UPDATE: Check out the reader comments on the DI letter. Every one supports evolution and makes fun of the DI’s disingenuous claims. I’m proud of Muncie!
______________
The fun continues! Today’s Muncie Star-Press publishes a letter from the Discovery Institute (DI), which has recently threatened legal action against Ball State University (BSU) for “censoring” intelligent design (ID) when it was presented as real science in a science course.
The DI’s ire, as you may recall, was incited by an investigation BSU conducted of a course taught by Dr. Eric Hedin—a science course that used ID and other theistic material but no material critical of those views, and a course proselytized the view that the cosmos reflects the glory of God. That investigation resulted in the deep-sixing of Hedin’s course and a strong statement by BSU President Jo Ann Gora that intelligent design would not be taught as science in her university.
Here’s the DI’s letter printed in today’s paper:
JOHN G. WEST
Vice President, Discovery Institute, Seattle
The article, “BSU reviewing alleged ‘atheism’ class” (Oct. 1), falsely claims that Discovery Institute is a “pro-creationism … think tank.” Creationism is commonly understood as a belief that the earth was created by God a few thousand years ago during seven 24-hour days based on a literal reading of the Bible. Discovery Institute does not advocate creationism, and we oppose its introduction in public schools.
Discovery Institute does support scientists who think there is evidence of intelligent design in nature. Intelligent design is not based on an interpretation of the Bible, but on the clear evidence of nature itself, such as the fine-tuning of the laws of physics, the digital information encoded in DNA, and the thousands of exquisitely-functional molecular machines operating inside our cells. For more about what proponents of intelligent design actually believe, I encourage readers to visit http://www.intelligentdesign.org.
Critics of intelligent design who mislabel it “creationism” are trying to avoid genuine debate by stereotyping intelligent design proponents rather than engaging their actual arguments. This tactic is unbefitting a free and open society.
So is Ball State University’s new speech code that prohibits faculty from expressing support for intelligent design in the classroom, but apparently does not restrict them from attacking intelligent design.
Censoring one side of a debate is not a good way to find the truth. As Darwin himself advised: “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.”
How much fail can they cram into such a letter? Of course Intelligent design is creationism; it’s just creationism on a micro scale. It demands the concept of a creator who makes adaptive leaps that evolution can’t. (Of course IDers affirm that creator could be a space alien rather than God, but we all know that’s a lie.) Many IDers accept microevolution but not macroevolution (the latter is the bailiwick of the “designer”), and Michael Behe accepts the idea of common ancestry while, bizarrely, rejecting the notion of macroevolution. The Wedge Document clearly shows that intelligent design is in fact based on an interpretation of the Bible.
If the DI does not advocate creationism, or favor its introduction into public schools, then they must reject intelligent design as well.
Second, there is no “genuine debate”, at least in a scientific sense, about ID. Every example offered as evidence for intelligent design, such as blood clotting and the bacterial flagellum, can plausibly be explained as a product of materialistic evolution. There is thus no need to resort to supernaturalism simply because science supposedly is baffled by the evolution of such traits. The real “debate” is between those who wish to foist religion on schoolchildren and those who want real science taught instead.
Finally, you have to discuss intelligent design when you show why it’s wrong. When I tell students why evolution is a better explanation for the facts of biology than is creationism, for instance, I have to explain what kind of creationism I have in mind. That’s exactly what Darwin did when making the case for evolution in The Origin.
What is not scientific is to make up reasons why ID is a viable explanation, and better than a naturalistic one. A speech code need not mandate that, if you mention ID and creationism, you must show support for it as well. The case for ID has been made, and it’s failed. Discussing the issue can’t, therefore, be balanced in the way the DI wants, for the scales of evidence weigh heavily on the side of naturalism. It’s like trying to make a balanced case for a flat earth, the truth of astrology, or religiously-based claims like Noah’s flood or the historicity of Adam and Eve.
I’m still waiting for the DI’s legal challenge to Ball State. Bring it on, Dr. West! I’d like nothing better, but I’m betting no legal papers will ever be served.
The whole Intelligent Design is not creationism is just a red herring to get everyone off track while they sneak in their ridiculous, non provable ideas.
Perhaps they think that, because they know of someone who had a bonfire of newspapers etc about the most recent judicial equation of “creationism” and “intelligent design”, then everyone who had ever heard of the case must have had their memories reset over the case,and they’ll be able to trot out the same old ideas in the same old language.
What sort of morons do they think their opponents are? Do they think that we’re as stupid as supporters of the DI?
“cdesignproponentsists”
The whole Intelligent Design is not creationism is just a red herring to get everyone off track…
It’s not “just” that, it is also an attempt to circumvent existing court precedents which found that “creation science” = religion, and therefore is bound by constitutional law on the separation of church and state.
The creationists always use words to mean the opposite of their actual meaning for their usage. Words like intelligent, values, family, love are always used by them when they actually propose the exact opposite.
The entire second paragraph of the silly letter above has been thoroughly debunked many times and the disapproval has been validated in the court of law.
The ongoing war between science and anti-science is one of the big issues of our time. (Of all time, actually.) This would be a great opportunity for Ball to organize a series of lectures, or even a class (not debate; the format is all wrong), where DI’ers get to try to make their case, and scientists show exactly where they are wrong. One of the best ways to understand a concept is to study it along side superficially similar concepts. Would the DI’ers go for something like this I wonder?
I understand your point, but have to think that even though they would be minced finely, chewed up and spit out in the class, they would more than make up for it in PR (“major university places DI and real science on equal footing!” “ID accepted on university campus!” ad nauseam).
It’s the whole “on whose resume will this look best” question again. The proper forum, in my humble opinion, for refutation of their “ideas” are
blogswebsites (here, Sensuous Curmudgeon, Sandwalk, Pharyngula, etc.) and books (the titles are well-known, but I’ll mention the key one anyway, “Creationism’s Trojan Horse” by Forrest and Gross).That’s what accommodationists do.
And where is the evidence that it has worked or isn’t counterproductive (as AFAIK some research on perception has suggested on the generics of debates)?
///
When faced with the overwhelming evidence of fact, obfuscate by sowing doubt.
A strategy used in 1969 by a Tobacco Co. executive who issued the following statement in a memorandum. “Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’that exists in the mind of the general public.”* A strategy strongly embraced, it seems, by creationists touting Intelligently Designed Woo.
* Doubt is their Product, Michaels, David, Scientific American, June 2005, Vol 292, Issue 6.
“The article… falsely claims that Discovery Institute is a “pro-creationism … think tank.” ”
It’s been a while since I last flicked through the bibble, but ain’t there something in there about bearing false witness?
Yes, there is, but you seem to be forgetting a key point–the bible is full of commands that *other* people should be following.
A tank, mayhaps. But a “think tank?” Questionable.
A non-think tank, as all denialist “think tanks”.
This is just another type of quantum woo. The fact that DNA can be simply represented with a quaternary encoding is not only irrelevant; it’d be astounding were it otherwise. Everything at the molecular scale is discreet. There’s simply no way anything operating at that scale could be anything other than digital.
Of course, if anybody at the Disco Toot would care to offer up an example of an analog information storage system that works at molecular scales, I have no doubt but that the folks at Intel and another group in Stockholm would be mighty interested in their findings.
But, really. If they can’t even demonstrate a passing understanding of junior high school physics, how on Earth do they expect the rest of the world to keep from laughing at their IDiocy?
Cheers,
b&
Possibly because they are sure that most of the public, at least in the United States, doesn’t have a passing understanding of junior high school physics either.
Sad, but true….
b&
“discrete”
But molecules may be discreet as well–I never catch them at anything…
…and then there’s Epimenides, who’s dat Crete….
b&
… and Diogenes of Sinope, who’s in dis crate.
Yes – I hear some mate, but apparently are consumed in the act…
It is heartening to read the comments to the newspaper article. Not much love for the DI there.
Of course no “true” Christian would post on the Sabbath, leaving the field to the heathens.
Yeah it’s heartening to see as back when the whole course thing started, the comments were a lot of pro DI, teach the controversy stuff. I like to think that people are adding their opinions because a few made it okay to take a poke at these bad religious ideas.
Keep on fighting Jerry! I teach AP and introductory bio in PA. I am sickened by the DI’s influence (not to mention Texas). Here is a copy of an e-mail I sent to the DI in response to the Ball State debacle:
Pseudo-scientists at the discovery [sic] institute:
This is just a little note to say that, as a high school biology teacher in PA, I do everything within my power to squash all ID arguments in my biology classroom. We read Sagan, Dawkins, Gould, Jerry Coyne and Neil Shubin, and the processes of evolution are a constant theme throughout the school year.
I am proud to say that many of my students enter my biology class as devout believers in magical beings and mythological creation stories, but the majority of them leave with a profound understanding and acceptance of evolutionary processes. Fear not, I do not lie to them and proclaim that science has answers regarding the existence of god – even if that was my goal, I doubt I have the sort of power to reverse 15-18 years of indoctrination.
However, they do learn to think critically about the age of the universe, and how we know it is in the range of 13.7 billion years old. They learn to assess the power of genetic mutations, recombination, and sexual reproduction – mitigated by natural selection – over the inconceivably and awesome course of “deep-time.” They learn to challenge authority, in the absence of evidence, and to question everything…even things they’ve always “known” to be true.
Surely, not all convert to a scientific view of the world, but most walk away thinking that, to some extent, they’ve been misled by certain members of society, and vow to think more rigorously in the future.
That is where you’ve lost, discovery institute. Your lies, your museum, your amusement park, your fear-mongering and intolerance no longer hold sway over the youth of America. Enjoy it while you can, but the end is near.
Cheers.
Thank you, Mark! It is good to see someone in the trenches who does not take the easy way out to avoid this challenge. I wish all high school teachers had your courage.
Bravo!
But I’d watch my back now, if I were you…
Thanks, Mark. If only you were the norm, not the exception….
b&
Thank you!
Well-said, Mark! Like you I teach AP Bio (and Anat&Phys) but in IA. And I too teach evolution as the core principle in both courses which makes some kids squirm, but I haven’t yet had anyone leave class without understanding how science works and ID fails. Coyne’s and Dawkins’ and Darwin’s books are on my desk for anyone to borrow and read 🙂
I’ve never understood how biology can be taught without an underlying evolutionary framework throughout; but alas, it seems the majority of (primary/secondary) curricula still leave evolution for a hurried couple of weeks at the end of the year/semester…
Such a disservice to students, to avoid mentioning the one mechanism that ties everything together.
Cheers Mike! I am normally saddened by the statistics, which indicate that many high school science teachers either teach “both sides of the argument” or some form of intelligent design. Less than 25% teach that life is solely the result of natural, observable processes.
However, I am inspired by people like you, Coyne, PZ, Dawkins and others who are unafraid to stand up to the dogma bullies. I would not be able to do it alone.
You guys are right on in your responses to responses. Richard Dawkins said it best when he described you all as “the mortal knob-twiddlers” in his analogy in debate in Cambridge Union. Keep up the messy work!
Like Jerry, I do want to see legal action. It will be a decisive victory against “academic freedom” to teach creationism in public universities. However, such a lawsuit, while beneficial, could cause a serious financial burden on BSU. They did the right thing in eventually coming out against ID, and it’s unfortunate that they (while, surely, many other universities had similar cases) will end up paying in the long run.
The DI could wind up paying Ball State’s expenses, which would be delicious justice.
Brian wrote:
I don’t know who would bring legal action. It certainly won’t be the Discovery Institute, that’s not their style. They run PR campaigns and write threatening letters, but initiating legal action is way too risky. At best, they might con someone else into it, but I doubt they could find a patsy this time.
I think that particular battle has already been fought, and courts have ruled that Universities can indeed decide what gets taught or not taught in their courses.
The battle JAC wants fought is whether it is constitutional to teach subjects like ID as science, in a public University, even if the University wants to do it.
“Check out the reader comments on the DI letter. Every one supports evolution and makes fun of the DI’s disingenuous claims. I’m proud of Muncie!”
Quite a contrast to the comments that showed up when the Hedin affair first made headlines! Muncie residents seem to have learned a few things from this 😀
Yeah I was thinking the same and commented above before reading your comment that said the same as mine. It is heartening to see the change is comments!
Every thime I see this argument that ‘God steps in to do all the complexity stuff ’cause microevolution just can’t cut it’ I just shake my head in wonder. Really, the God who snuffed out virtually human being on the planet in an impossible flood that apparently raised water levels above the tree line (everywhere), resorts to dicking around with a few choice molecular rearrangements every few thousand years. (I guess, the details of what “the designer” actually does are never made clear are they?) It is just so … preposterously silly. Even Karl Giberson can see how idiotic such a God would be, no better than the ‘old’ creator/con-man who created the earth six thousand years ago, but made it look 750,000 times older.
The article, “BSU reviewing alleged ‘atheism’ class” (Oct. 1), falsely claims that Discovery Institute is a “pro-creationism … think tank.” Creationism is commonly understood as a belief that the earth was created by God a few thousand years ago during seven 24-hour days based on a literal reading of the Bible. Discovery Institute does not advocate creationism, and we oppose its introduction in public schools.
I love how carefully worded this is to avoid being caught in a lie. First they define creationism as YEC creationism only, and it’s true that the DI doesn’t support that. But they fail to note that they don’t reject it either. The DI in fact takes no position on how old the earth is, how old life is, or whether “kinds” were separately created. Some of their fellows are YECs (Nelson by choice, Dembski to keep his job). And that’s just about all you need to know about ID “science”, that it can accommodate YEC without any conflict.
To the associates of the “Discovery” “Institute”:
Your tears are so yummy and sweet.
Alas they convinced me.
“Intelligent design is not based on an interpretation of the Bible, but on the clear evidence of nature itself, such as the fine-tuning of the laws of physics, the moonwalk, upside-down margaritas, keg headstands, divine revelation in the form of secret messages (from ceiling cat) on solar powered calculators…..”
West is trying to redefine creationism as young earth creationism (YEC).
More specifically there is no evidence of ‘design’ in nature, because:
a) There is no evidence of a ‘designer’.
And in fact we have plenty of evidence that it wouldn’t work. (Say, the problems absence of physical laws would make.)
b) We have theories that predicts apparent design, such as evolution and selection bias in cosmology.
c) We have observed that ‘design’ is a useless gap theory, which have been falsified over and over as useful apparent design theories (aka evolution) have advanced.*
* I think that “can plausibly be explained as a product of materialistic evolution” is the basis, but stronger is that many or most ‘design’ propositions have been specifically falsified.
There is no longer any science discussion on whether or not unguided nature is the cause of cosmology or evolution as opposed to ‘design’. So there isn’t any genuine debate to be had outside of theology.
And why would one wish to have a theological debate? It would look good on the CV of the non-think tank “Discovery Institute”. But it wouldn’t look so good on one’s own CV.
John West may not root his ID specifically in interpreting the Bible but he does root it in Christian theology. A year ago he published a book (thru DiscInst) that argue that BioLogos and others are wrong about C.S. Lewis’s endorsement of evolutionary theory. He even had a 2 hour debate about this with a seminary prof held at a Bible college (West bases his claim on a few scraps of evidence including Lewis’s marginal notes in books he owned.)
However, West is an interesting anamoly. Like William Jennings Bryan, he’s a “non-Darwinian” who is not especially right-wing politically. He’s been on the right side of other civil liberty issues but not here. Other writings of his scapegoat Darwin for many evils of modernity, as is the wont of IDers. West is a former PoliSci professor who has written quite a bit on Lewis.
Dr Coyne,
Thanks for commenting on the Star Press website. It helps having such leadership in resisting the depredations of people like West and the DI.
The Star-Press ran this article on Oct. 4:
Phil Ball: Intelligent design anyone?
“If a God designed man and woman, via intelligent design, why did he design the female’s baby delivery system to be immediately adjacent to the waste product outflow system in the human body? Why didn’t he arrange to have babies born out of (say) a woman’s left elbow? Or out of a man’s rib, like with Eve? Much more sanitary. And more intelligent.
…
Phil Ball is a retired Muncie physician and a contributing humor writer to The Star Press.“