From here:
” Despite the scientific-sounding name, a former Discovery Institute employee says it’s anything but.
“DI is religiously motivated in all they do,” the person said, requesting anonymity. “One way to tell that the motivation is religion, and not science, is to compare DI work product to tech papers produced by working scientists in the field of biology or subfield of evolutionary biology. The two kinds of work product look very different, read very different, and were produced by very different means.” ”
…
” “Critical thinking, critical analysis, teach the controversy, academic freedom—these are words that stand for legitimate pedagogical approaches and doctrines in the fields of public education and public education policy,” said the former Discovery Institute employee. “That is why DI co-opts them. DI hollows these words out and fills them with their own purposes; it then passes them off to the public and to government as secular, pedagogically appropriate, and religiously neutral.” ”
…
” “I will take out all references to creationism and just focus on the stupidity of evolutionary theory,” Pennington wrote. “I believe they can be shown in classrooms… I know what to say and what not to say.” Other supplemental materials Pennington created say, “Macroevolution has never occurred,” and promote the creationist theory of irreducible complexity, which was debunked by scientists during the Kitzmiller trial. ”
Click through to the full article.
If a moderator could fix the link in the post from plain text to hyperlink, please and thank you.
I hear that crystal meth might not dramatically improve your life, too.
Yes, many truths come as shocks.
Glen Davidson
I suppose having religious motivation is OK if the outcome is for secular purpose.
Example: someone having religious conviction that slavery is wrong. An anti-slavery law around the civil war era could be religiously motivated but it serves a secular purpose. Public policy that is pushed because it is religiously motivated is not necessarily wrong if it serves secular purpose.
As a quasi insider, and someone who has mingled in DI and ID circles, I’ve seen the personal concerns are more about issues at the college level (professors and students). Pre-DI, for example, Casey Luskin was active with ID at the college level (with his IDEA clubs).
Yes the DI does have public school initiatives. However, when I talk to them, the conversations is never, “hey, how can we sneak God into schools and get NEA teachers to turn public schools into a Christian conversion factory.”
I don’t know any Christian mom who would want a liberal Christ-hating NEA union teacher trying to teach their kids about God in the public schools.
I think there is room to try to protect the religious beliefs of kids. I think that can fit the definition of religious motivation but with secular purpose.
PS
FWIW, I’ve had conflicting opinions on the issue of ID and creation science in public schools. Of late, I’ve just thought it’s better for kids to get home schooled and computer-schooled rather than become casualties of teacher’s unions.
stcordova,
The only threat to any belief, is reality.
Agreed.
That’s true enough.
My next door neighbor is homeschooling their three kids — for fanatical christian reasons — school is apparently a hotbed of demonic secularism.
I’d rather all three become “casualties” of whatever possible failings public school might have, than be the obvious casualties of their parents’ manipulation. Those poor kids look like ghosts who can’t interact with the real world. There’s no sign they’re abused; they’re fed, dressed appropriately, let out to play once in a awhile, so I have no moral standing to intervene. But they reinforce my opinion that religion is a form of child abuse.
_hotshoe,
Glad you feel that way. I personally don’t know where to draw the line of when an outsider should interfere with a parent child relationship. I don’t like kids being raised up to be jihadists. I don’t know at what point I would get involved. I don’t like kids being taught what I view as wrong religion, but it’s not my place to stop it.
That said, even if Intelligent Design ideas are scientifically wrong, I fail to see how such a mistake can permanently damage a human being in a significant way — say compared to making them jihadists or scientologists.
PS
FWIW, I’ve not heard any creationist parent say, “we have to use public schools to teach creationism to kids from non-Christian homes”.
The interest by creationists in the public school issue is their kids, not other people’s kids. Home schooling will take some of this problem out of the public school conflict.
The DI materials will likely be used by some the home-schooled kids.
There are creationist or ID-friendly scientists writing homeschooling science books:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_W._Keller
And here is one by Nuclear Chemist Jay Wile:
http://www.christianbook.com/exploring-creation-physics-solutions-test-book/jay-wile/9781932012439/pd/236703?dv=c&en=google-pla&event=SHOP&kw=homeschool-0-20&p=1179710&gclid=CIKC7_uY_8kCFcUXHwodLxINYw
I don’t think what is taught in these books should be too objectionable to most college science professors, unless they are evolutionary biologists..
PPS
I went to good public schools for their time. Those same schools are probably scary places now.
I went to elementary school in Flint, MI, all kids of auto workers.
I sometimes wonder if there’s anything still standing that I would recognize.
But it’s not very productive to worry about “scary” public schools, where they’re just a symptom of international capitalists ruining the economy which trickles down to ruining public schools. And why not — the 1% will always have their own children educated in exclusive prep schools anyway — who cares if the 99% can’t read the menu at a McDonald’s, that’s what the menu pictures are for.
One of the issues is that there’s freedom of religion (which shouldn’t be an issue, but nevertheless is because as is plainly obvious, religion conflicts with science and reality), but then when it comes to teaching science, it means you can’t show a preference for teaching clearly religious and supernatural viewpoints, such as special creationism.
The idea with just teaching secular scientific subjects (the facts as scientists have found them) is to avoid that your, for example, christian children, are taught African Hunter-gatherer creation myths, or Ancient Egyptian creation myths, or you name it. It is still unbelievable that there are so many religious people who don’t get this.
American public schools were pretty much invented to supply semi-educated factory workers. The alternate motivation was to produce people who could read the bible.
There will always be a one percent. In some countries it will be investors, in some it will be entrepreneurs, and in some, the political elite and their sycophants.
My kids grew up in a household where we frequently looked behind the sofa cushions for lose change. Money does not buy happy or successful children. Te one percent do not have my envy.
So parents who home-school their children usually isolate them from any external “evil” influence. They won’t allow their children to watch TV or see anyone that might challenge their indoctrination… yet they often want public schools to “teach the controversy” even if they never intended to send their kids there. How does that make any sense at all?
It’s the isolation that causes them to distrust anyone who doesn’t share their imposed beliefs. The permanent damage inflicted to their critical thinking abilities when certain fundamental things can’t be challenged or otherwise they’ll be punished with eternal suffering. Yes, jihadists are much worse, but scientologists are up there with pentecostals if you ask me. Trying to justify it by comparing it with terrorists is a pretty low bar to set when children education is at stake
Nick Matzke is not a former DI employee.
Heh. Grand Rapids. Grades 1 – 3.
I am wholly unsurprised by these “revelations” from the CDesignProponentists. I am quite keen to help those who espouse “objective morality” to get closer to it, though, Mung. You seem untroubled. Why is that?
I do have to point something out. If this “whistleblower” is blowing the whistle on the religious motivations of the DI, then at least, the DI did not have a policy of screening out non-religiously motivated employees as far as I can tell. If that is the case, the religious motivation must have been subdued compared to say the Institute of Creation Research where prayer meetings happen every day a 8:30 AM or so.
The reason the DI as a matter of principle also has to be somewhat secular is because there are DI employees and fellows of all religious faiths (Jews, Catholics, Evangelicals, Agnostics and other faiths). Rob Crowther at the DI is on public record as an agnostic (as he reported on evolution news and views). Berlinski is an agnostic. Preaching Jesus might be offensive to David Klinghoffer. The DI, because of its composition, must conduct its affairs with some degree of secular purpose because of the diverse views.
When I was at the scandalous premiere of Privileged Planet at the Smithsonian in 2005, there wasn’t a lot of talk about religion or churches among the attendees. It just wasn’t polite to talk about people’s specific religious views beyond some belief in a Designer or some fine tuning.
I guess I chuckle at the accusation the DI is religiously motivated because I’ve seen organizations that are clearly religiously motivated — the Bible are mandatory parts of those organizations, and professions of faith are mandatory for certain levels of participation. I.E. the CRS has a statement of faith required for a certain level of membership.
If one attends both private or public DI conferences, they are quite different than things like the International Conference of Creationism, the CRS meetings, the Creation Biology/Geology Meetings, the classrooms of religious creationists institutions, etc.
I don’t think the DI as an organization is privately more religious than they are publicly. I think both Stephen Meyer and Jon Wells have publicly said they think the Designer is the God. So I don’t think there is that much to hide if there was anything to hide at all.
On a scale of religiousness of the organization:
Discovery Institute: 10 proof
Creation Biology/Geology Society (Baraminology Group): 40 proof
Creation Research Society: 80 proof
Institute of Creation Research: 120 proof
Answers in Genesis: 200 proof
Follow the money, Sal.
stcordova,
They’re certainly not interested in doing ID science, since they do none (the little bit of science that they do is evolutionary science, which they pretend goes against evolution).
Then what might motivate their ID apologetics?
Glen Davidson
Agnostic theist most certainly.
DI Center for Science and Culture : annual funding about 1 million
AIG: annual funding about 21 million
Multiply each figure by 10 and that is approximately my “proof scale”. 🙂
Not how much ,, but composition and where from. The whole ‘Templeton’ thing was most amusing…
Rich,
I see your point.
I guess around 100% from religiously oriented people. I don’t think Sam Harris or the Secular Humanist Association or the NIH or the National Science Foundation is on the list of donors.
I suppose I was talking more about my impression of the literature.
I can’t contest your numbers as far as donorship, you critical thinking stud you.
Uh, Wedge Document?
“To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God”
Why are we even having a discussion about whether or not the DI is religiously motivated?
I’ll share a little story with you Sal.
When I first heard about ID I was l like “cool!”. I thought there might be some new tool or way of thinking I could add to my toolbox. So I went over to the DI website – at the time it had scales on it and “teach the controversy / equal representation” seemed to be the message and they didn’t allow comments. Since then the science of design detection has not started at all, CSI not calculated, no forward progress made. Evolution has been bashed a lot, by people who don’t understand it. At least the ‘cold fusion’ guys had experiments. If we can sensibly reject science, what are we left with for motivation?
Agreed, I don’t see any real utility in this dog-bites-man “whistleblowing”. The DI engages in straight apologetics, and nothing else.
Dembski affirmed that ID doesn’t dwell in the “pathetic level of detail” that evolution does and that the question of who the designer is should be left to philosophy and of course, theology. Talk about not being religious.
Check this little exercise: I googled “scientism” in discovery.org. Got 1420 results
Google Search : Scientism
But it’s all about science. Sure it is. They may not publish more than a handful of ridiculous papers involving no experimental results in their own joke of a journal, but we must believe them when they say it’s all science. The same science they bash even in principle.
They know they’ve lost the epistemological war and are trying to make their crap look sciency while attacking sound science like evolution by calling it religious. That’s a tacit admission of defeat right there.
Agree with you there.
And as a matter of transparency, once I saw the Wedge document, I immediately sent the Discovery Institute a donation. 🙂 I never donated to UD as far as I know…
But from my perspective, as a matter of personal taste, because my church experience was so loathsome to me, and because I detested the authoritarian environment I was subjected to in church(as I hinted here), I found the writings of Michael Behe far more appealing to me personally than Ken Ham, even though I self-identified as a Christian.
That’s what I meant by “10 proof”, it is not heavy on theology or Bible verses or appeal to the Bible as an authority in matters of science. I found Behe’s approach appealing to me personally. I really liked Denton’s works and Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen. Sure Thaxton is a devout Christian, religiously motivated, but his writings reminded me of my science books, and I like that personally.
Whatever issues you have with the DI, I respect that, but I don’t find their more secular approach to Intelligent Design a form of deliberate deception.
I’m not alone among some creationists that don’t like the over theologizing of simple probability questions. You can see I got into a little hot water at UD for criticizing all the involvement of Thomas Acquinas writings and “prinicples of right reason” and “argument from first cause” with ID.
As a matter of personal history, I was an evolutionist then Old Earth Creationist, then IDist, then YEC. I still self Identify with the ID movement, although in 2013/2014 I officially professed myself a YEC (though I leaned that way since 2005).
When I teach YECs creationism, I teach them ID first, not the Bible first. Some YECs may be offended by that, but I think they want to hear it the way I teach it because they’d prefer to use math and science rather than the Bible in response to the valid questions their science professors raise i.e. what about mitochondrial symbiosis theory? The Bible is mostly silent on such matters, but ID is not…
Well, first, I never worked for the DI. Second, you see what you want to see.
NEWS: Former Evolutionary Biologist Says Everyone in the Field Are Dope Smoking Imbeciles.
(AP News) A former biologist working for a major science think tank says that other biologists in the field of evolutionary biology are liars, deviants, and not very clean. The anonymous source, who refused to be named for fear of academic retribution, said, I think they are scurrilous, and they lack a moral compass. In fact some of them don’t have a compass at all, because they claim the magnetic field is unreliable, and can’t be seen thus is not empirical. Furthermore the unnamed source said, I once played croquet with an evolutionary biologist, and his etiquette was very poor.
The unnamed source also revealed that he never really believed in evolution at all, but he was just working in the field because he couldn’t get into mechanic school, so he figured this was the easiest major he could do. The reason he is coming forward now is because one of his associates slept with his wife, and explained to him that other species do this all the time, what is the big deal.
The unnamed source said he is now devoting himself full time to developing a new company similar to Amway, but involving latex products and also burial services for mid to large size farm animals.
In other biology news, at the atheist/ demon worshippng website, The Skeptical Zone, reports continue to come in that moderators have turned a blind eye (accident?) to posts which continue to attack the non-demon worshiping public. It has gotten so bad in fact, that posters have been heard yelling, “Who is worse, a Nazi sympathizing atheist hate filled moderator, or a Libertarian Nazi sympathizing atheist hate filled moderator?” “Either way” they shouted, “We would rather live in Guano than accept the tyranny of the Godless censors.”
Other species sleep with his wife? No wonder he’s upset!
Moved some comments to guano including meta-comments on guano comments. (H/T hotshoe_). That’s why there is the noyau thread.
ETA Moved comments can either be reposted as-is in Noyau or substantive and on-topic material can be reposted here.
FWIW,
I’ve gone on record saying ID should not be promoted as science:
I have no severe problem if some in the DI claim ID is science, I just don’t agree with that claim — but the debate over “ID is science” seems rather moot if ID is ultimately true or false. Whether ID is true or false is more important than if we can classify it as science. I think the question of ID, short of God giving us a fireworks display, is practically and/or formally undecidable. Some element of faith or extrapolation without formal proof is at the root of whether someone accepts ID as true.
I’m deeply grateful for the Discovery Institute supporting my personal friends like Caroline Crocker and David Coppedge. Most readers at TSZ don’t like the DI. I accept that. I don’t always agree with the DI, but I am grateful for what the DI has done for me personally and for my friends.
So I obviously have less complaint about the DI being religiously motivated. I have agreed with the TSZ regulars ID should not be promoted as science. It is my perception however, many in the Discovery Institute are completely convinced ID is science. I think they are mistaken, but being mistaken does not make one a liar. That’s how I assess the situation.
“Whistle-Blower”? That implies some law has been broken.
From the “About Us” page at DI:
Under “Mission”:
Seems to me the “whistleblower” must not have known anything whatsoever about the DI and what its purpose is plainly and publicly stated to be. This is like an editor at the Daily Beast taking a story about religion being promoted at a church-sponsored soup kitchen and spinning it as a shocking revelation.
Thanks hotshoe_
What’s in Barry purse? 😉
William J. Murray,
Based on those quotes, it seems to me that not even the Discovery Institute believes that intelligent design is a scientific theory. It’s a full-blown culture war tempest-in-a-teapot.
Unlike Cordova, for me the only interesting question is whether intelligent design is a scientific theory. I don’t think that we human beings have any capacity to determine truth-values in non-formal domains independent of empirical data. (Although I do not regard the humanities as sciences, even history and literary theory are constrained by texts, documents, artifacts, etc.).
And TSZ wouldn’t exist without it’s culture warriors. To arms!
Unless you’ve confirmed this empirically, you’re not saying anything worth taking seriously.
Goodbye ID
Goodbye God
Goodbye Non-materialistic Woo
William J. Murray,
Of course, there’s nothing new about the DI and ID being theology-driven, it just seems to me that only Sal was claiming it wasn’t so very much. Which would mean, what? Would any science organization even be “10 proof,” were we to accept his analogy?
But the DI does try to say that ID is science, no matter that it is religious apologetics. At EN&V:
There is no theory, not even a bogus one. And instead of actually coming up with a design explanation for CSI, they just assume that CSI is evidence that life was designed and ignore the vast amount of evidence of evolutionary constraint having played a role in producing that CSI (Behe sort of acknowledges it, without telling us why Designer would be constrained by evolutionary mechanisms).
No, it’s no great revelation that the DI and ID are about religious apologetics. Given that they, against all that they write otherwise, claim that ID is nevertheless scientific, let alone a scientific theory, does mean that the point has to be made over and over again that the DI (by implication, ID) is up to little other than religious apologetics.
It’s nice that Murray made the latter case so well, considering the obfuscation of the matter that so often comes from IDists.
Glen Davidson
KN said:
I have no idea where you get that. It’s as scientific a theory as many others, including “The Origin of the Species”. That the DI itself is comprised of mostly ID supporters that are also actively involved in the culture war doesn’t change that.
If by “teapot” you mean western civilization, okay.
It’s a very tiny teapot.
KN,
I know you may feel that way, but I’ll explain why that is not my perception. As I said, someone can be mistaken, it doesn’t make them a liar.
I’ve never had anyone come say to me, “hey Sal, ID really isn’t science, but you got to do your duty and say it is, understand?”
I’ve been pressured to say things I didn’t agree with, but I go against that pressure even if it rubs my peers wrong and gets me shunned from the community.
The way I’ve been pressured to advertise that ID is science is through the words that we see on public display not some private meeting where I was told to convey something the ID community didn’t believe was true but wanted broadcast anyway.
I think many in DI/ID believe ID is science. For that matter, I think many in Answers in Genesis think Christian theology is science. I think they are mistaken, but that’s not the same as being willfully deceitful in that matter.
I respect your concern and might sympathize on some points. I don’t like anyone imposing their views forcibly on anyone else. People have a right to be mistaken and have a right to figure things out for themselves. I don’t agree with a culture war that seeks to impose viewpoints forcibly on others…
On the other hand, to the extent that the DI has protected religious liberties for people like myself, for my friends like Caroline Crocker, for David Coppedge (good gravy, this was about his employment in a non-ID related project at Jet Propulsion Lab), I side with the DI in that part of cultural issues. I think despite court records and official records, what happened was prejudicial persecution.
People at TSZ cite stuff that are official records as if that were truth, but I know the faculty at Crocker’s institution. Many near the situation were my deans, advisors, professors, and department chairs and assistant department chairs. There is a lot that doesn’t make it to the sanitized public relations image that is given to people wanting to believe there was no persecution.
The Discovery Institute and a few others at least came to my friend’s assistance when it seemed her thought crime has minor significance if any impact on a students ability to learn science or go on to medical school. So what if a med student doesn’t believe in Universal Common Ancestry, there is little evidence that can, in and of itself, prevent that individual from becoming a great medical doctor.
I’ve confirmed it pragmatically every day, just as KN does every day, and Dr Samuel Johnson did in his day. Just as you do!
Hey Sal, ID really isn’t science, but you got to do your duty and say it is, understand?
I wonder what Mung’s view is. Do you think there is a scientific element to the “Intelligent Design” movement?
*grabs popcorn*
You’ve confirmed what, exactly?
That human beings have no capacity to determine truth-values in non-formal domains independent of empirical data?
And you’ve confirmed that pragmatically, you say? So we can use pragmatism to determine truth-values, and only pragmatism? And you’ve established this empirically, without using any logic?
Yes, obviously. Only obtuse and willfully dishonest persons would say otherwise.