Surprise! The definition of ID has 'evolved'

Mark Farmer, over at The Panda's Thumb has a great post "More DI Word Games". Apparently a few months back he was working on something and snagged the definition of Intelligent Design (ID) from the Discovery Institute (DI) website. Now this should not surprise anyone. If you DARE write anything about Intelligent Design the DI, through its toothless attack chihuahuas like luskin and klinghoffer, will immediately whine if they feel you are not representing ID correctly. Well if you aren't an ID supporter, they will whine no matter what you say, but getting the definition usually cuts down the whining a small amount. OK, so far, so good, Mark went and got this from their site:

"Intelligent design is a scientific theory which holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution."

Now even more recently he went and looked up the definition again and guess what? It had changed to this:

"Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds 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."

In all honesty, is anyone really surprised at this? The definition of Intelligent Design has changed. Now what I was curious about was had it changed before? So I checked out the Of Pandas and People text, the book that became so central in the Dover PA trial. You know, the trial that declared "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID [Intelligent Design] is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." (Dover Decision) Well in that text ID was defined as:

"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc." (Since I don't have a copy of this book, I used the Dover Transcripts for this definition).

Those of you familiar with the trial probably realize that this definition was the definition of Special Creation/Creationism prior to the re-editing of the text following the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision that ruled against the mandating the teaching of "Creation Science" alongside Evolution.

During the Dover Trial. Dr. Kenneth Miller, testifying for the plaintiffs, defined Intelligent Design as

"Intelligent design is the proposition that some aspects of living things are too complex to have been evolved and, therefore, must have been produced by an outside creative force acting outside the laws of nature."

Also during the trial Michael Behe, a senior fellow over at the Discovery Institute, called Miller's definition "a mischaracterization", saying that ID is a scientific theory, not a proposition. Of course Behe never did provide a definition of ID -- which I found interesting. Later in the trial I think he had to back off on his calling Miller's definition a mischaracterization because he had to agree that for ID to be considered science, the basic definition of science would have to change to include supernatural causation. I think Miller was dead on with his definition!

Something that I didn't realize when I suffered through the book "Signature in the Cell" by Philosopher and another senior fellow over at the Discovery Institute Stephen C. Meyer. He is using the latest definition, the one that no longer identifies ID as a scientific theory, but identifies is as a research program,. a community of scientists, and a theory (remember there is a difference between a colloquial theory and a scientific theory). I hadn't noticed the change, so I am very glad Mark Farmer pointed it out.

Well as we can see the definition since 1987 and today has certainly evolved. What I want to understand is WHY it has changed. Unlike science, which changes as new knowledge, new ideas are supported, and new work is accomplished, the basic definition of Intelligent Design has changed not due to any known work, but appears to have changed because of the criticisms of both the idea itself and the tactics of it proponents, chiefly the Discovery Institute (DI).

Think about it, one of the frequent criticisms was it being identified as a 'scientific theory' in the first place, without having done the work and rigor required of any scientific theory. So since no one was going to let that one slide, no matter how often the DI claimed it to be true, it was a sticking point -- so they dumped it. ID is no longer a Scientific Theory, but just a theory -- an idea, a concept. I think I can agree with that.

Another complaint was falsification. Remember that falsification is the scientific principle that in order for a hypothesis to become a theory, there has to be some identifiable way to determine that it could be false. Not that is has to be false, but there has to be a way of identifying if it no longer applies. For example a rabbit found in the stomach of a dinosaur would show that evolution no longer applies. Charles Darwin himself said that if any biological organism that could not have possibly formed through incremental changes over time, then his theory may be false. Of course nothing has been found that meets that description, but you can see his point. By changing from a scientific theory to just a theory, you remove the onus on falsification, or at least the requirement for falsification. Of course if they ever wish to become a scientific theory, and they do the work and rigor to support it, then they will have to address falsifiability -- but that seems to have been deferred to the future.

Notice that the phrase 'chance-based process' is also gone from the definition. While this should signify a change in the various evolutionary attacks by people like Meyer and Dembski because their main arguments are frequently against the odds of biological changes happening by chance. But Meyer didn't back off of this whine in his book, I think the removal from the definition to be more flash than substance, but we shall see.

The last noticeable change that instead of trying to attack Darwinian Evolution as a whole, they are just attacking Natural Selection. I think one of the reasons is that every time they try an attack Evolution, especially using the term Darwinian Evolution, they seem to keep forgetting how much evolutionary theory has changed since Darwin's Day. Their attacks on Evolution as a whole have failed. The topic is too well supported within the scientific community and even without. I mean when a Conservative Judge, appointed by a Republican President who publicly announced support for ID can't side with the DI -- they had to change tactics.

That's all this is -- a definitional change -- a change in tactics. The ID movement has certainly proven that it is quite malleable as it suffers defeat after defeat in the courts and in state and local school boards. Remember in Texas half of the 'special committee' to examine the science curriculum was made up of DI fellows and other ID proponents -- and they still failed! Go back further and you can see the entire Creationism movement has been changing after each set-back. Can't mandate Evolution not be taught, ask for equal time for Creationism. Can't teach Creationism in science class because it's not science -- change the name to Creation Science. Can't teach Creation Science -- change the name to Intelligent Design. Can't call Intelligent Design a Scientific Theory -- redefine it. They have to evolve and this definition seems to be the latest evolution -- an evolution of a bad idea, but still evolution.

Klinghoffer . . . again!

David Klinghoffer is one of the nastier pundits for the Discovery Institute. He has a poorly titled opinion piece over at the Huffington Post called "The Dark Side of Darwin." It is yet another attempt to blame Charles Darwin for the Nazi eugenics and more modern day social ills.

As usual David is wrong on so many levels. Shall we count a few ways?

1. The Theory of Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with eugenics! Charles Darwin did not espouse any viewpoint that would associate itself with such an activity. In fact he opposed such activities!
   
2. Eugenics is a term coined by Sir Francis Galton, a year after Darwin died. The negative is that Galton is a half-cousin of Darwin, but that really shouldn't matter. Eugenics is defined by Galton as "the study of all agencies under human control which can improve or impair the racial quality of future generations.” Please note the phase ‘human control’. The is completely against the ideas of Random Mutation and Natural Selection put forth in Darwin’s Theories.
   
3. Other terms for eugenics include ‘ethnic cleansing’, ‘racial hygiene’, and ‘the elimination of undesirables’. At no point in the Theory of Evolution address the inferiority or superiority of any group within a population. The fitness described in the theory has to do with how well an organism has adapted to its environment, not a morality play on inferiority or superiority. Is a celery stalk superior to a human being? There might be many opinions, but there is NOTHING in evolutionary theory that makes this type of judgment. What makes one human being superior or inferior to another? Opinions will vary even more wildly -- but again this is not something addressed in any scientific theory! Scientific theories are morally . . . ambiguous, for lack of a better term.
   
4. Anyone ever read Mein Kampf? You do realize there Charles Darwin and his theories are not mentioned in there at all. In fact the evolution discussed (the word is used twice) is a political evolution and revolution described by Hitler.
   
5. So what was the motivating factor that helped Adolf murder millions of people he judged to be inferior or undesirable? Guess where he got his motivation? Not Darwin, but God. He claims to have been given a divine inspiration! While many Christians read that and get upset, claiming that Hitler wasn’t a Christian that he just used the Bible as an excuse to justify and rationalize his actions. I agree! But then why does someone like Kilnghoffer insist that Darwin’s work caused the Nazi atrocities? Sounds a little self-serving and more than a little dishonest. Here is a something from Main Kampf just to prove my point:

   " . . . [Jews] very existence is an incarnate denial of the beauty of God's image in His creation." (http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt)
   

6. In all honesty, and that is a word I do not think Klinghoffer has more than a passing relationship with, his whining could be related to something called ‘Social Darwinism’, and while Darwin’s name is invoked in that title, it was a social movement that has nothing to do with Darwin or his work. Darwin was long dead when Social Darwinism became popular. Social Darwinism went out of favor after the atrocities of the Nazi’s were uncovered and people realized that Social Darwinism, taken to such extremes, were not what their goals entailed. Post WW-II Eugenics and Social Darwinism were firmly renounced by most politicians of the day.
   
7. Now where did David get this little ‘idea’. Let me point out that David, and the other people mentioned in the article (David Berlinski, John West, and Richard Weikart) are all fellows at the Discovery Institute. This institute's ultimate goal is to

   "defeat scientific materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf).

   So what does that mean? Anything they can say or do to cause people to question the science of Evolution is an acceptable tactic. So if they can successfully associate Charles Darwin with a known evil like Hitler and Nazism, then by associate Evolution must be evil! It’s a marketing scheme and a disreputable tactic by an organization that seems to be defined by its reprehensible tactics.
   

Klinghoffer isn't the first to voice such a gutter-level opinion. A similar attack was tried by Ben Stein in his mockumentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”. One of the many responses to that film came from the Anti-Defamation League who said

“The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory. Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler's genocidal madness. Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.” (http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5277_52.htm).

If you are not familiar with the Anti-Defamation League it was founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.

Little kennie ham over at Answers In Genesis, and the purveyor of such pseudo-science silliness known as the Creation 'Museum' is also one of the folks trying to link Charles Darwin and all the evils of the world. In fact he blames the Theory of Evolution for Communism, Fascism, atheism, eugenics, abortion and poor church attendance. However it was only just recently that he claimed to have witnessed racial issues in the 1970’s and blamed Darwin and Evolution for them. However in all of his writings up until just recently, these racial issues were never mentioned. Or I should say that I have not been able to find any reference to this in his writings until his most recent work. Why would that be? Could he really be honest about having witnessed many incidents 30 years ago and just suppressed them until now? Or could it be he is simply jumping on the bandwagon? I believe the latter.

Here is a much more interesting opinion piece, also published by the Huffington Post in response to David’s POS. "Intelligent Design Creationists Abuse Science and Victims of the Holocaust" by Eric Michael Johnson. He has a Bachelors degree in Anthropology and a Masters in Evolutionary Anthropology and blogs over at Science Blogs. His blog is called The Primate Diaries. Here are a few points he made:

• Darwin specifically condemned any policy that would "neglect the weak and helpless".

• Haeckel's foundation for Nazi race biology, is simply wrong. According to University of Chicago historian Robert J. Richards, in a recent anthology:

  "This charge, which attempts to link Haekel's convictions with the Nazi's particular brand of racism, suffers from the inconvenience of having absolutely no foundation."

• In the journal Biological Theory Robert J. Richards has demonstrated that Haeckel was not a proponent of a pre-Nazi racist biology and, even if he had been, the Nazi's rejected his work totally.
• Christine Rosen's book Preaching Eugenics, in which she points out that during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries "the Bible became the most popular cultural reference point" for promoting the eugenics movement.
• David Klinghoffer, his fellow creationists, and those who give them a platform should be ashamed of themselves for pushing and allowing a tactic rejected by a US federal court judge as "breathtaking inanity" should be strongly criticized.

I'm not sure I can close with anything stronger than that. So let me just say I agree completely with Eric Michael Johnson! In my opinion it is morally reprehensible that David Klinghoffer, and his other Fellows at the Discovery Institute, will stoop to such tactics to further their political ambitions.

Luskin's Double Standard

Casey Luskin, who in my mind is little more than a mouthpiece for the Discovery Institute, attempted to take to task a pair of critics of his hero William Dembski in this article "Intelligent Design Proponents Toil More than the Critics: A Response to Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit". To set the stage, you might or might not be aware that Demski has published a couple of books. Now typically they were not published in a scientific journal, but the popular press. His first little missive was published by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc -- social sciences and the humanities imprint, rather than one of their scientific journals. Of course this has been a common critique of the Intelligent Design political and marketing movement since its inception. If they are so scientific, why do they continue to publish through avenues that do not require any rigor in their work.

OK, well enough of that for now and let's get back to Luskin's and his double standard. I would love to discuss how a lawyer like Luskin has the temerity to critique two actual scientists, but I guess he is allowed his opinion, misguided as it may be. His critique claims that both Elsberry (a marine biologist) and Shallit (computer scientist, mathematician, and numbers theorist) apply the concept of Design BEFORE looking for natural explanations and that is why they keep seeing 'false positives'.

Hmmm that does lead to the question, does Dembski? Does Behe? Does Meyer? Does anyone who has written a popular press book on Intelligent Design (ID) look for natural explanations before they imply ID? In a word, no!

Everything I have read on the subject makes the possibility of design the first place these folks head. Once they have established the possibility of design, which usually rests on the requirement to admit that anything is conceivably possible, they start jumping toward intelligent design without looking for a naturalistic explanation.

Look at the examples Behe wrote about in his books. Look at his testimony during the 2005 Dover Trial. Look at the work on his own examples that offer many natural explanations for bacterial flagellum, blood clotting factor, and the immune system -- to name a few. I point out Behe in particular because his work is one of the few that actually names examples. When pressed during the Dover Trial, remember that it was Behe who admitted that no one was doing the work to prove his ideas . . . No One!

Try wading through one of Dembski's books and you will see a shocking lack of detail and a bunch of mathematics that don't appear to work. Don't take my word for it, it's other mathematicians that tear up Dembski's ideas. He creates lines in the sand that don't stand up to a mild breeze let alone a stiff wind. (For one example check out:

• http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/dembski/specified.complexity.html)
  
• According to Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology, "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity#cite_note-time.com-5)
• Also from the Wikipedia page is this: " . . . to successfully demonstrate the existence of [Complex Specified information] CSI, it would be necessary to show that some biological feature undoubtedly has an extremely low probability of occurring by any natural means whatsoever, something which Dembski and others have almost never attempted to do."

Go back to the beginning of the modern ID movement and read Johnson's stuff and you will find material long on philosophy and light on details. Their whole argument is one of wishful thinking and conjecture and if they would do as Luskin seems to expect others to do, they should explore natural explanations first -- I mean really look at their work and you will see that at best they offer just a cursory glance like Meyer in his "Signature in the Cell". If they stood by the standard Casey is advocating then the whole movement would dry up and go away. But we know that's not going to happen because looking for natural explanations is not their line of work. They are lawyers and philosophers, historians and creationists. What they are not is scientists working on developing the support for their ideas. Just to be clear Michael Behe is a biochemist, but he's the one who said that no one was working on his ideas. The others aren't nearly that straightforward.

Oh and if you want to read the critique by Elsberry and Shallit, you can find it here, "Information Theory, Evolutionary Computation, and Dembski's 'Complex Specified Information' " One additional note about Jeffrey Shallit. He was scheduled to be a witness at the Dover Trial, but when Dembski dropped out, Shallit's testimony was not needed. In my opinion that is a shame. Behe at least faced off with Kenneth Miller, I thing Dembski vs Shallit would have been fascinating! Well you can read their critique for yourself, here is the abstract to whet your appetite:

"Intelligent design advocate William Dembski has introduced a measure of information called 'complex specified information', or CSI. He claims that CSI is a reliable marker of design by intelligent agents. He puts forth a 'Law of Conservation of Information- which states that chance and natural laws are incapable of generating CSI. In particular, CSI cannot be generated by evolutionary computation. Dembski asserts that CSI is present in intelligent causes and in the flagellum of Escherichia coli, and concludes that neither have natural explanations. In this paper we examine Dembski's claims, point out significant errors in his reasoning, and conclude that there is no reason to accept his assertions."

Mixed messages from Louisiana

While the ICR might contemplate moving to Louisiana after their reverses in Texas, they might be a bit confused by the messages from within the state.

Now I like Louisiana, called the Sportsman's Paradise when I lived there. Both of my kids were born in Louisiana, just outside Shreveport.I made some great friends there. But in all honesty i was very disappointed in the school system when I lived there and recently was further disappointed when Bobby Jindal signed off on a disastrous piece of legislation, the poorly named Louisiana Science Education Act -- which did nothing more but open the door for non-science to be introduced and made it hard for anyone to complain about it. But what do you expect when your best friends are the Discovery institute and the Louisiana Family Forum! I do see a lawsuit in their future.

Well let move ahead from the 2008 signing of the bill and see what the Louisiana Legislature has been up to. Well since they are facing one of the worst ecological disasters in history and one that will reverberate for years in Louisiana's economy, what does the Legislature do -- they unanimously pass a resolution asking for folks to pray for divine intervention. I am sure the ICR will love to hear that message. Just as I am sure State Sen. Robert Adley will claim a victory for God when BP gets its act together and finally deals with the problem and the massive clean-up.

The message the ICR might not like so much comes in the form of an editorial in the Shreveport Times from a couple of days ago. It is directed at the hypocrisy of Gov. Bobby Jindal and US Senator David Vitter are calling for the best and brightest science and engineering minds to help deal with the oil disaster after spending their entire career pandering to the large anti-science constituencies within the State of Louisiana. Isn't it ironic?

Charles Kincade takes no prisoners with his editorial and ends with this:

"Our dismal education system has and will continue to have obvious effects on our economic viability. But more freighting is the inescapable conclusion that unless the anti-science policies of Jindal, Vitter, et al are corrected, and soon, future generations will be unable to function in the modern world."

I wish I could argue with him, but he is one of the few voices talking sense. Louisiana will become dependent on other states for technology and innovation, especially since they still rank near the bottom of the list of States for education (47th of 50). Their educational woes haven't changed since I lived there and unless the people of Louisiana make a change, it's not likely to get better.

Texas scores a big win!

You might remember that back in 2008 the 'Institute' for Creation Research (ICR) moved their national headquarters to Dallas TX from Santee CA. Once they arrived they tried to start awarding a Master's of Science degree. I blogged about this several times (Texas on a different but related subject, Showdown in Texas, Hasn't Texas had enough, and Yea for Texas). Basically they were trying to award an MS graduate degree with, in my opinion, little science involved -- in particular evolution. In all honesty how can an organization award any type of science degree when everything they do is filtered through biblical colored glasses?

Well the ICR made the request, and the Texas Education Agency (TEA) turned them down. It must have been a small surprise, but remember that they were accredited by the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (TRACS), which requires candidate institutions to affirm a list of Biblical Foundations, including "the divine work of non-evolutionary creation including persons in God's image." TRACS is not recognized in Texas and they were seeking a non religious-based accreditation from the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.

The ICR took their case to the court of public opinion and tried to work around the law. They got to one of Texas's more conservative representatives, Leo Berman, who sponsored a bill that would exempt organizations like the ICR from regulation and oversight by the coordinating board. In other words if this bill had passed, they would be able to award whatever degrees they wanted without any oversight! Now isn't that scary. I believe the bill died in committee, but this does go to show you the efforts an organization like the ICR will stoop to to spread their anti-science agenda.

The ICR also filed suit against the TEA claiming, among other things "an unconstitutional and prejudicial burden against ICR's academic freedom and religious liberties." Well the results are in:

• The proposed course of study in no way ‘adequately cover[s] the breadth of knowledge of the discipline taught.
• The vast majority of the proposed science courses do not resemble any offered for graduate credit by other Texas colleges and universities in breadth, depth, or content, and they would not be acceptable for transfer or credit as a result.
• The proposed program of study in no way would adequately prepare students in the field of science education, at any level, and certainly not at the graduate level.
• It is the position of the institute that…all genuine facts of science support the Bible.
• The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from
  inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the creator.
• All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the
  Creation Week described in Genesis…[.] The creation record is factual, historical, and
  perspicuous; thus all theories of origin and development that involve evolution in any
  form are false.

While the ICR was whining about prejudice, the Judge Sam Sparks disagreed! Read about it here "Court Smacks Down Creationist Institute Suit" I guess the next step is to look for a new state for their 'national' headquarters. Maybe Louisiana?

When do Rationalizations become a lie?

Like many in Ohio I have been following the Freshwater case in Mount Vernon. Some background -- a couple of years ago an 8th grade biology teacher, John Freshwater, was suspended for allegedly doing a number of things. Basically he used a Telsa coil to brand students with a cross, taught his narrow christian religion as science, and lied about it -- among other things. You can read so much more about it over on Panda's Thumb -- it's well covered as only someone as dedicated Richard B. Hoppe can be. I mean 371 days and counting for this lunacy!

I was reading about some of the testimony at this particular post and something really caught my eye.

"Hamilton is still working hard to make the case that Freshwater used creationist materials only to show that it’s bad science. As I noted some time ago, sooner or later his constituency will catch on and either abandon him or rationalize it as a necessary lie. My bet is on the latter."

How many times has this happened, how openly Christians who take a stand that they know is against the law and are perfectly willing to lie about it! Remember the Dover PA trial? Before the trial things were said -- and documented in print and video -- and during the trial they LIED about it! Read the transcripts and Judge Jones' comments yourself. It's not very subtle. They have to know that they missed a perjury charge for some unfathomable reason. Freshwater seems to be heading in the same direction. He lied to investigators and appears to have lied about everything during his testimony. It's a disgrace!

The worst part of too often Christians will accept his lies as a necessary evil in order to push their religious view point. Why? What makes it OK to lie on one hand and then claim it's a sin on the other? Freshwater has lost any credibility with non-fundamentalist Christians because of his lies, he should also not have any with his normal supporters -- but they won't abandon him. They'll put up with it and 'forgive him'. It's pretty sad! This isn't a goof, a slip of the tongue. These are deliberate lies -- and even lies after putting hands on a Bible and agreeing to testify with the truth.

I do not agree with Freshwater, but I would have a great deal more respect for him if he stood up for his beliefs, admitted his transgressions, and accepted his punishment. But he won't! His beliefs aren't nearly as strong as they are purported. They are strong enough to compromise his teaching, but not strong enough to accept responsibility!

He sure did lose some other Christians, for example Marcia Osborne said, in her testimony,

"She said he replied that he would have to check his Bible because he wasn’t sure Catholics were Christians. She said she made a “loser” sign at him (the finger-spelling form for “L” moved briskly out from one’s forehead). "

In my opinion, to be brief -- which is unusual for me -- but it's an early day tomorrow for me. But in my humble opinion anyone who deliberately lies for their religion have already lost. You cannot lie and expect any sympathy from me! You have already lost Pascal's Wager as well. If there is a God they will get to pay for their lies in a way that they can only imagine. And if there isn't a God -- they wasted their entire life! What a way to spend the rest of your life! A loser for sure!

What does the Biologic Institute do?

You might remember the Biologic Institute, the lab set up by the Discovery Institute to 'do' the Intelligent Design work that so many critics have been asking for. In the Wedge Document there were three avenues of attack for Phillip E. Johnson's minions at the Discovery Institute. The one avenue -- in fact the ONLY avenue -- that could give the Intelligent Design movement some degree of scientific legitimacy was to actually do the science, to follow the scientific method and support their ideas. For years instead of doing anything on down that avenue, they persisted in marketing and whining. Well in 2005 I guess the criticism finally hit home and they opened their own pet lab and, as I and many others have said, it has been conspicuously silent.

Last week PZ Meyers ran an interesting blog post about what they are actually doing. The end result seems to be . . . not much. Gee, what a surprise. Now what really surprises me is the incredibly minuscule budget they have. I mean $300K for everything including salaries? That would barely purchase one year of services form a decent computer programmer and this is an organization that is doing 'computational biology'? Plus their asset lists only two Mac's. Yet their director pulls in nearly 1/3'rd -- not bad for an organization that is heavy on promise and light on actual results.

Based on their 990 form I do have three questions. Why are they tax-exempt anyway? With how incredibly complex this form is, why did they need to file for an extension? And what do they actually expect to accomplish with three directors and only one research scientist? Actually I think they are living up to expectations.

The DI at the center of another bulleye

Maybe I should have titled my last post "Discovery Institute Sh** or get off the Pot! But I was thinking about Intelligent Design more than just those silly purveyors of pseudo-science up in the Great Northwest. I have been reading an interesting critique of Stephen C. Meyer's "Signature in the Cell" by Steve Matheson over on his "Quintessence of Dust blog". Yesterday he posted an open letter to Meyer that I just had to point out. I especially loved:

"3. Your Discovery Institute is a horrific mistake, an epic intellectual tragedy that is degrading the minds of those who consume its products and bringing dishonor to you and to the church. It is for good reason that Casey Luskin is held in such extreme contempt by your movement's critics, and there's something truly sick about the pattern of attacks that your operatives launched in the weeks after the Biola event. It's clear that you have a cadre of attack dogs that do this work for you, and some of them seem unconstrained by standards of integrity. I can't state this strongly enough: the Discovery Institute is a dangerous cancer on the Christian intellect, both because of its unyielding commitment to dishonesty and because of its creepy mission to undermine science itself. I'd like to see you do better, but I have no such hope for your institute. It needs to be destroyed, and I will do what I can to bring that about."

Wow! Personally I think Meyer is too enmeshed in the chicanery at the DI to be able to separate himself. I honestly think anyone with any integrity has already departed that slowly sinking ship. But it will stay afloat as long as it gets funding from gullible Christians, but even gullible Christians have limits -- a lesson the DI will one day find out. In the meantime folks like Meyer will continue on their merry way and be remembered . . . how did Steve put it? Oh yea.

"It would be a shame if your only contribution was as a political propagandist who served as an impediment to the honest consideration of design and intelligence in biological origins and who was remembered as an enemy of science."

Intelligent Design, Sh** or get off the Pot!

While Christianity Today is not a magazine I read regularly I caught this little article on John Lynch's 'A Simple Prop' blog, something I do read on a regular basis. He linked to an article there by Karl Giberson, director of Gordon College's Forum on Faith and Science. The article "Intelligent Design: Find a Fertile Idea" is one of three that try and offer suggestions on ways intelligent design can gain academic currency.

The first article in the trilogy was by Stephen C. Meyer, author of that disaster "Signature in the Cell" and one of those disreputable Discovery Institute ideologists. Meyer said his usual mishmash of defensiveness. I was not surprised at his opening:

Asking what advocates of intelligent design must do to gain credibility in the academy is a bit like asking a man when he stopped beating his wife. Such a question makes a prejudicial assumption.

Meyer tries once again to convince people that ID has any credibility at all in the scientific community. Tell me how credible is a concept who's own supporters fail to do any actual work to support their idea. The majority of the time they are trying denigrate Evolution rather than promote ID. I'll close this blog entry with another example of Meyer's poor personal credibility, but first on to the other two articles in the trilogy.

The second article was done by a geologist, Marcus Ross, the down side is that he teaches at Liberty University. Liberty is not exactly a place brimming with open-mindedness for new scientific ideas. So I do feel some resistance to Ross immediately, but what he says makes some amount of sense, but I can't see the ID community paying any attention. It's time to give up on the Big tent approach:

It is one thing to argue that an object or organism is designed. But then comes the question of how and when the design was implemented (and also by whom). Because ID is minimalistic, a number of options are available. Was the design implemented over a multibillion-year history of Earth, or in six rotational days several thousand years ago? Was it worked out through a genetic unfolding of a single information-rich cell, or through designed interventions within evolutionary lineages, or by separate, ex nihilo creations? Various ID proponents offer different answers, but none speaks for ID itself, because if one perspective were widely accepted, the other members would be forced to leave the tent.

In my opinion Ross' first mistake was not starting with the basics. Prove design and then you can deal with the different members standing under the tent. Obviously that has not happened at all. Ross does state something that I disagree with. Since when have

" . . . proponents have made progress in advancing design-detection methods, and have been modestly successful in applying them to real biological systems . . ."

I certainly haven't seen any actual progress, certainly not by anyone from the Discovery Institute or Liberty University. If he is thinking Meyer's book is progress, he needs to relearn that progress is considered forward, Meyer's book took his buddies in the opposite direction, so much so that they [the DI] are already publishing a book to address all the criticism. (PZ Myers Pharyngula blog reports "The Discovery Institute is desperately patching Meyer's mind-numbing magnum opus") To bad they don't address the cause for the criticism, instead they seem to want to attack the critics. Typical Dishonesty Institute tactic.

Giberson's article was the third. He is a proponent of theistic evolution, another concept I disagree with, but have fewer issues with it. Basically it surrounds evolution is a religious wrapper, but it does leave the theory pretty much alone. I really liked his summary:

I would love to see ID redirect its energies to developing a genuinely fertile idea. Stop trying to prove that Darwin caused the Holocaust or that evolution is ruining Western civilization. Agree among yourselves that the earth is old, since science has proven that. Do not call world-class scientists "cranks," as Meyer implies in Signature in the Cell. Do not claim that evolution is collapsing, when everyone in the field knows it isn't. Stop claiming that you cannot get your work published in conventional journals when you aren't submitting papers to these journals.

Instead, roll up your sleeves and get to work on the big idea. Develop it to the point where it starts spinning off new insights into nature so that we know more because of your work. Then the academy will welcome you with open arms. Science loves rebels.

This is a familiar theme I read about constantly. Most critics of the ID political and marketing movement have been asking for this for 20 years. I like to put it a little more succinctly:

Quit whining and do some science -- real science not make believe!

However, I can't see anyone from the Discovery Institute paying any attention. They already know they haven't done any science, they even stood up their own lab (Biologic Institute) and still haven't managed to do any science. Yet they stand by their marketing and keep trying to convince everyone how 'scientific' they are. They won't listen, especially not with the apologetic like Meyer leading the charge.

Speaking of Meyer again, here is another quote from his article:

First, the scientific community is not uniformly opposed to ID. My recent book on the subject received enthusiastic endorsements from many scientists not previously known as advocates of ID, such as chemist Philip Skell, a National Academy of Sciences member, and Norman Nevin, one of Britain's top geneticists.

In my humble opinion Stephen C. Meyer is a liar. According to this quote Meyer states that Philip Skell and Norman Nevin were not previously advocates of Intelligent Design. Let's set the record straight, Skell is a Signatory of the very discredited "A Dissent From Darwinism", the list used in Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns in an attempt to discredit evolution and bolster claims that intelligent design is scientifically valid by claiming that evolution lacks broad scientific support. Meyer is a liar, Skell may not have published a pro-ID fluff piece, but he is an advocate. Nevin is a supporter of "Truth in Science" a United Kingdom-based organization which promotes the "Teach the Controversy" campaign. It uses this strategy to try to get intelligent design taught alongside evolution in school science lessons. Meyer is once again, in my opinion, lying!

Now maybe Meyer should work on his own credibility before claiming how credible Intelligent Design within the scientific community. How can anyone believe a word he says?

But back to the gist of this trilogy and my blog entry -- I think it's time for the DI to get off the pot. How can ID gain acceptance, or as the articles put it 'academic currency'. I believe it's too late for that. ID is an idea that has failed and started failing when Philip E. Johnson wrote the Wedge Strategy Document. It's time the ID proponents faced facts and ID, as a way to get Creationism re-introduced to the science classroom in public schools, is an abject failure. I know they won't, but I can hope.

If they need any more incentive, John Lynch, and the NCSE also reported that the last two anti-evolution bills have died. Two bills introduced in South Carolina have died in committee.

Creationist's Blind Spot

One of the posters on Topix coined an interesting term: Creationist’s Blind Spot. At first glance I thought it was funny but the more I thought about it, the more apropos it seemed as a description.

How the concept of a blind spot was introduced to me is physical limitation made up of the placement of car mirrors that creates a blind spot where a car can sit unnoticed. It’s why we were all trained to turn our heads before doing things like changing lanes.

When I started learning biology I also learned that our eyes have a blind spot, an area where the blood vessels within the eye actual interfere with the function of the eye. This is frequently cited as one example why there is no intelligent designer, because a designer wouldn’t have done something so foolish.

The Creationist's Blind Spot is less a matter of physical limitation and more a matter of mental limitation. No mental as in ‘incapable’, but mental as in 'willful'. A Creationist cannot see any evidence that contradicts their view of the world. When faced with it, they will quite deliberately place it into their blind spot so that do not have to face it. When pressed they will create the most fanciful, or fanatic, refutations in order to avoid examining anything in their blind spot.

For example in the young Earth Creationist Blind Spot is the fact that the Earth is older than 6000 years. When pressed and faced with the evidence of radiometric data he challenges the data and somehow comes to the conclusion that the data must be wrong – after all he KNOWS the world is only 6000 years old. When challenged to prove the data is invalid he creates yet another fallacy and claims the world operated on different rules and the decay rates were different 6000 years ago. So without one shred of evidence, the Creationist is able to rationalize his behavior – all to keep something well supported, easily understood, and perfectly logical in his blind spot.

I have always thought that being ignorant is not shameful, and I still believe that. But being willfully ignorant certainly is something to be ashamed of. It becomes criminal when you pass that willful ignorance to unsuspecting children. Which is why I keep posting on Topix, this blog, and other sites!