professors who support ID and is a senior fellow at the DI.  He is tenured at Lehigh University, which has this disclaimer:

"The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."

Without such a disclaimer, it would be easy to assume any presentations by Behe would have the support and approval of Lehigh University.  By requiring such a disclaimer, the University recognizes both Behe's right of freedom of expression, but their own right to not be construed as supporting pseudo-science.  It might sound funny, but I respect both Lehigh and Behe for dealing opening and honesty about his support for ID.  One thing Behe doesn't seem to do is let his support for ID affect his teaching and research at Lehigh.

You will note that Behe isn't being censored, but he isn't allowed to present in such a fashion that his presentations imply that ID actual science. When it comes to his work for the university, he leaves ID at the door instead of demanding it be allowed at the science lectern. After all, Lehigh is pretty unequivocal when it said "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."

Sarah goes on to say that during their Summer Seminars on ID, they didn't take any pictures of people's faces, and asked that they not posting on social media about it, all so: 

"their career prospects will not be harmed by an association with intelligent design."

So the DI is censoring themselves!  Maybe they do deserve to award themselves as 'Censor of the Year'.  But they are missing the reason.  Think it through!  Would their career prospects be hurt if they profess their support for ID?  Most likely!  But why?  Don't just stop there, take it to the next logical step, why might their career prospects be in jeopardy?

That's the part Sarah and her friends never want to really examine.  Say you are a Physicist about to graduate and you publicly support Dark Matter Research?  Would that cause you difficulties in getting a job?  How about a Rocket Scientist who expresses an interest in Ionic Propulsion?  No, why?  Because those fields are part of the overall concept of Physics and Rocket Science.  So why does such career impacts happen with ID?  Simple, ID isn't part of Biology and until ID proponents stop whining and produce actual, viable, repeatable and falsifiable science, it never will be.

Suppose a mathematician posts all over Facebook stuff on Numerology and teaches it as Math, wouldn't that affect his career prospects?  That's the part Sarah doesn't get.  ID is not science, it is a religious proposition and supporting such may have negative impacts on your career -- unless you do what Behe does and separate them.

I know Sarah will trot out people like Gonzalez and Croker who claim to have had negative career consequences because of their support for ID.  But that's not the whole story, Gonazlez and Croker, along with Sternberg, Abahams, and a few others all have something else in common -- they let their support for ID interfere with doing the job they were hired to do.  Gonzalez failed as a tenure applicant, Croker failed to teach her subject, Sternberg violated publishing rules for the journal he was the outgoing editor for, and Abrahams refused to do his job as an 'Evolutionary Biologist'.  It's not their support for ID that had career impacts, but their refusal to do their jobs!  They put their religious beliefs ahead of the professional responsibilities and the expectations of their employers!  In other words, they were held accountable and they can't stand it!

So maybe the DI is a self-censor, but they aren't doing it to protect people, they are using this concept of self-censoring as another tactic to try and discredit real science.  Look at this post, do you really think they are trying to hide their supporters?  No, they are selling the idea of censorship.  But when you look at it, what is being censored?  Are they still able to publish and post?  Oh, sure they cannot do it as if they really are science, but that's not because of censorship, but because they haven't provided anything other than marketing material.  No science, no discoveries, no advances, just religious preaching.

In reality, the censor of the year award doesn't seem to be awarded for actual censorship.  It seems to be an award for not agreeing with the DI.  Hey, maybe I could be a nominee one day?  Oh we can only hope!  My family would be so proud!

A New 'Poll' conducted by the DI says what the DI says, what a surprise!

Since the United Methodist Church (UMC) has seen fit to not allow the Discovery Institute to present their marketing material at their General Conference, the DI has been quite vocal about it.  Multiple press releases and posts about their 'banning'.  Now they have hit a new low . . . which before today I wouldn't have believed possible.  I really should know better by now.

A new post on their Evolution 'news' and Views site looks like this:

What the headline forgot to tell you is that Discovery Institute itself conducted the poll.  That raised a question, or several, for me.  The reason is simple, polling, like any human endeavor, can be twisted and spun to produce the results that you want, and the DI are masters of the spin!  A lot depends on what question you ask and who you ask.  I recall a bad joke from years ago, you ask someone "So, when did you stop beating your spouse?"  Of course how you answer that question can be taken a number of different ways.  But no matter what, it immediately puts one on the defensive, intentionally so.

Here is the question that got asked:

"The United Methodist Church recently banned a group from renting an information table at the Church’s upcoming general conference because the group supports intelligent design—the idea that nature is the product of purposeful design rather than an unguided process. Some have criticized the ban as contrary to the United Methodist Church’s stated commitment to encourage “open hearts, open minds, open doors.” Rate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements:

• The United Methodist Church should not have banned an intelligent design group from renting an information table at its conference. 

• The United Methodist Church’s ban on the intelligent design group seems inconsistent with the Church’s stated commitment to encourage “open hearts, open minds, open doors.” "

Now, if anyone has used Survey Monkey, you know they do not write the survey questions and the possible responses.  They are simply the medium by which surveys can be asked.  They also let you define the type of audience you are trying to reach.  The wording and audience for this is straight from the DI!  Yes, that makes a difference.

But this is quite a long question, but please note the wording.  First of all, they use the word 'banned'.  That tells me which way they want the result skewed.  Anyone, especially people who aren't familiar with the nefarious marketing methods of the DI, would not like the term 'banned', it creates an instant negative connotation.  Many people would automatically vote in opposition to it regardless of the rest of the question simply because of the word 'banned'. 

But did the UMC actually 'ban' the DI?  No, they simply said that this time, the first they have considered outside exhibitors, that the DI couldn't have a table.  Can they, the DI, apply at the next one?  Certainly.  Did they issue some proclamation?  No, the UMC simply said, 'No!' and only for their General Conference.  The UMC holds many meetings at many levels, the DI is certainly free to try and horn in on one of those.  But for this General Conference, the answer is 'No!'  Of course we know how much the DI likes hearing that.

They sort of left out a few things, things that might have framed the question within a very different context:

• Did the question mention the UMC's stand on supporting real science?  Or that the UMC is a supporter of the Clergy Letter Project?  Which means the UMC already rendered judgement on ID, and that was also something the DI didn't like.
• Did it mention that Intelligent Design is considered by the rest of the world to be pseudo-science?  That might have had the respondents seeing things differently.
• Did they forget to mention that the definition the say for ID is not their complete definition, just the soft-soap one, sort of the pablum-version?  Wikipedia defines ID as "is the pseudoscientific view that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."  That certainly reads a bit differently, doesn't it.
• Now they did mention "Some have criticized the ban  . . .", but did they mention who that 'Some' were?  Guess who they are?  The criticisms I have been able to find, to the tune of multiple posts and press releases, are from the DI itself, or people who already support the DI.  Funny how they forgot to mention that little detail.

 Don't you love how they worked in their main whine, the supposed stated commitment of the UMC, "open hearts, open minds, open doors".  Funny how come I can't find that commitment on the UMC's website?  Sounds like a slogan of sorts.  But of course the DI wants to see it used as if it were carved in stone.  

So suppose it is the UMC's commitment, does that mean the DI should be allowed a table?  Again, let's take into account that the UMC is against teaching Creationism is their schools.  They formalized this doctrine back in 2008.  In other words, they've already considered Creationism/ID and they have already rejected it.  They 'opened their minds' and came to a conclusion and decided it was not for them.  So does the DI expect everyone who has rejected it to have an open door policy based on the words of a slogan?  Not very reasonable . . . but then the DI is never reasonable when they aren't getting their way.

OK, to sum things up.  The DI conducted a poll which, to no surprise, tilted in the way the DI wanted it to tilt.  They are now publicizing the results of their poll while completely disregarding the context of the discussion.  In fact the only way you know they were the ones who did the poll is the read much further down in the article.

I started a poll at Survey Monkey.  I would be curious as to the results.  I did this off-the-cuff and have no intention to pay Survey Monkey for passing the survey out to a defined audience.  But I hope the results are fun to talk about anyway.

My survey looks a little different. First I set the context of the survey:

"The United Methodist Church (UMC) is an endorser of the Clergy Letter Project which takes a stand for science and against supernatural causation. Recently the UMC decided not to allow an organization, The Discovery Institute, from sponsoring a table at the General Conference. Just so you know, the Discovery Institute is an organization dedicated to replacing current science with what they call 'theistically-friendly' science, in direct opposition to what the UMC stands for."

Then I asked two questions:

• Does the United Methodist Church have an obligation to allow the Discovery Institute to sponsor a table at their general conference?
• Is Intelligent Design a viable alternative to Evolutionary Theory? Intelligent Design is defined as "is the pseudoscientific view that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." (Wikipedia)

Again, please drop by and take my very unscientific survey.  If nothing else, we might get a laugh.

Why would the Discovery Institute call it 'Censorship'

A few hours ago I posted "Is anyone actually censoring the Discovery Institute?", a post about how no one is actually censoring the Discovery Institute (DI), just presenting an opposing view.  One of my acquaintances read it and dropped me a line that asked "If they aren't being censored, why do they call it censorship?"  Rather than answer it in an email, I am going to address it in a post.  I do highly encourage people to leave comments instead of emails.  That way we can have an exchange in the open.  But that being said, why in the world would an organization like the Discovery Institute call opposition censorship?

Simple answer, it's all about perception.  You see if the DI complained about someone, pretty much anyone, airing an opposition viewpoint, people who call their complaining -- whining.  I mean how can you argue about an opposing view with any teeth in it and not come off as nothing but a whiner?  But . . . if you can build a perception that the person, or group, expressing an opposing view is doing something else, then you have a chance of gaining some level of public support.  So by categorizing people like Jerry Coyne and Neil deGrasse Tyson as censors, they are trying to create an automatic negative perception.  After all everyone knows censorship is usually considered a bad thing, right?

Actually this is a pretty common tactic.  I mean what negative activity of the last century and a half has the DI been trying to associate with Darwin and the Theory of Evolution?  How about all of them!  The obvious one is the association their pet pseudo-historians are always trying to sell is blaming the Nazi's, Word War II, and the Holocaust on Darwin and the Theory of Evolution.  After all, everyone knows the Nazis were bad, so if anyone buys into their bogus connection, it casts Darwin in a negative light.  Of course, it's all marketing.

But it's not just big things, last year in the post that awarded Tyson their 'Censor of the Year' award, they actually tried to blame a shooting in NC on the fact the shooter was an apparent atheist, actually calling him a militant atheist and reminded that he

" . . . is accused of murdering three Muslim students. Since the triple slaying is potentially explosive in an international context, social and other media are abuzz with analysis of the man's views on religion."

So therefore Atheism = violence, so being a theist is a good thing, right?   But . . . if you read the article giving that dubious honor to Tyson, why would an atheist who committed murder be a candidate for censor of the year?  They bring it up, but never support their supposed thinking.  What it looked like they were trying to do is make a connection between Tyson and his less-than-flattering comments during Cosmos about religion and violence done by an apparent atheist.  Did they address Tyson's comments about some of the negative impact religion and religious organizations have had on science?  No, it's easier to make a connection between Tyson and a murderer, you get more mileage out of that.  Even if they deny that was their intention, writing the post the way they did makes the connection for some people.

The DI are masters at Public Relations and Marketing.  Anyone who says something negative about the DI or Intelligent Design is automatically a target.  Do you remember little gem from 2006: "Canadian Quilters Attack Intelligent Design" from Evolution 'News' and Views and "“ID is a Myth” Quilt Wins National Contest" from Uncommon Descent.  Yes, a quilter . . . a single quilter did a quilt that made fun of Intelligent Design . . . and she is suddenly part of a cabal of Canadian Quilters who are attacking ID.  See my point?  They can't even allow someone to make a little fun of their pet version of Creationism without trying to gain some PR mileage out of it.  A humorous quilt is suddenly an attack!

That's why the DI calls Jerry Coyne and Neil deGrasse Tyson their 'censors of the year'.  It's because it offers them a PR opportunity.  Jerry and Neil did nothing that can be remotely called censorship . . . . unless you change the definition of censorship to the airing of an opposing view.  That's also why they complain about the lack of adoption of ID as an opposing view to evolution as a matter of free speech and academic freedom.  It has nothing to do with the lack of science supporting ID, no that wouldn't be something they can whine about.  But if they accuse people of denying free speech and schools going against academic freedom, they can market more and more.  The minor detail that no one is abrogating their right to free speech and that pseudo-science isn't covered under academic freedom having absolutely nothing to do with it makes no difference to them, it's all marketing.  There are plenty of examples:

• They want ID to be treated as a theory, so instead of doing any actual science, they simply market it as fait accompli and dare anyone to claim it's not a theory.  Of course they forget to use the definition of a scientific theory, but why let details get in the way of their 'reality'.  
• Guillermo Gonzalez doesn't get tenure at ISU and it must be because of his support for ID, not because he failed in his duties, again why bother with facts!  
• Nathaniel Abraham gets fired from his job as an evolutionary biologist can't possibly be because of his refusal to do his job, it must be because he supports Creationism/ID.  
• David Coppedge get fired as part of a downsizing and it must be because he supports ID.  His appeal and lawsuit denied because of him trying to use his workplace to force his religious beliefs on his co-workers and there were numerous complaints.  Again, facts . . . the DI doesn't need them!
• Can't get your pseudo-science published in real scientific journals, so just open your own journal and redefine peer-review to mean 'having a group of people who already agree with your religious ideas say nice things'.  The minor detail that real peer-review and your pseudo-peer-review have nothing in common matters not at all.
• Look at the recent debacle they are crying about, the United Methodist Church denying them a table at the UMC's General Conference, something well within their rights to do, especially given their support for actual science.  It's called a 'banning' in a multitude of posts on any site where the DI has influence.

Hopefully now you understand why the DI would call opposing views as censors.  A couple of last thoughts.  Since the DI hasn't been able, or apparently willing, to substantiate ID with anything resembling science, they have nothing other than marketing.  Which could also explain why they have so few scientists working there.  It's mostly lawyers and philosophers.

It also explains why when I read anything coming from a DI-related source, like Evolution 'News' and Views, I try and investigate the real source of the issues.  The DI has proven over and over again that they have no credibility when presenting anything that it will even resemble objectivity.  I mean Canadian Quilters on the attack?  Seriously!

I guess "under fire" doesn't mean what the Discovery Institute wishes it meant.

A few days back I posted about "The Discovery Institute (DI) Doesn't get Invited to the Really Good Parties" about how the DI wanted to have a table at the United Methodist Church (UMC) General Meeting and they said 'No!'.  The DI, in a host of postings and press releases claimed that the UMC was "under fire" for banning them from their general meeting.

Well, I guess 'under fire' means that the DI is whining into a vacuum, because they don't seem to be getting any traction in raising a groundswell of popular support to force the UMC to change their minds.  Although, in my opinion changing their minds would be tantamount to losing theirs, I was hoping they would hold their ground and keep the DI at a distance.  So far the only fire that seems to be lit is the one under posters from the DI themselves.  Since the 18th of January, they have had 10 posts on their Evolution 'News' and Views site about this subject, that's more than half their output for that period . . . plus that doesn't even count the posts at their blog Uncommon Descent and formal press releases.  My, my, they have been very busy.

Well, it seems there has been some external reaction, but it's not what the DI had hoped.  And by 'external' I mean other than people who already buy into the DI's marketing.  For example here is a link to an article in Christian Today, "Prejudice or principle? Why the UMC banned Intelligent Design from its annual conference".  I think the article summed up the situation very well and in the end said (I added the underlines):

"The UMC appears to have taken the view that giving a platform – no matter how small – to a view as mistaken as this undermines the credibility of the gospel because it encourages people to believe things that aren't true. Building a faith around falsehood is putting people's souls in peril. 

The Discovery Institute may not like it, but the UMC is surely right to stand its ground."

Simply and quite succinctly stated.  Not only does the UMC have the right to exclude any outside exhibitor from exhibiting pseudo-science that is contrary to their viewpoint, but the fact this particular exhibitor would actually undermine the credibility of what they believe should also give them the responsibility to do exactly what they have done.

Of course the DI won't accept that.  They are still screaming at the top of their lungs how unfair the UMC is being for excluding them simply because their pet ideas are considered a falsehood by the UMC.  Funny, how come their definition of fairness seems to be "I have the right to do as I wish, but you do not have the right to do as you wish!"

Here is a post from John G. West, one of the powers-that-be at the DI: "If Intelligent Design Is Based on Science, Why Are We Focusing on the United Methodist Church?"  Two things come to mind when I read it,  first of all, is the UMC General Conference the place for any discussion of ID?  Since I believe, and I might be wrong, the General Conference is primarily a business meeting, I do not see this as the right venue.  Maybe it is, since it was at a General Conference when they decided to support the Clergy Letter Project, but that was a business decision and did not specifically address ID.  But that does tell me the DI should have been trying to get in the door back then, they are way behind the power curve waiting until now.

But the second, and more important, thing I see is that I believe the UMC answered Johnnie's question very clearly.  The UMC has not bought into his [the DI's] marketing strategy of being based on science.  I know, Johnnie probably finds that hard to believe, especially with the amount of other people's money he has spent on hiding their religious beliefs, but, Johnnie, the UMC doesn't believe you . . . and by the way neither do over 13,000 clergy and the members of every major science organization in the world.  I realize that won't stop you from your marketing, but I think the message is pretty clear. 

In case you haven't gotten that message, let's keep it simple -- the UMC believes your message to be a falsehood and 'Building a faith around falsehood is putting people's souls in peril.'  You might want to consider that.  You won't, but you should.

The Discovery Institute (DI) Doesn't get Invited to the Really Good Parties

If you remember back in 2009 the Vatican sponsored a five day conference to mark the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species. The subject was the compatibility of evolution and creation. The Discovery Institute was not invited and they were quite unhappy about it.  They made their normal marketing spin on it, claiming that their pet idea, Intelligent Design (ID), was misrepresented . . . which I found funny since the conference hadn't happened before the DI started spinning.  But in any case, the DI wasn't invited.

Well, this time around it's not the Vatican but the Methodists who are annoying the DI.  They are holding a General Conference, and they aren't going to let the DI sponsor an ID information table during their conference.  As I am sure you can guess, the DI is not happy about it.  I caught this from one of my favorite bloggers, The Sensuous Curmudgeon, "Discovery Institute Banned by Methodists".  

If you didn't know, The United Methodist Church (UMC) is an endorser of the Clergy Letter Project.  I haven't written about the Clergy Letter Project in a while so here is a quick reminder in the form of part of the Letter signed by over 13,000 Christian clergy:

"We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children."

There is also a similar letter endorsed by Rabbis, Unitarians, and Buddhists.  Well, back to the subject at hand.  The DI wanted to have an information table at the annual UMC General Conference and the Methodists said "No!".  Well they might not have used that exact word, but that is certainly the result.  So what does the DI do when they are unhappy?  They whine!

But they don't just whine, they spin!  They posted blog entities and press releases claiming that the UMC is under fire for banning the DI from their conference.  The spin is pretty serious, Bruce Chapman, John G. West, davey 'klingy' klinghoffer, pseudo-historian Michael Flannery and Donald McLaughlin all had things to say about it.  They sure spun up the PR machine in a hurry!  So far the only 'fire' seems to be coming from the DI.  If they were after some groundswell of support, they missed.  They even created a web page listing contact information for leaders within the UMC asking their supporters to "TAKE ACTION: Urge United Methodist Officials to Overturn Ban on Discovery Institute at General Conference".  It's all over Facebook as well, the DI begging for help.  Most of the comments are less than helpful :-).  Still no sign of that groundswell, but it is early days.  I would be willing to wager the majority of comments supporting the DI comes from people who already are associated with the DI and enjoy drinking their kool-aid.

I, being the person that I am, went to their take action page, copied the email addresses for a number of UMC leaders and sent them an email of support!  In fact I encourage you to do the same: 

Ms. Judi Kenaston, Chair, UMC Commission on the General Conference
Bishop Michael Coyner, President, UMC General Council on Finance and Administration
Bishop Warner H. Brown, President, UMC Council of Bishops
Bishop Bruce R. Ough, Chair, UMC Connectional Table
The Rev. Amy Valdez Barker, Executive Secretary, UMC Connectional Table

Here are their email addresses more suitable for cut&paste: 

JudiKenaston@aol.com, bishop@inumc.org, bishop@calnevumc.org, bishop@dkmnareaumc.org, avaldez_barker@umc.org

Go for it, let the Methodists know how you feel about their 'banning' the DI.

Another thing, of course the DI spins, but I really dislike how they are spinning this.  They are claiming that the Methodists are violating their own slogan: "Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors."  Does their slogan really mean that every point of view, especially ones you disagree with, should be allowed in the General Conference?  You know, I might have to defend the right of a group like the KKK or NAMBLA to have free speech, but does that mean I should be required to support their efforts?  Think about it.  Letting the DI have a table would be a form of tacit approval of their position.  The UMC has already made their disapproval known, why would they bother letting the DI push their viewpoint?

Does this particular spin sound familiar?  Remember how the DI has this habit of re-defining things for their own advantage?  Their complaint that teaching ID should be allowed based on Academic Freedom, when actual academic freedom has nothing to do with teaching pseudo-science as if it was science.  How about the tactic 'Teach the Controversy', and by 'controversy' they obviously mean something they dreamed up that doesn't actually exist in scientific circles.  Or the abortive 'It's only a Theory', where they bait and switch the definitions of 'theory' in order to confuse folks.  Yes, this type of spin is simply one of their marketing schemes.

According to the DI's John G. West, one of the reasons put forth by the UMC is:

"Discovery Institute was rejected for violating a policy that conference exhibits "are not to provide a platform to survey or test ideas; rather, to provide products / services / resources which are credible and proven" to help church ministries"

To be honest, that makes perfect sense to me, is Creationism/ID credible and proven?  Certainly not very credible and also not having any evidence to support it.  I guess the UMC should make room for the psychics table, the tarot card reader, and the parapsychologists as well.  After all those groups have as much credibility and proof as the DI has for ID.

The UMC already stated that they opposing the introduction of any faith-based theories such as Creationism or Intelligent Design into the science curriculum of their schools.  While the DI continues to deny it, they are a faith-based organization pushing a form of Creationism into schools.  This is the group who wrote a lesson plans for teachers to use questioning evolution and introducing ID, who 'helped' the Dover School Board in their efforts to bring Creationism back into the classroom, and the same organization who lied about support for ID when petitioning the Ohio School Board back in 2002.  That's only a few of their tactics of mistakes, there are many, many more!

I applaud the UMC for sticking to it's guns.   The DI isn't welcome and that should be the end of it.  After all, the UMC is a private organization and should have to ability to select what groups get represented at their conferences!

Does anyone ever try and horn into a DI sponsored event?  Not that I ever heard.  DI sponsored events are usually to an audience of people who already believe in their snake oil, as we wrote about in "So there is nothing religious about ID? Part V".  They seem to stack the deck when they hold one of their mutual admiration meetings.  That particular example was supposed to be a conference on the Science and God debate . . . and yet not only was no one from the scientific community invited, neither were any theologians.  It was four members of the DI presenting their views, a biochemist, a philosopher, a lawyer, and a political scientist.  Talk about stacking the deck!

Imagine the hue and cry if the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) or Secular Students of America (SSA) wanted to attend one of the DI's Summer Seminars . . . oh wait, look at the Admission Requirements for those seminars (my underlining):

"You must be currently enrolled in a college or university as a junior, senior, or graduate student. Required application materials include (1) a resume/cv, (2) a copy of your academic transcript, (3) a short statement of your interest in intelligent design and its perceived relationship to your career plans and field of study, and (4) either a letter of recommendation from a professor who knows your work and is friendly toward ID, or a phone interview with the seminar director." (Summer Seminar on Intelligent Design in the Natural Sciences)

Gee, they assume they have the right to filter attendees for one of their revival meetings, but refuse to allow other groups the same privilege!  They not only want to have their cake and eat it too, they want to have your cake to eat as well.