Congratulations to Wikipedia, 'winner' of the Discovery Institute 'Censor of the Year' -- while not doing any actual censoring!

Last month I was discussing the upcoming awards season, which includes the Discovery Institute's (DI) "Censor of the Year" award.  It's awarded annually on Darwin's birthday.  One of the things previous 'winners' have had in common is that they don't actual censor anything, they simply say or do things the DI disagrees with.  I gave three predictions.

The first was that the DI would give the award to themselves.  I based that on the simple fact that while there is no evidence of actual censorship of Intelligent Design, the DI does self-censor themselves and then claim they do so because of all the censorship they use as an excuse to avoid doing any real scientific work.  Of course, since there is no real censorship, I wasn't sure they would give the award to themselves because they might have to admit that their whole censorship argument was nothing more than a lie, so they would pick on someone else.

My second suggestion is an example of real censorship, and my nominee would have been the current Administration. Who was is that It banned the top US public health agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), from using seven words: “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.” A certain hamster-haired serial lying misogynist control freak, that's who! His Interior Secretary, Ryan Zinke, reprimanded the Joshua Tree National Park’s superintendent for tweeting about climate change. Trump is also trying to censor a free press. These are prime examples of censorship.  But since the DI was not Trump's target, I didn't think they would pick him.

My final prediction was Wikipedia, and I said:

"But we know the DI will stick to their guns and pick on someone, or something, that didn't actually censor them, just did something that annoyed them.  My guess would be Wikipedia.  I think Wikipedia has been a nominee before (2015 almost certainly for "Wikipedia deserves an Award! They Annoyed the DI! Yea!"), and this past year they [Wikipedia] annoyed the DI by dropping a Wikipedia bio for one of their senior fellows ("Does Losing a Wikipedia Page Ruin a Career?"), which they keep whining about pretty constantly.  Which is why I believe Wikipedia will win this year."

And. guess what? They made their announcement and Wikipedia has 'won':  "Happy Darwin Day! Our 2018 Censor of the Year Is Wikipedia".  Yes, another instance of a censorship award for not having done any censorship.  Here is their 'rationale':

1. They don't like how Intelligent Design is represented in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia keeps busting them in their efforts to self-edit the page.
2. They disagree that one of their own fellows isn't notable enough to rate a Wikipedia page -- even though most of their fellows do not have a page.
3. When all else fails, call it 'fake news'.  Gee, how come whenever a conservative group -- and you don't get that much more conservative than the DI ministry -- calls something 'fake news' is always turns out to be true?

Nothing here is an actual example of censorship.  Wikipedia's description of ID is accurate, and also agrees with court cases involving ID.  Of course the DI doesn't like it, since Wikipedia calls out ID to be the pseudo-science that it really is.  All of their efforts to edit it has run smack dab into the editing policies of Wikipedia.  While Britannica Online doesn't call it pseudo-science, it does explain how it is built upon an argument for design for the existence of God.  Why isn't the DI complaining about that?

While removing one less-than-notable pseudo-scientist's Wikipedia entry might seem like censorship, it's more accurate to say that it was in line with the encyclopedia's policies.  If it was actual censirship then none of the ID proponents would have Wikipedia pages!   Bechly [the guy whose page was deep-sixed] isn't notable enough to have a page on Britannica Online either:

Yet, the DI doesn't seem to be whining about that.  Could it be because anyone can create a Wikipedia page, whereas Britannica has different policies when adding subject pages?  Of course both encyclopedias have inclusion standards, the difference is that Wikipedia's are applied after the subject page is created, and Britannica's are done prior to the creation.  So that means Bechly does not meet the criteria of either encyclopedia for being 'notable'.

And, then finally, hop on the 'fake news' bandwagon and complain about something that is true by claiming it's 'fake news'.  Tell me, has anyone found anything that certain hamster-haired serial liar misogynist control freak claimed to be 'fake news' to actually be fake?  Yea, neither have I.

So there you have it, another censorship award to a group that doesn't actual do any censoring.  I congratulate Wikipedia on being a thorn in the side of the DI!  I hope one day I will have done something to annoy the DI enough that I may be a nominee for such an 'honor'!

Is Any Scientist Really Inviolate? Not In The Least! Look At History!

Funny post from something called 'The Institute on Religion and Public Life': "St. Charles Darwin".  The basis is that no one is allowed to criticize Charles Darwin because . . . he's Charles Darwin.  The author is reacting to the many critical reviews of A. N. Wilson, Charles Darwin, Victorian Mythmaker.  Actually critical is an understatement.  In response to those reviews, the author of this piece believes that 'committed evolutionists' are outraged about the biography simple because Wilson attacked Darwin.

Well, to a point; she's half right.  People are outraged at the 'biography', but not because Darwin is raised on some inviolate pedestal, but because it is completely contradicted by every other biography, Darwin's own letters, and the writings of people who actual knew Darwin.  Why wouldn't we be outraged at an obvious hatchet job!  Like many things written about Darwin by Creationists, it's basically a hit piece, and many of the reviewers called it such.

One, of the many things the author of this piece fails to acknowledge is how science actually works.  If something was discovered that offered a better scientific explanation of how life evolved on this planet, Darwin would go the way of Lamarck.  That's how science works, and you can dig for a few minutes and find long lists of scientists who were tops in their field at one point and now, no one knows their name.  But the workings of actual science is something rarely recognized by creationists, like this author and Wilson himself.

I've written a little about this pseudo-biography before: "Whats Wrong with This Picture -- A Review of a Review of a Book We Haven't Read Yet?" in which we discussed how the DI reviewed a review of a book they haven't even read yet.  I haven't read the book either, and probably won't.  But something about this particular post simply tickled me.

Let me see if I can lay it out for you.  The author, Charlotte Allen, tries to make the case that the only reason some people are more than a little outraged about Wilson's 'biography' is because he attacked Darwin.   She completed missed the point that the many of the reviews detail the  areas where Wilson got things wrong, creating things that never happened, and offered his negative opinion as if it was fact.

"Wilson appears to have hit upon a rich seam of cliches in his five years of research for his book,"("Some still attack Darwin and evolution. How can science fight back?")

If you look at the Amazon listing you will see 24 reviews.  Only 6 of them are 5-Star and if you look at the links for these 5-star reviewers, you see the the religious and/or political leanings that explain the ratings. None of them identified the things that made it a top review, they are simply happy that Wilson is bashing Darwin -- regardless of the truthfulness of what he is saying.  There was one 3-star review and the rest were 1-star that make up 75% of the reviews.  If you look at those 1-star reviews you will see a litany of things Wilson got wrong, disregarded, or just plain invented.

Those are the reasons for the outrage, but that doesn't even get lip service from Allen.  Looking at Wilson's own prejudices and his history of such less-than-factual biographies, you will see even more how and why this book was written.  But does Allen do any of that?  No, her only point was claiming that Darwin is:
"a holy saint who must not be criticized".  Here is her closing:

"A. N. Wilson may have written a bad, unfair, inaccurate, and error-ridden biography of Charles Darwin. But he has homed in on something real and obviously troubling to Darwin’s disciples: the vulnerability of Darwin’s personality and his theories."

This would be true if the biography wasn't a flawed piece of poor scholarship and obviously done for the express purpose of denigrating Darwin and his science for religious reasons.  Don't believe me, do a little research on AN Wilson, in fact here is the critique from Wikipedia on Wilson's page (the underlines are mine):

"Wilson's biography Charles Darwin, Victorian Mythmaker, (2017), has been criticised by John van Wyhe in the New Scientist for confusing Darwin's theory of natural selection with Lamarckism at one point, as well as other scientific, historical and editorial errors.  Kathryn Hughes in The Guardian wrote it is "cheap attempt to ruffle feathers", with a dubious grasp of science and attempted character assassination. In The Evening Standard, Adrian Woolfson says that "..while for the greater part a lucid, elegantly written and thought-provoking social and intellectual history" Wilson's "speculations on evolutionary theory," produce a book that is "fatally flawed, mischievous, and ultimately misleading".  Steve Jones, an emeritus of University College London, commented in The Sunday Times: "In the classic mould of the contrarian, he despises anything said by mainstream biology in favour of marginal and sometimes preposterous theories." The geneticist and former editor of Nature, Adam Rutherford, called the book "deranged" and said Wilson "would fail GCSE biology catastrophically."" (Wikipedia:  AN Wilson)

Here is the funniest part.  Allen claims that the whole reason people are outraged at the biography is because of Darwin's status, while ignoring the obvious flaws. Rather than do a little homework and realize how 'bad, unfair, inaccurate, and error-ridden' it is, she dismisses all that to rationalize her own prejudice.

Descate's Blunder or the Discovery Institute's?

The Discovery Institute (DI) is getting all pseudo-philosophical again, this time the target is René Descartes and they take it upon themselves to decide Descartes is wrong.  Here is their post: "Descartes’s Blunder".  Now before diving into the DI's opinions, which I am sure will find a way to support Intelligent Design, let's look at their latest target for a minute.

René Descartes (31 March 1596 – 11 February 1650) was a French philosopher, mathematician, and scientist. Dubbed the father of modern western philosophy, much of subsequent Western philosophy is a response to his writings.  For those of you who aren't familiar with his philosophy, maybe you are more familiar with his mathematics.  The Cartesian coordinate system was named after him. He is credited as the father of analytical geometry, the bridge between algebra and geometry, used in the discovery of infinitesimal calculus and analysis. Descartes was also one of the key figures in the scientific revolution. (Wikipedia: René Descartes)

Just by that description, you can see why he is not one of the DI's favorite people.  I mean a key figure in the scientific revolution, you know the changes that replaced religion as the source of scientific knowledge and heralded modern science and the scientific methodology.  No wonder they don't like him.

OK, back to their post. The DI, though their talking head Michael Egnor, claim that self-awareness isn't the foundation for Epistemology, but that 'non-contradiction' comes first.  OK, some brief explanations, which I had to refresh myself because it's been a while since any philosophy courses. 

• Epistemology studies the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief.  
• Self-awareness somewhat based on Descartes' "I think, Therefore I am. (Cogito ergo sum)".  It actually goes quite a bit further, but the DI limits it to make their point.  Follow the link and you will see what I mean.  
• Non-contradiction originates from the writings of Aristotle, although the DI prefers to give credit to religious figure Thomas Aquinas who sorta simplified it.  The idea being that something cannot be both one thing and the opposite at the same time.

So, how does the DI tie all this together, and let's not forget my prediction of somehow tying to into support for their religious proposition of Intelligent Design (ID).  First off they want us to claim you cannot be self-aware if you aren't non-contradictory first.  

"Aquinas derives his principle from Aristotle’s principle of non-contradiction: a thing cannot be and not be at the same time. It is the most fundamental thing we know, because if we do not know it, even Descartes’s first principle — cogito ergo sum — is not true. If being and not being could coexist, if contradiction were metaphysically possible, then it would be possible for me to think and at the same time not to exist.
The law of non-contradiction, not cogito ergo sum, is the foundation of knowledge."

OK, so is non-contradictory really the first thing we know -- remember we are talking epistemology here -- knowledge and how we know something.  I disagree with the DI, which probably comes as no surprise.  Look at it simply.  "I think, therefore I am" recognizes that you exist, that you accept your existence.  Until you accept your existence as reality, does the very idea of two contrary states even really occur to you?  I believe that it's only until after you accept your existence can the very idea that you cannot both exist and not exist at the same time even occur to you.

I know, I know, we could spend days on such chicken-egg arguments, but that's not the point.  What I am most curious about is how the DI spins this effort to unthrone Descartes as the 'father of Western Philosophy' into support for ID.  And, predictably, they do:

"Materialists and atheists claim that ID is scientifically wrong, and claim that ID is not scientifically testable. But of course, in order to be scientifically wrong, ID must be scientifically testable."

No!  When we refer to ID as to not being scientifically wrong, not being scientifically testable is only part of the reasoning.  Think about all the arguments against ID:  the lack of evidence, mischaracterizations of evolutionary theory, the lack of explanatory power of irreducible complexity and specified complexity (two pillars of ID), the lack of any falsifiability, and the religious connotations however they try to hide it.  It's not just a testability issue:

Testability, a property applying to an empirical hypothesis, involves two components:

1. The logical property that is variously described as contingency, defeasibility, or falsifiability, which means that counterexamples to the hypothesis are logically possible.
2. The practical feasibility of observing a reproducible series of such counterexamples if they do exist.

In short, a hypothesis is testable if there is some real hope of deciding whether it is true or false of real experience. Upon this property of its constituent hypotheses rests the ability to decide whether a theory can be supported or falsified by the data of actual experience. If hypotheses are tested, initial results may also be labeled inconclusive. (Wikipedia: Testability)

Look at this part again: "In short, a hypothesis is testable if there is some real hope of deciding whether it is true or false of real experience." and tell me how Intelligent Design has any real hope of being testable?  How does one construct a test for the actions of a deity?

But let's look further, where is the evidence for ID?  No one has managed to offer more than the appearance of design.  This lack of supporting evidence also explains why ID is scientifically wrong, you have nothing to test, no evidence to examine.  It's like trying to use a piece of vaporware.

So all this twisting and spinning to try and claim Descartes messed up is just another smokescreen to try and make some sort of claim as to the scientific viability of ID.  I would think that offering actual supporting evidence would be much more conclusive.

So let's summarize, rather than offer any evidence showing how scientifically testable ID is, the DI plays pseudo-philosophical word games trying to convince us that the only way anyone can claim it's not testable is by believing it must be testable.  Actually the DI should really pay more attention to the concept of non-contradiction.  After all, you cannot be pro-science and anti-science at the same time, can you?  No matter how many ill-fitting lab coats you wear, the anti-science shows through!

And the Award Goes to Ourselves!

The Di is asking for nominations for Censor of the Year, something don't recall them doing before.  I was just used to them talking through some possibilities and then making the award.  But if you are interested, you can certainly "Submit Nominations for 2018 Censor of the Year Now!"

I am sure you can guess my issues with this whole deal, but for fun I will lay them out. First off, this award is only people or groups who annoy the Discovery Institute (DI). It really has nothing to do with censorship at all. If you look up the definition of censor:

"a : an official who examines materials (such as publications or films) for objectionable matter
Government censors deleted all references to the protest.
b : an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (such as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful"
(Merriam-Webster: Censor) 

You will find that the previous three winners (Jerry Coyne, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and the United Methodist Church (UMC) did nothing to the DI that meets that definition of a censor.  Nothing the DI has accused them of comes anywhere near censorship.  The DI is still free to publish, prevaricate, and market with the best of them.  The only thing they cannot do is pass of Intelligent Design as if it was science in the public school classroom.  They sure haven't stopped trying to pass it off as science anywhere else!

If you look for all of 30 seconds, you will find that no one is censoring the DI.  What groups like the are doing is applying standards of scholarship that the DI refuses to meet.  Where is the research, where is the evidence, and where is the support?  There are many things that would make ID acceptable as science and in the science classroom, and the DI hasn't offered up a single one.  

OK, back to the topic at hand.  If we expand the scope from just pissing off the DI to actual Censorship, who would be your choice for Censor of the Year?  Looking back over 2017, I would have to say "The Trump Administration".

Who was is that It banned the top US public health agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), from using seven words: “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”  A certain hamster-haired serial liar and misogynist, that's who! His Interior Secretary, Ryan Zinke, reprimanded the Joshua Tree National Park’s superintendent for tweeting about climate change.  Trump is also trying to censor a free press.  These are prime examples of censorship, not the watered down "Pissing on the DI's cornflakes" version.

But we know the DI will stick to their guns and pick on someone, or something, that didn't actually censor them, just did something that annoyed them.  My guess would be Wikipedia.  I think Wikipedia has been a nominee before (2015 almost certainly for "Wikipedia deserves an Award! They Annoyed the DI! Yea!"), and this past year they [Wikipedia] annoyed the DI by dropping a Wikipedia bio for one of their senior fellows ("Does Losing a Wikipedia Page Ruin a Career?"), which they keep whining about pretty constantly.  Which is why I believe Wikipedia will win this year.

Another real possibility is the self-censorship the DI does to themselves.  They claim they are doing it to protect career possibilities of ID proponents, but that seems fishy to me because for all their claims of censorship, they are the only ones doing any censoring -- and they are doing it to themselves.  So self-awarding themselves as Censor of the Year would be totally within character, don't you agree?

Wikipediatricians -- what a concept!

Caught an interesting post from Dr. James McGrath and his blog "Religion Prof". Professor McGrath is Clarence L. Goodwin Chair in New Testament Language and Literature at Butler University in Indianapolis.  While his blog isn't one you might think I read regularly, it certainly is.  I find his posts thought provoking, and this one certainly is:  "Wikipediatricians and Ways of Knowing".

Let's talk about Wikipedia for a moment.  I use it often and have also run up against criticism of it, usually from people who don't like their policies.  Yes, unlike what some people would like to believe, you just can't publish anything you want on Wikipedia.  There are processes, editorial policies, and rules that apply no only to those editing information, but what information can be included.  In other words, just like Encyclopedia Britannica, there are processes that must be followed.

For some background, I grew up with two sets of encyclopedias in the house and many an evening you could find my siblings and I huddled over one volume or another compiling information for school.  When I was in grade school -- even high school, I rarely questioned the encyclopedia.  However, once in college I used an encyclopedia reference in a paper just once and you would have thought the world had ended from the reaction of the professor.

That's where I got my first lesson in what an encyclopedia really was, a compilation of research, not an authoritative source -- and that you have to go to the source material for understanding.  While they are generally regarded as acceptable knowledge, when it comes to actual research and references, they are second or even third-hand information.

As a result, when I first saw Wikipedia, one of the benefits I saw was the live links to the source material supporting the articles. but I was curious as to how it stacked up against the gold-standard of encyclopedias "Britannica".  What I have found is that Wikipedia does have a slight bias to the left, especially in pages concerning corporations and governments, but, in my opinion, it wasn't a significant bias -- which may relate to my own biases; however, in scientific/technical subjects, it was as accurate as Britannica.  In some ways it is more current than a published encyclopedia because the editing is much more recent. Of course Britannica is also available online, but the currency issue still leans in favor of Wikipedia.

In 2005 Nature did a study comparing the two and found that all-in-all, they were pretty much on par as information sources:

"In the end, the journal found just eight serious errors, such as general misunderstandings of vital concepts, in the articles. Of those, four came from each site [Wikipedia and Britannica]."

Nature didn't mention any bias, but Forbes did later in a 2015 study -- but like me didn't see it as significant.  In fact one of the findings I found fascinating in the Forbes study:

"Perhaps the most interesting finding of Zhu and Greenstein's research is that the more times an article is revised on Wikipedia, the less bias it is likely to show—directly contradicting the theory that ideological groups might self-select over time into increasingly biased camps."

Yes, the most times an article is edited, the less bias is present.  Which I find very interesting since the groups that seem to whine about Wikipedia most often are groups with an ideological bone to pick, as noted in Wikipedia deserves an Award! They Annoyed the DI! Yea!.

OK, back to Professor McGrath, now that you know where I stand on Wikipedia itself.  It's not the source of information that may be problematic, but, as he puts it:

" . . . a failure on the part of readers to understand how summaries relate to the processes whereby academic conclusions are drawn."

Encyclopedias, whether print or online, are simply summaries from a wide variety of other source materials.  They are compiled by writers and editors that probably do not have the same level of expertise as the original writers.  That doesn't mean encyclopedias should be discarded.  What it means, especially in this environment of distrusting experts and the Internet's apparent democratizing of every opinion, we still need to understand that our own perspective is limited and that any single individual or group might understand some things differently than we do.  We need to grasp those not just as limitations, but as strengths.  I am not a doctor, so a doctor's medical opinion is going to be better than mine . . . and equating such expertise to an unsupported opinion on the Internet can be both dangerous and foolish.  Multiple doctors opinions would weigh even more heavily.  That's how it should be!

Like Wikipedia. the best information seems to be when it is confirmed by multiple reliable sources.  I am not talking about when all Fox News talking heads agree, but if Fox, CNN, and MSNBC are presenting similar stories, you can more than likely rely on them.  But when one source is leaning hard in one direction and the majority of the other news sources have an opposing view, you can be pretty sure the one is 'showing their slip', so to speak.  As you look at a variety of sources, you will come to find ones that tend to be more objective than others, like MSNBC and NPR over Fox News or Breibart.  But you have to experience multiple sources to figure that out.

Academic consensus, including scientific consensus, isn't the voice of one person, but the collaboration and confirmation by multiple people with a particular expertise.  If you distrust it, you always have the option to examine the source of the material yourself.  Wikipedia makes it easy, as does Google.  But do not let your perception be stuck in a rut with one source.  Branch out, you might learn something!

One of my friends is a hard-line conservative, and as the years have gone by become much more conservative than I am comfortable with.  His favorite news sources include Fox, Limbaugh, and a few specific websites.  When he tells me anything, I head out and check carefully.  As much as he will dislike reading this, I usually find his information to be biased to the extreme and often outright wrong.  Sometimes it's just a little twisted, but all too often it's simply a lie.  He doesn't seem to like it when I call him on it and he gets rather defensive -- OK more than just 'rather defensive'.  But until he figures out his usual sources aren't particularly honest, we will keep playing this game.

But therein lies the problem.  He has very few sources of information and gets told by those sources that any other sources are 'fake news', and he buys into it.  He's not learning anything, all he's doing is getting reinforcement for his own prejudices.  That's the dangerous point.

It's not Wikipedia that's a problem, but how we take information, regardless of source, and use it.  Are we learning or are we reinforcing beliefs we already have? Are we getting information from authoritative sources, or are we assigning our own form of democratizing and thinking authoritative sources and alternative sources are equal?  A doctor v. Hollywood celebrity on vaccines?  A spokesman paid for by the oil companies v. actual scientists who study climate change?  A biologist v. a lawyer?

You really need to think about who is more likely to give you good information rather than tell you something you might want to hear!

Happy New Years! The DI looks Back at 2017

Before going forward, the Discovery Institute (DI) likes to look back at their top stories/accomplishments of the previous year.  It's become an annual tradition.  This year instead of looking at them one by one, I decided to let them drop their entire list and look at the their accomplishments as a whole. Here is the list:

1. Footprints from Crete Deepen Origins Mystery - And so a new discovery which may change some of the existing theories of human origins.  Of course, the DI didn't make the discovery, but they simply offer their spin to make it sound much bigger than it is.  What it really is -- is science in action, not pseudoscience.  New evidence may equate to theory changes  -- which, according to the DI is considered a weakness of science, but the actuality is it is one of science's strengths!
2. Clueless Reporters and Canaanite DNA - While claiming not to get into 'Biblical exegesis' (explaining the Bible), they then do exactly that.  Yet at the same time they try and remind people how they are not really a religious ministry.  If they weren't a ministry, then why try and explain the Bible?
3. Perfect Eclipse, Coincidence or Conspiracy? - Yes, the news was filled with the eclipse, but perfect?  By what standard?  Using math and numbers that were far from exact, they decided that the most recent eclipse was 'perfect', as in the moon 'perfectly' covered the sun (it was close) and a few other examples of 'perfection'.  Yet when you look at it objectively, you see it's only a coincidence because of the distances and diameters involved and the numbers aren't so 'perfect' after all.  Plus in a few centuries the numbers will be much further off as the moon gets further and further away, so we happen to live during the time when the size of the moon and sun 'appear' to be closely matched . . . so what?
4. Wiki Co-Founder Blasts “Appallingly Biased” Wikipedia Entry on ID - This one isn't any sort of accomplishment, but it is a re-hash of their whines against any published content that doesn't say exactly what they want it to say.  Wikipedia has a history of failing to let the DI define Intelligent Design (ID) as if it was not pseudoscience and the DI really hates that.  So rather than offer evidence that it is not pseudoscience, they quote other people who agree with them.  Remember these are the same people who want to teach Evolution and ID and let the students decide for themselves which is true.  So Wikipedia has both the definition of  both of them, but they don't want students exposed to a non-DI version of an ID definition.
5. Of Course You Aren’t Living in a Computer Simulation. Here’s Why. - So now they take on the Matrix, a fictional environment and try and explain how intelligence cannot be programmed into a simulation.  Huh?  What this post really means is Neil DeGrasse Tyson has an imagination and the DI does not.
6. Dan Brown Pushes Atheism and Intelligent Design. Wait…What? - OK, the DI took a thriller, a fictional thriller, and somehow twisted it to some sort of support for Intelligent Design (ID).  Well, so far they have pretty well managed to spin anything they want into a back-handed support for ID, so not only shouldn't this surprise anyone, but is this such a big story it's one of their top 10?
7. Intelligent Design Shines in Brazil with Discovery-Mackenzie Launch - Yes, this might actually be considered an accomplishment, opening up a new religious ministry in one of the most religious countries in the world.  My prediction is we will see the same amount of actual science coming out of this center as we see from the DI and their self-owned lab (the Biologics Institute).  Do you remember when opening IDEA clubs at several college campuses was lauded, but where are they today?  Can we say 'extinct'.
8. Theorist Concedes, Evolution “Avoids” Questions - So there are questions yet to be answered . . . nothing new there.  Yet over the past 150+ years, how many questions has the Theory of Evolution answered?  Hundreds, even thousands.  Avoiding questions doesn't seem to be something real scientists actually do.  This is the DI trying to cast doubt on science because it hasn't answered every question.  Even with that, has ID answered anything at all?  Casting doubt is only effective if you have a viable alternative that provides better explanations.
9. Genetic Code Complexity Just Tripled - not really tripled, but then the DI's strong suit isn't math.  In any event the discovery mentioned wasn't done at the DI.  This is just their commentary and another effort to cast more doubt on real science.
10. Nobel Laureate Is “80 Percent” Confident in Intelligent Design - who says this without a single reference to anything accomplished by the DI.  He's expressing an opinion only.  Now if something done by the DI actually drove this particular opinion, that would be newsworthy, but as it is -- it means little.

OK, if you have read all, or even any, of them, you might have noticed the same thing I noticed, where is any original work?  The DI keeps claiming they are a scientific think tank, that they are doing actual science, and that all their issues with real science are based on science -- and yet where is it reflected in their annual list of stories/accomplishments?

Even their number one stories from recent years shows a lack of scientific work:

1. #1 of Our Top Stories of 2016: Happy New Year! Why the Royal Society Meeting Mattered - claiming recognition for their 'scientists' that no one else noticed.  How underwhelming!
2. Happy New Year! Here Is #1 of Our Top Stories of 2015: A Scientific Debate that Can No Longer Be Denied -- about the release of the sequel to Darwin's Doubt -- you know, the book that was to address all the criticisms to the original, but they forgot to actual address those criticisms.
3.  "Happy New Year! Our #1 Evolution Story of 2014: New Paper from Biologic Institute, "Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design?"" - a paper from themselves that never answer the question they want to raise.
4. Happy New Year! Here Is #1 of Our Top-Ten Evolution Stories of 2013: Responding to Charles Marshall’s Review of Darwin’s Doubt - More accurately, this is the first of four rebuttals to a devastating critique, and this rebuttal -- like the next three -- never manage to actually refute the criticisms.  The title of the critique should be the motto of the DI: "When Prior Belief Trumps Scholarship" and it is an excellent read!

Wouldn't you assume that an organization that claims to be doing actual science, might be able to celebrate those achievements in their own blog?  Wouldn't you think that at least one of their own scientific accomplishments might rate a mention in their top 10 stories?  But no, their top stories reflect nothing of the scientific achievements because, as we all know, they haven't had any.  What these stories are is nothing more than a re-hash of their standard marketing material.

Sell, market, and try to sow doubt -- and at the same time push their religion while trying to deny that is what they do.  Yes, it's been a banner year for the DI.  Another year of spending other people's money and having nothing to show for it.

Of course, each one of their top 10 starts with a plea for a donation.  That way readers can contribute to another year of nothingness!

Does Losing a Wikipedia Page Ruin a Career?

This story has been rumbling around the web for a while, in fact the DiscoveryInstitute talking heads have had a great deal to say about it. Before you read it, you might need to understand that Wikipedia has standards, one of the set of standards is academic notability. While nearly anyone can create a page on Wikipedia, it's contributors can easily remove pages that fail to meet those standards.

That's what happened to Dr. Günter Bechly, there was a Wikipedia page for him and Wikipedia took it down because it failed to meet their standards for academic notability.  Of course the DI immediately declared it an outrage, claiming all sorts of collusion, discrimination, and cover-ups -- much like their defense of Guillermo Gonzalez.  If you remember Gonzalez was denied tenure after failing to achieve the requirements for tenure.  The DI claimed the denial was based on him being a Creationist, but they never addressed several issues like:

1. The Chronicle [Chronicle of High Education] observed that Gonzalez  . . . had published no significant research during that time
2.  . . .had only one graduate student finish a dissertation.
3. According to the Des Moines Register, "Iowa State has sponsored $22,661 in outside grant money for Gonzalez since July 2001, records show. In that same time period, Gonzalez's peers in physics and astronomy secured an average of $1.3 million by the time they were granted tenure.

All the DI could do was whine and cry discrimination, yet the evidence says Gonzalez failed in the requirements for tenure -- requirements normally spelled out when you accept a tenure-seeking position.  Publishing research is probably the main requirement, but successful graduate students are also a typical responsibility, as is raising outside grant money.  Gonzales failed, and the DI never bothered to address his failings.

Doesn't that sounds exactly like the whining and crying they are now doing over Günter Bechly. According to Wikipedia, his academic achievements do not merit a Wikipedia page. So instead of showing Wikipedia a list of notable achievements -- related to actual science, they whine and cry about imaginary discrimination. Where is his Curriculum Vitae (CV)? CV's normally include information on academic background, including experience, degrees, research, awards, publications, presentations, and other achievements. Like Gonzalez, why isn't the DI publicizing Günter's?

The real question is -- is he truly notable?  According to WikiSpecies, he's been part of only 4 publications -- and he wasn't the lead on any of them.  Not particularly notable.  He is still listed in the German version of Wikipedia, which made me think a bit, what about his contemporaries?

Günter  used to work at the he State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, so I found their website and staff listing. I randomly selected a dozen members and have not found a single US Wikipedia page for any of them, in spite of several showing larger publications lists on the German version of Wikipedia.  Interesting, so Günter had a US Wikipedia page for some reason.  So that leads to my next question, what differentiates Günter from the rest of the staff?

There only seems to be one thing that separates Günter from the ones who still work there, his support for Intelligent Design.  So . . . why did he have a Wikipedia page in the first place?  Apparently his old co-workers didn't merit one?  Could it be his notoriety as one of the few scientists who support ID?  I don't know, but that seems to be the only distinction between Günter and his associates.

So, let's check a few other Wikipedia pages and see if the other members of the DI Religious Ministry have had their pages deleted.  Of course if Günter  was deleted because of some form of discrimination, logic says others will also have been deleted!

• Michael Behe -- page still there
• Wild Bill Dembski -- still there
• Phillip E. Johnson - still there
• Paul Nelson -- still there

I started searching individually, but then found a page at the DI that shows 12 of the 17  DI Senior Fellows have Wikipedia pages.  I would have to assume that the other 5 never had a page or the DI would be making even more of a hue and cry.  14 of the 24 Fellows have Wikipedia pages.  So I do not see any evidence of discrimination, only efforts to rationalize the removal of Günter's page.

I was pretty much laughing about the whole thing and had no intention of even addressing it until I saw this headline:

"Pro-Darwinists Destroy Scientist’s Career After He Turns to God-Based Evolution Theory"

Is his career ruined?  Currently he's working at the Biologic Institute (which is owned and operated by the very people who are raising the fuss -- the Discovery Institute.  Now since this job aligns well with his religious beliefs, you would think it would be a dream job for him.  Apparently he's still employed, so I have to ask, did the removal of his Wikipedia page really ruin his career?

Much like Gonzalez, the removal of the Wikipedia hasn't ended his career, so what might have had a negative impact?  Perhaps his time and energy and efforts promoting a non-scientific concepts may have played a role?  You get hired for a job and you spend most of your time doing a different job -- and then you find yourself working in a pseudo-lab instead of an actual lab?  Think about it, would you keep on a butcher who spend only part of his work time actually butchering meat?  How about a rocket scientist who spend hours a day preaching to co-workers?

No, if Günter's career is ruined, he cannot blame Wikipedia for enforcing their standards.  Günter, you have to look a bit closer to home and wonder if maybe you should have really kept your religion out of your workplace?  Spending your time and resources on your religious beliefs and not on actual science may have played a larger part -- not because of discrimination, but because you aren't doing your job.  You might look up Nathaniel Abraham, David Coppedge, Catherine Croker, or John Freshwater.  They also damaged their own careers because they put their personal religious beliefs ahead of their careers, and then seemed surprised when they were held accountable by their employers!

So now you are in the DI pet laboratory, the Biologics Institute.  Now you have a choice.  You can continue to whine and cry -- or you can do what no one else at the DI seems to be able or willing to do.  Get out of marketing and support your religious ideas with actual science -- not pseudo-science but actual science, following scientific methodology.  If you can do that, you might notice a significant career boost.  But if you fail at that, or simply keep whining and crying -- then you might one day realize your career was always in your own hands, not Wikipedia's.

Scientists Are Not Stupid!

I thoroughly enjoyed this post: "Scientists aren’t stupid, and science deniers are arrogant". It's from the site "The Logic Of Science", which is a blog I run across frequently but now I will be adding it to my regular reading list.  The main premise can be summed up in this quote:

"I have found that not only do people with no formal training in science think that they know more than the entire scientific community, but in almost every case, they think that there is a fundamental and obvious problem that essentially all scientists have either missed or are willfully ignoring."

As I read this, nearly every conversation I have had with a denier on Evolution, Climate Change, and even Tobacco could have been an example cited in this article.  How it usually works for me is they start with some simple fact, twist it around and try and use it to discredit and entire scientific discipline, and then defend it with amazing rationalizations that simply boggle my mind.

Two examples of their use of facts:  Climate Change v. the Little Ice Age and Evolution v. the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.  Conversations usually start with a brief explanation from Google or Wikipedia, which is usually fine.  Then they add in something heard from a very conservative source -- most often funded by an industry or special interest with a bone to pick with the science.   Commonly the Oil/Gas Industry or their funded 'think tank' the Heartland Institute when it comes to Climate Change, or a religious ministry like the Discovery Institute or Answers in Genesis when it comes to Evolution.

Once you start poking holes in their arguments, they veer away from their pseudo-facts and start rationalizing.  My favorite is the 'rice bowl' analogy.  If you are unfamiliar with the term, what it means is when someone jealously protecting a project or program.  It's believed to be from some Chinese or Japanese slang concerning losing your job -- i.e.: your method of providing for your family with staples, like food -- hence the use of 'rice'.  I've heard it many times in the military over the years.  It's also often expressed as 'defending your turf' as well.

If goes like this:  "Scientists are too busy protecting their jobs and sources of funding, so they dismiss evidence that opposes their self-interest."  There is a simple problem with this one.  While it's true job security is an objective of most working adults, what would happen to a scientist who succeeds in disproving something like Evolution?  Can you say 'Nobel Prize'?  Here's another quote from the article:

"Disproving evolution would result in me going down in history as one of the great minds of the 21st century. So, why haven’t I or any of the thousands of other ambitious young biologists published that evidence? Because it doesn’t exist! This idea that you have to blindly go along with the “dogma” to get anywhere in science is totally backwards. You don’t get grants to confirm things that everyone already knows. "

There is the fallacy in the argument, most scientists are not highly paid, in fact I make nearly twice the average salary of a climate scientist, and I am a computer programmer with a Master's.  Of course that data depends on a lot of things, like the exact position or even what part of the country they live in.  But no matter what data set you are looking at, climate scientists are not very highly paid.  If you look at a Biologist, or worse a Biology Teacher, their remuneration gets even lower.

Now, who do you think are scientists who make higher salaries?  Not the ones toeing some imaginary party line, but the ones making breakthroughs, discovering new things, developing new medicines and medical treatments.  So this 'protecting your turf' argument fails on many levels!  Plus you have to factor in that we are not just talking about scientists at one institution or location, but world-wide.  Think of how illogical to believe in a decades-long, multinational conspiracy of silence just so current scientists can keep their positions.

However, when you look at the people arguing against science, you really can't see the rice bowl protection going on?  Look at how climate science can impact profits of the current energy companies, you know the ones funding anti-climate change marketing material?  How about religious groups who are terrified of the impact real science might have on their congregations and donations?  And you think scientists are being defensive?

Conspiracies theories might be entertaining and fodder for idiotic television and radio shows, but when you look at the logic of them, they tend to be absurd.  One last quote from Logic of Science:

"Anytime that an argument requires you to think that the entire scientific community is hopelessly stupid, ignorant, incompetent, etc. you should be extremely skeptical. Scientists aren’t stupid, and if you think you have found something simple and obvious that all of them have missed, you are almost certainly wrong. It is the epitome of arrogance to think that a few minutes or even hours on Google have endowed you with a better understanding of science than the collective scientific community gained through countless years of training and experience."

Why is it so hard for too many people to recognize that training and experience count for a hell of a lot in the real world.  I wish one of them would look up computer programming on Google and see how well they would function doing my job, let alone one in physics or biology.  Would trust a dentist with your mouth who received such an 'education'?  Here's something fun to watch.

Maybe it is Too Soon To Retire the 'So There's Nothing Religious About Intelligent Design' Post Title?

I was going to retire the "So there's nothing religious about Intelligent Design (ID)" post title, but this one popped up and I just cannot resist, it fits to perfectly. For the less than honest fellows at the Discovery Institute posted: "For Culturally Illiterate Science Reporters, Canaanite DNA Yields Occasion to Slap Bible Around".  I don't really care to deal with their typical spin on any story, the part that interests me is right at the beginning and near the end. Here is the first line:

"Obviously, your friends at Evolution News are not here to do Biblical exegesis. However, when science headlines tendentiously try to manipulate readers in order to slam the Bible, well, that’s fair game."

Exegesis is defined as:

"is a critical explanation or interpretation of a text, particularly a religious text." (Wikipedia: exegesis)

Simply put the Discovery Institute (DI) is going to explain the Bible to us.  I don't think that's particularly correct, but I'll explain my thinking on that a little later in this post.  So, for this opening line itself, if there is nothing inherently religious about the DI and ID, then why is this post even necessary?  Who is the DI, that bastion of pseudo-science, to interpret the Bible to us anyway?  That's what I find so funny.

The second to last paragraph is the most interesting:

"Not “may have survived.” In the Bible’s account, they definitely survived, in large numbers. The original headline? “Ancient DNA counters biblical account of the mysterious Canaanites.” It should be, “Ancient DNA confirms biblical account…”"

So not only is the DI 'interpreting' the Bible for us, they are changing the meaning.  The Bible says the Canaanites were wiped out.  Deuteronomy shows the order to 'let none survive.  So how is the fact that they survived, show that the Biblical account is confirmed -- as claimed by the DI?  It sure doesn't seem confirmed to me!

OK, my issue is that there seems to be words the DI uses that means the exact opposite of what they say. This post wasn't an example of 'exegesis', but one of 'eisegesis', which is defined as:

" . . . is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. " (Wikipedia: eisegesis)

You can read the whole article and tell me that's isn't exactly what they are doing.  They are spinning in order to claim that science is messing up.  The reality is they are trying to introduce their anti-science agenda into the conversation, while claiming otherwise.  They aren't just 'interpreting', but they are changing the story -- eisegesis not exegesis -- not that we use those terms very often.

Personally when I tell a story and try and be very specific when I am putting my own interpretation on things, especially if I have no idea of the details.  I differentiate carefully between the facts I am trying to explain and my interpretation of those facts.  But then facts and the DI don't seem to have much of a relationship.  I wonder if they used the word 'exegesis' to either sound academic or deliberately mislead people.  I know I had to check the definition myself.  

We Will Continue To Speak the Truth about Intelligent Design!

The Discovery Institute's (DI) Evolution 'news' and Views site has a new post, it's from davey 'klingy' klinghoffer and it sounds as if he's pissed!  "Say What You Want About Intelligent Design"  Davey is repeating a common theme, he doesn't like what people say about Intelligent Design (ID).  Poor davey!

"Literally, say whatever the hell you want. You can say things that are true. Or you can say things that are false. Either is fine, but with most mainstream media outlets, false is likely preferable.Writing at the slick science magazine Nautilus, Brian Gallagher demonstrates yet again that there is no accountability when criticizing ID is on the agenda. He tries to draw a line connecting last month’s story about Turkey eliminating evolution from 9th grade science class, with “fundamentalist” Christianity, with creationism, with intelligent design, and with academic freedom legislation."

I haven't yet read the article that offended davey so deeply, I will, but for now I wanted to focus in on his complaints.  One of the things we have discussed often is how the DI doesn't like you much unless you agree completely with their agenda and parrot their own words often.  For example, they don't like Wikipedia much because Wikipedia insists on not allowing them to define Intelligent Design as science.  They don't like the United Methodist Church because they refused to give into the DI's demand for a propaganda table at the UMC's general meeting.  They didn't like the "March for Science" because they didn't invite the DI, and when they tried to invite themselves, the March for Science folks reminded the DI that they were not a scientific organization.  I don't think they like the Vatican very much because they didn't get invited to a Vatican-sponsored conference on Darwin back in 2009.  The basic bottom line seems to be either you are on their side, or you are the enemy.  Well I guess they found another enemy.

So is Nature reporting things that are not true?  I don't believe so.  The moniker of 'false news' has become very popular lately, but just declaring, or insinuating, something is false news doesn't mean it actually is false.  Just read most of a certain hamster-haired serial misogynist and liar's tweets about all news organizations except for the extreme right and you will understand that calling something 'false news' really means they wrote something you didn't like -- not that their news is actually false!

One of davey's whine is how ID is defined, but the definition keeps changing, as noted in "Surprise! The definition of ID has 'evolved'"  It seems that one of the tactics that the DI uses is to complain about how ID is characterized -- even though they have yet to establish a formal definition and explanation of ID.  It's like they refuse to allow themselves to be pinned down, and therefore can complain about someone anytime they say something that isn't immediately supportive and positive.

Do you think a line can be drawn between Turkey dropping Evolution from their school curriculum and the activities of fundamentalist Christians, what I usually call Evangelical Christians, who are trying to do the exact same thing?  Of course you can!  Religious groups in Turkey are doing what people like kennie ham, Texas' Don McLeroy, Ohio's Deborah Owens Fink, and South Carolina's Kristin Maguire would love to do -- remake the entire school curriculum, from pre-school through college, in the conservative Christian image -- regardless of your actual religious beliefs, or lack of them.  Destroy science, history, and any subject that fails to put their version of God as the correct answer to any and all questions.  You can agree or disagree, but when you look at the facts of the actions these folks -- and others -- have taken, that is exactly what they want.

OK, so we have two points, can we extend that line to Creationism?  I believe so.

Who have been ardent supporters of their religion being the basis for education in this country?  Who have been arguing against any subject, particularly evolution, that they claim undermines their religious beliefs?  If you look at folks like McLeroy, Owens Fink, and Maguire you will find they are Creationists.  They were pushing for the addition of Creationism for years and only switched to ID as a tactic.  It's not just them, it was the school board in Dover PA which lead to the Kitzmiller et al v. Dover School Board trial which was so devastating to the ID movement.  It was groups that led up to many, if not all, of the lawsuits that results in religion being removed from the science classroom, at least in public schools.  'Creationist' is the modern term, but there have been other names for them.  What it boils down to is the actions, and their actions are to impose their religious beliefs on any and all students regardless of whether those beliefs are shared or even if those beliefs mean anything.  Think I am stretching here, well then tell me how science works when all you have to rely on is your religious beliefs?  How many diseases have been cured, how many scientific breakthroughs have been accomplished through religious beliefs?  Doesn't look like any of them, does it?

So we've stretched a line from Turkey through Fundamentalist Christianity to Creationism, next stop Intelligent Design. Anyone remember this post: "Does Anyone Actually Believe the Discovery Institute when They say They are not Advocating Teaching Intelligent Design?".  How about a few highlights:

• A 'Teacher Training Program' as part of the DI's 'Publicity and Opinion-making' phase. ( (Wedge Strategy Document, Phase II, page 6)" 
• "We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory in public school science curricula. (Wedge Strategy Document, Phase III, page 7)" 
• "The Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center . . . to promoting intelligent design theory . . . among students, educators, . . . and anyone else interested.
• Our primary focus is to help students form "IDEA Clubs" on university and high school campuses to expand the dialogue over intelligent design" (IDEA Club Website) 
• In Texas where they were 'advising' the Creationist head of the state school board on public school curricula and textbooks. 
• To their own website with: 
• Education Curricula -- They have written educational material for teaching Intelligent Design! 
• Key Resources for Parents and School Board Members
• The failed Santorum Amendment

Yes, we can connect all of this into one long line and ending at their current activities, what they like to call their Academic Freedom bills, bills which have absolutely nothing to do with academic freedom.  Here is how those bills are described in Wikipedia:

"A number of anti-evolution bills have been introduced in the United States Congress and State legislatures since 2001. Purporting to support academic freedom, supporters have contended that teachers, students, and college professors face intimidation and retaliation when discussing scientific criticisms of evolution, and therefore require protection. Critics of the legislation have pointed out that there are no credible scientific critiques of evolution. An investigation in Florida of the allegations of intimidation and retaliation found no evidence that it had occurred."

Anti-evolution, purported to support academic freedom, asking for protection against actions that have never happened.  Just another tactic of deceit from the DI.  Look at each and evey action they claim is a form of intimidation and you will find a teacher failing to do their job.  Look for yourself, but avoid the DI's propaganda machine.  The ones they mention most often are:

• 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 -- science. 
• Gonzalez was not given tenure because he failed in his responsibilities as a professor with graduate students after 7 years in the job. Seven years and only one completed graduate student and hardly any research funding. Very poor showing for a tenure seeking professor! But he was not fired. 
• 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 paper, and now he works for that same friend at the DI. 
• Freshwater was fired for a number of things including failing to do his job, lying to investigators, trying to get his students to lie for him, and burning crosses into kids arms. He tried to take his case all the way to the US Supreme Court, after failing at all the other levels. It didn't work. 
• 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.

It is not intimidation to hold people accountable for the job they were hired to do!  Those so-called 'academic freedom' bills are designed to not allow schools to hold them accountable.  Imagine a school who cannot fire a teacher who was hired to teach biology and is found to be teaching religion instead?  Such bills will prevent schools from taking action . . . we have real problems in our education system, protecting those failing to perform is not going to help!

One last quote from davey:

"He repeats the myth about ID as “rebranded” creationism. Hardly. One is an inference from science, the other from the Bible. That’s a big difference. One regards the great age of the Earth, reckoned in billions of years, with equanimity and is open to the idea of common descent. The other doesn’t and isn’t."

Here is where davey plays a little redefinition with Creationism.  He tends to forget that not all Creationists are what are called Young Earth Creationists (YEC), but that's one of his criteria trying to convince people that ID isn't Creationism.  But the age of the Earth and common descent are not the common theme that connects Creationism, regardless of what specific strain you might follow.  Here's a common definition:

"Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation," as opposed to the scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes." (Wikipedia: Creationism)

Anything in there on common descent or the age of the Earth?  Nope!  There are many varieties of Creationism, but they all share this belief that everything originated through the actions of a deity and not natural processes.  For comparison, ID proponents claim 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: Intelligent Design)

Notice anything similar?  Without offering any evidence, they make a claim that natural processes couldn't be responsible.  The only difference is that they hide their references to a deity.  This is a tactic, and their own guiding document, the Wedge Document, also called the Wedge Strategy.  It's the game plan used by ID proponents and it specifically calls for:

"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

That's in the opening paragraph.  So while ID proponents like to hide their allegiance to a deity, they don't hide it very well.  So in reality, it's not Brian Gallagher who is repeating a myth about ID being 'rebranded Creationism', but davey himself that is telling the myth, the myth that ID is not the same thing as Creationism!

So just looking at davey's whine doesn't seem to much  any sense.  It's just the usual vitriol aimed at something who calls them, not only like they see them, but like they are.  Nature and Brian Gallagher are simply telling the truth, but it's a truth that the DI has been trying to hide for years.

Dodge Ball at the Discovery Institute

In a post over at the Discovery Institute's (DI) Evolution 'news' and Views site (EnV), "Bad Bugs, Good Designs — The Case of the Mosquito" looks like it's going to make a case for design.  Yet all it does it dodge the issue.  Remember making a case means much more than offering an opinion, you have to support it with evidence.

Quoting an article from Nature "Smart wing rotation and trailing-edge vortices enable high frequency mosquito flight", the DI does what it usually does and places an Intelligent Design spin on things.  What the paper describes is the intricate and interesting detail of mosquito flight characteristics, something that hadn't been studied to this level of detail before.  And what do you know, they discovered some new and interesting information.  So, how does one determine that this post on EnV is nothing more than the usual DI spin?

• Clue Number 1, is did the DI do any original research on the subject?  No, there is no evidence of any original research.  They took someone else's work and changed the conclusions.
• Clue Number 2, did the paper cite anything from the Discovery Institute or any similar source?  No, all citations reference actual scientific papers and articles, nothing pseudo-scientific in the bunch.
• Clue Number 3, does the DI's post offer any support for the design 'conclusions'?  No, they simple make the statement, but offer nothing in the way of support or proof other than their opinion.  In fact, look at this quote from the post:

"Others insights drawing on religious teachings could be cited, including the reply to Job from the whirlwind. Such answers, though worth exploring, drift far beyond the limited scope of intelligent design. The job of ID is to identify design, not comment on its morality. We gladly leave such matters in the capable hands of philosophers and theologians. To the objective observer, mosquito aerodynamic systems look well designed. They may not get our love, but deserve our respect."

They claim to have other papers they could cite, but due to the religious nature of those papers, the DI decided not to use them.  Ostensibly due to the limited scope of Intelligent Design, but in my opinion this is just another effort to keep distancing themselves from their religious background.  When you read real scientific papers, articles, and even postings, you never see a religious disclaimer, do you?

Another point, take a look at the second to last line, "To the objective observer, mosquito aerodynamic systems look well designed.", I added the underlining to point something out.  I, and many others have said, that Intelligent Design is nothing other than opinion and conjecture going for it.  This line supports that idea.  Instead of actually proving intelligent design is real, all they can do it point to things that look designed and make their religious claim that 'if something looks designed, it must be designed'.  In this case they declare it to be a good design, but yet no evidence to support that it is designed at all, let alone good or bad design.

One of the things I find humorous is that when someone points to something that, if it had been designed, was a very poor design, ID proponents never seem to address those issues in the same way. (Argument from poor design) For example, this post suggests that because the mosquito's flight characteristics are so special and so well-designed; therefore that somehow proves Intelligent Design.

However, Wild Bill Dembski, once a rising star of ID, clams there there is a difference between 'intelligent design' and 'optimal design', meaning that just because something may be poorly designed doesn't rule out ID. (Dembski, William (1999). Intelligent design: the bridge between science & theology. InterVarsity Press. p. 261. ISBN 0-8308-2314-X.) 

Huh?  Good design proves design, but bad design also proves design?  Do you want a bit more of  Marie Antoinette's cake, don't you think?  In other words, this whole post means absolutely nothing.  Yes, mosquito flight characteristics are interesting and unique in many ways and deserves further study . . . but, as an example of Intelligent Design?  That means absolutely nothing because even if it was uninteresting and pedestrian the DI could claim it supports design anyway.  A difference that makes no difference is no difference!

What this post reminds me most of is Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box".  In it Behe discussed things like clotting factor, the immune system, and bacterial flagellum as things that are 'irreducibly complex' and therefore could not have come about through a natural process like evolution.  When faced with nearly 10 years of further research on those topics that support evolutionary origins, Without having read any of it, Behe said that research wasn't good enough. (Dover Trial Transcript, Day 12, PM, starting at 49.)

Scientists readily admit that they don't know everything about the flight characteristics of the mosquito.  This paper is an example of something the DI doesn't seem to know much about, it's called 'Research', in which real scientists explore things we don't know in order to learn more and more.

The DI wants to declare this as something really really special, therefore it has to have been designed.  But when you look at other insects, you also see special characteristics.  How about the Bumble Bee:

"Bees beat their wings about 200 times a second. Their thorax muscles do not contract on each nerve firing, but rather vibrate like a plucked rubber band. This is efficient, since it lets the system consisting of muscle and wing operate at its resonant frequency, leading to low energy consumption. Further, it is necessary, since insect motor nerves generally cannot fire 200 times per second. These types of muscles are called asynchronous muscles[ and are found in the insect wing systems in families such as Hymenoptera, Diptera, Coleoptera, and Hemiptera. Bumblebees must warm up their bodies considerably to get airborne at low ambient temperatures. Bumblebees have been known to reach an internal thoracic temperature of 30 °C (86 °F) using this method." (Wikipedia: Bumble Bee)

Bumble Bees have different, yet efficient, flight characteristics than mosquitoes. If you study up a bit you find that many groups of insects have very interesting characteristics when it comes to how their wings work.  So what's a good explanation?  Were they all designed differently or did they all evolve different characteristics?  On the one hand you have opinion offering the answer of 'designed', but on the other hand you have 150+ years of evidence supporting evolution.

Look at this one line mentioning Hymenoptera (Sawflies, wasps, and bees), Diptera (Houseflies), Coleoptera (beetles), and Hemiptera (cicadias, aphids . . .). Thousands of insect species with some similar flight characteristics.  Design or Evolution, which answer makes sense and is supported by evidence?  You can't forget the evidence part because without evidence all you have is opinion.  Before answering you might want to know there has been a great deal of research -- there's that word again, research -- about the genetics of insects, including related species and sub-species of insects.  Did you know human's share about 60% or our genes with fruit flies?  Again, before answering, how much actual research have you seen on Design?  I'm not talking opinion and religious pieces, but actual scientific research?  None!  So clearly the answer to my question doesn't support design!

Rather than do their own research, the DI simply take someone else's work and put a Behe-type spin on it.  In the future, as we learn more and more about the subject, I am sure there will be someone from the DI to tell us that it's not enough.  After all, that's a lot easier than doing any real research, isn't it?

So There is Nothing Religious about Intelligent Design (Part XI)

I haven't used this heading in a  while, but sometimes it just fits too perfectly.  Over and over again we hear the Discovery Institute claim that they are not a religious organization, but a scientific one -- and how their pet idea 'Intelligent Design' isn't a religious proposition but a scientific theory.  So here is yet another example of that being nothing more than a lie: "The Envelope Please: Doug Axe and Undeniable are World Magazine 2016 Science Book of the Year.".  I caught it in a Facebook announcement from the DI:

According to the announcement, Axe's book won in the category 'Science, Math, and Worldview'.  However there was something left out of the announcement by little davely 'klingy' klinghoffer.  Just what is World Magazine?  Is it a Scientific Journal?  Does it have anything to do with science at all?  In a word, No!

Here's is what World Magazine is (My underlines for emphasis):

"World (often written in all-caps as WORLD) is a biweekly Christian news magazine, published in the United States by God's World Publications, a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization based in Asheville, North Carolina.  World's declared perspective is one of Christian evangelical Protestantism." (Wikipedia: World Magazine)

So while little klingy is busy polishing his little award, isn't it funny that he fails to provide the context one would need to understand the importance of this award.  For example, there is a world of difference between an Oscar and the Humboldt International Film Festival (the oldest student-run film festival in the world).

Announcing that you won say "Best Picture" is fine, but when you say you won Best Picture at Humboldt -- if they even offer such an award -- would raise a shrug from just about anyone you know.  However winning Best Picture at the Oscars means something totally different.  I am not trying to compare World Magazine's award with either the Oscars or Humboldt, I was just trying to give you an idea of how context helps you understand the value of an award.

So what context is the 'Science Book' award klingy is so proud of?  It might mean something if the award was from a science journal or even a scientific organization.  But we can see that it's not, it is a 'science book' award given by an organization whose perspective is not science, but Christian evangelical Protestantism.  It certainly places a different spin on it, doesn't it?

What I find the most amusing is how klingy forgets to mention it.  I'm not surprised, klingy and the DI often forget to identify certainly things, particularly any connection with religion.  It's a common theme.  Here are a few other examples:

1.  Remember the '700' list?  You know the 'Dissent from Darwinism' petition the DI likes to bring up every now and again.  In "Since the "700" keeps coming up . . ." we discussed how the DI misrepresented the credentials of those signatories, inflating their academic credentials and also forgetting to mention any connections with the Discovery Institute itself.

2.  Back a while ago, in a post "So there is nothing religious about Intelligent Design? Part II" I discussed Heather Zeigler. One of my points was that the DI described her as:

"[NOTE: Today we welcome a new contributing writer to Evolution News & Views, Heather Zeiger. Ms. Zeiger graduated magna cum laude from the University of Texas at Dallas with a B.S. in chemistry and a minor in government and politics. She received her M.S. in chemistry, also from UTD; her research was in organic synthesis and materials.]"

and yet forgot to mention all her credentials, like [the bold were the words they used, the rest they forgot to mention.  I added the underlines for emphasis]:

"Heather Zeiger graduated magna cum laude from the University of Texas at Dallas with a B.S. in chemistry and a minor in government and politics. She received her M.S. in chemistry, also from UTD; her research was in organic synthesis and materials. She interned at Probe Ministries prior to graduate school and now serves with Probe as a Research Associate. Her interests involve science and culture issues, including bioethics, origins, and the environment. She is currently working on a M.A. in bioethics from Trinity International University. She is married to David, another former Probe intern and teacher at Trinity Christian Academy. "

In other words, the DI decided to not mention that Heather is one who already drank their kool-aid and tried to pass her off as somewhat objective.  Of course, when you look at her a little bit closer, you realize that she probably won't be particularly objective at all.  I don't think they hired her for her objectivity.

3.  A while back the DI discovered the power of polling, we discussed in "A New 'Poll' conducted by the DI says what the DI says, what a surprise!" The DI announced the results of a poll, yet they forget to tell you it was their poll and they worded the questions and twisted the results for their own purposes.  In another poll they even forget to tell you what questions were asked ("Another poll from the Discovery Institute, oh boy, oh boy!"), they only presented their spin on the results.  Their version of a poll is something like one kid asking another, "Have you stopped beating up your sister?  Yes or No."

4. In "Klinghoffer lies by Omission" we discussed a new 'Biography' of Alfred Russel Wallace written by the Michael Flannery.  In the piece, little davery klinghoffer described Flannery as:

"Michael A. Flannery is Professor and Associate Director for Historical Collections at the Lister Hill Library of the Health Sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) and editor of Alfred Russel Wallace's Theory of Intelligent Evolution (2008)."

For some reason little davey forgot to mention that Michael Flannery is also Fellow at the Discovery Institute. Now why in the world for davey not bother mentioning that little item? He says so many nice things about Flannery, but not once does he mention that he and Flannery are buddies who share the same political masters, the DI. Why would that be?

As you can see, this is one of their common tactics, forgetting to place various announcements into a context, which makes it sound like it is much more important than it really is.  So a religious non-profit gives an award to a religious book written by one of the apologetics at the DI.  You know World Magazine didn't even need to read the book.  Remember the book announcement when it came out last year:

"Axe argues that the key to understanding our origin is the “design intuition”—the innate belief held by all humans that tasks we would need knowledge to accomplish can only be accomplished by someone who has that knowledge. For the ingenious task of inventing life, this knower can only be God." (Amazon listing)

So you see, Axe does have one thing going for him, he does admit the identity of the 'designer', something the rest of those cowards at the DI refuse to do 'officially'.  But other than that, he wrote a religious book that just won an award from a religious magazine.  And klingy thinks it's a big deal . . . but hell, there's nothing religious about it, right?