Dear Discovery Institute,
Judging from a recent article on your website (http://www.discovery.org/expelled/whyitmatters.php), titled "Expelled, Why it Matters", it appears that you support the film Expelled. Judging from that fact, I assume that you accept the many inaccuracies within the film as well. As the inaccuracies with the film have been touched by both this blog and other sites (see also www.expelledexposed.com and http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-17.html#part1 , both of these sites show the movie to be extremely flawed with regards to accuracy), I will not deal with those inaccuracies here. However, your support of this film raises even more questions about your integrity as an institution; how can one trust anything that comes through your press machine, especially with all the inaccuracies we've already discussed throughout the course of this blog? Let's discuss "Expelled, Why it Matters". We'll begin with your question:
"Why is Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed so important to the mission of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture and how can you join in our work to defend academic freedom?"
The answer to this question is obvious; it supports Wedge Strategy by pitting science against religion, makes it appear that all scientists who accept evolution are atheists, and compares scientists to Nazis. This serves to visually smear the scientific community in general, regardless of the fact that many of the claims made in the film are either flawed or dead wrong.
"Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed documents the plight of scientists and scholars who dare to question the claims of Darwinian evolution. Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture exists to support research and writing by scientists who are questioning Darwin, to defend their academic freedom, and to expose efforts by Darwinists to shut down free speech. "
But the scientists that the film claim were "expelled" for anti-evolution actions were actually fired for other reasons (see http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-17.html#part2 ) for discussion of this. If scientists are punished for arguing against "Darwinism", then why do Lynn Margilus and William Schopf still have jobs? Oh yeah, I forgot...they're doing science, not psuedoscience. Think ID is science? It invokes supernatural causation, which science cannot do; science can say nothing of the supernatural, either in favor or against supernatural causation. ID is not science. That is beside the point, however. The scientists that "Expelled" claims were fired for supporting ID were canned for other reasons; for example, Gonzalez did not recieve tenure due to a heavy decline in papers published and graduate students attracted. Sternberg was fired for violating peer-review policy at his journal when he personally reviewed a pro-Intelligent Design article focusing on paleontology that he was not qualified to review. Are these people being persecuted? No. They weren't doing their jobs, so of course they got fired. Would you keep a guy on staff that you hired to clean your toilets if the only thing he does is re-organize your book collection? Of course not!
"We need your help to continue and expand our efforts as persecution increases. A donation of any amount will be greatly appreciated and will help us as we work on behalf of persecuted scholars and scientists"
So you're turning this into an attempt to recieve donations. Would this money truly fund efforts to protect "persecuted scholars and scientists", or would it be used to attack the firing of people that aren't doing their job? Are these scientists persecuted, or were they fired because they did not fulfill job requirements? I believe you'll find that the 2nd possibility is the correct one.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Ben Stein is a liar
Dear Discovery Institute,
Ben Stein is a liar. As are all individuals involved in producing the film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". I was, unfortunately (for I lament the money I wasted and put into Ben Stein's pockets...more on that later) able to see the film earlier this week. As discussed earlier, Dawkins was quoted nicely out of context, and this is explained in an earlier blog. That wasn't even an issue comparably however.
First, apparently all scientists are atheists, or so the film seems to tell us. The only scientists they show are known atheists, and are shown saying that they are. The filmmakers ignore the 40% of scientists who are actually deeply religious. And apparently all scientists are Nazis; whenever mainstream evolutionary theorists are shown, they are shown connected to images of Nazis. This leads to a deeply offensive point. Not to mention the fact that the film messes up when it claims eugenics was based on Darwinism (it was based on Social Darwinism, not Darwinism), Ben Stein first tells us that he is Jewish, then continues to film in a room where Holocaust victims were systematically murdered in an attempt to make a political statement and show that scientists were behind the Holocaust. What offended me most was not the implied idea that scientists are behind the Holocaust, but rather that Stein had the gall and total lack of respect for his own religion that allowed him to attempt to use Holocaust victims to make a political statement. YOU DO NOT USE HOLOCAUST VICTIMS TO MAKE A POLITICAL STATEMENT. This is both deeply disrespectful and also extremely insulting.
It gets even better from here. Stein makes a point to misquote Darwin. Here's the statement he used from Darwin's Descent of Man:
"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We
civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of
elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick,
thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one
who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this
must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as
to allow his worst animals to breed."
This leaves the viewer thinking "wow, Darwin was horrible and supported eugenics". However, that is not the complete quote. Here is the part of the passage left out by Stein:
"The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an
incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as
part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner
previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check
our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest
part of our nature."
Funny; it's almost as if Ben Stein were trying to quote-mine in order to make his position more defendable. What is even more hilarious is when he brings "scientists who were fired for ID" onto the film. The following website (where the Darwin quotes were pasted from; I checked the passages in my copy of The Descent of Man; they're correct) contains a good rebutal for those claims, so I won't do it here. http://alaskanbrights.blogspot.com/2008/04/review-expelled-no-intelligence-allowed.html
Even funnier is the attempt to set up a battle between science and religion within the film, right along the lines of Wedge Strategy. Thus, the ID proponents on the film are shown as Christian martyrs who are falling victim to the Evil Empire called Science. This is not the case; the movie is complete rubbish (and the filmmaking itself is horrible as well...but that's besides the point). Anyone familiar with the Wedge Strategy and Discovery Institute can see your fingerprints all over the film.
So if anyone reading this wants to kill a few brain cells, see Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". The title says it all, as no intelligent individual with a background in this topic can sit through the film without being majorly upset by the huge number of lies pushed by the film. A five-year-old with a camera phone could have made a better, more informative film than this one.
Ben Stein is a liar. As are all individuals involved in producing the film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". I was, unfortunately (for I lament the money I wasted and put into Ben Stein's pockets...more on that later) able to see the film earlier this week. As discussed earlier, Dawkins was quoted nicely out of context, and this is explained in an earlier blog. That wasn't even an issue comparably however.
First, apparently all scientists are atheists, or so the film seems to tell us. The only scientists they show are known atheists, and are shown saying that they are. The filmmakers ignore the 40% of scientists who are actually deeply religious. And apparently all scientists are Nazis; whenever mainstream evolutionary theorists are shown, they are shown connected to images of Nazis. This leads to a deeply offensive point. Not to mention the fact that the film messes up when it claims eugenics was based on Darwinism (it was based on Social Darwinism, not Darwinism), Ben Stein first tells us that he is Jewish, then continues to film in a room where Holocaust victims were systematically murdered in an attempt to make a political statement and show that scientists were behind the Holocaust. What offended me most was not the implied idea that scientists are behind the Holocaust, but rather that Stein had the gall and total lack of respect for his own religion that allowed him to attempt to use Holocaust victims to make a political statement. YOU DO NOT USE HOLOCAUST VICTIMS TO MAKE A POLITICAL STATEMENT. This is both deeply disrespectful and also extremely insulting.
It gets even better from here. Stein makes a point to misquote Darwin. Here's the statement he used from Darwin's Descent of Man:
"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We
civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of
elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick,
thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one
who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this
must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as
to allow his worst animals to breed."
This leaves the viewer thinking "wow, Darwin was horrible and supported eugenics". However, that is not the complete quote. Here is the part of the passage left out by Stein:
"The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an
incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as
part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner
previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check
our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest
part of our nature."
Funny; it's almost as if Ben Stein were trying to quote-mine in order to make his position more defendable. What is even more hilarious is when he brings "scientists who were fired for ID" onto the film. The following website (where the Darwin quotes were pasted from; I checked the passages in my copy of The Descent of Man; they're correct) contains a good rebutal for those claims, so I won't do it here. http://alaskanbrights.blogspot.com/2008/04/review-expelled-no-intelligence-allowed.html
Even funnier is the attempt to set up a battle between science and religion within the film, right along the lines of Wedge Strategy. Thus, the ID proponents on the film are shown as Christian martyrs who are falling victim to the Evil Empire called Science. This is not the case; the movie is complete rubbish (and the filmmaking itself is horrible as well...but that's besides the point). Anyone familiar with the Wedge Strategy and Discovery Institute can see your fingerprints all over the film.
So if anyone reading this wants to kill a few brain cells, see Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". The title says it all, as no intelligent individual with a background in this topic can sit through the film without being majorly upset by the huge number of lies pushed by the film. A five-year-old with a camera phone could have made a better, more informative film than this one.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Richard Dawkins
Dear Discovery Institute,
Today's letter will be a brief one. I was looking through your website, and on your front page, you are promoting an article titled "Is Richard Dawkins a Raelian?" (http://www.discovery.org/a/4589 ) This short blog will highlight the problems with this article.
"This is rich: Richard Dawkins--whose official website claims modestly to be "a clear thinking oasis"--made an incredible statement in the new movie Expelled, asserting that it is "an intriguing possibility" that space aliens "seeded" life here on Planet Earth. (I haven't seen the movie, but did obtain this partial transcript. The emphasis is mine.)"
First problem: we're supposed to listen to this guy who hasn't even seen the film talk about it? Anyway, that's not major comparably, so I'll let it go for now. However, anyone familiar with the works of Richard Dawkins would know that he often jokingly raises the possibility of life being designed by "intelligent aliens", then goes on to explain how it is not a true scientific argument because it just moves the question of causality from life to the aliens. This article, however, makes it look like Dawkins, a known athiest, actually believes this.
"DAWKINS:Nobody knows how it got started. We know the kind of event that it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.
BEN STEIN:And what was that?
DAWKINS:It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.
BEN STEIN:Right, and how did that happen?
DAWKINS:I told you, we don't know"
Here, we see Stein questioning Dawkins on the origin of life. Fact is that scientists do not even need an origin of life theory for evolution to work; evolution by natural selection requires living forms to act upon. The film, however, apparently makes the case (like much of the ID movement) that the lack of a universally accepted origin of life theory debunks evolution. It doesn't. Evolution and abiogenesis are closely related. However, they are not one in the same. This fact shows the lack of credibility behind the ID movement as a whole; it shows that they don't even know what they're arguing against as a science.
"BEN STEIN:What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution.
DAWKINS:Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
Ho,ho! That is precisely what the Raelians say:
Years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. Everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth. Today, everybody knows that life on earth is either the result of random evolution or the work of a supernatural God. Or is it? In "Message from the Designers", Rael presents us with a third option: that all life on earth was created by advanced scientists from another world"
The problem with this statement is as follows: Ben Stein asks a question which makes Dawkins give a possible origin-of-life scenario based on Intelligent Design. It is apparent that Dawkins was most likely quoted out of context here; anyone familiar with his writings would see that he means this statement to be cynical/mocking towards Intelligent Design. Why not let Dawkins explain his perspective himself? Consider the following quote:
"Another example. Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots ("oh NOOOOO, of course we aren't talking about God, this is SCIENCE") and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists' whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella! Evolution by natural selection is the only known process whereby organized complexity can ultimately come into being. Organized complexity -- and that includes everything capable of designing anything intelligently -- comes LATE into the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have explained again and again in my writings.
This 'Ultimate 747' argument, as I called it in The God Delusion, may or may not persuade you. That is not my concern here. My concern here is that my science fiction thought experiment -- however implausible -- was designed to illustrate intelligent design's closest approach to being plausible. I was most emphaticaly NOT saying that I believed the thought experiment. Quite the contrary. I do not believe it (and I don't think Francis Crick believed it either). I was bending over backwards to make the best case I could for a form of intelligent design. And my clear implication was that the best case I could make was a very implausible case indeed. In other words, I was using the thought experiment as a way of demonstrating strong opposition to all theories of intelligent design.
"
(taken from http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins).
So apparently the Discovery Institute actually promotes academic dishonesty. This leads to a whole new level of credibility issues. As shown by this blog, as with many of the blogs on this page, the Discovery Institute and the ID movement are not to be trusted. The Discovery Institute itself continues to come across as a dishonest organization, a very dishonest organization indeed.
PS. While you may argue that the linked article is an anomaly, here's another article showing your basis of dishonesty (and also the fact that Dawkins was forced to resort to sneaking into a showing of the film to see the film that HE was interviewed in)
"Ben Stein has him on camera acknowledging that life on Earth may, indeed, have been intelligently designed, but that it had to have been accomplished by space aliens! This is hilarious, of course, because Dawkins is death on intelligent design. But it turns out that that view applies only if it includes the possibility that the designer might be God."
(taken from http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/03/richard_dawkins_worlds_most_fa.html)
Someone is obviously being dishonest here, and judging from my knowledge of Dawkins' claims, and also his response to the film, I would say that it isn't Dawkins. The Discovery Institute has been shown to be dishonest on here before, so why not repeat the pattern? Besides, misquotation is Creationist tactic #1. It would make sense for the Discovery Institute to engage in the practice.
Today's letter will be a brief one. I was looking through your website, and on your front page, you are promoting an article titled "Is Richard Dawkins a Raelian?" (http://www.discovery.org/a/4589 ) This short blog will highlight the problems with this article.
"This is rich: Richard Dawkins--whose official website claims modestly to be "a clear thinking oasis"--made an incredible statement in the new movie Expelled, asserting that it is "an intriguing possibility" that space aliens "seeded" life here on Planet Earth. (I haven't seen the movie, but did obtain this partial transcript. The emphasis is mine.)"
First problem: we're supposed to listen to this guy who hasn't even seen the film talk about it? Anyway, that's not major comparably, so I'll let it go for now. However, anyone familiar with the works of Richard Dawkins would know that he often jokingly raises the possibility of life being designed by "intelligent aliens", then goes on to explain how it is not a true scientific argument because it just moves the question of causality from life to the aliens. This article, however, makes it look like Dawkins, a known athiest, actually believes this.
"DAWKINS:Nobody knows how it got started. We know the kind of event that it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.
BEN STEIN:And what was that?
DAWKINS:It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.
BEN STEIN:Right, and how did that happen?
DAWKINS:I told you, we don't know"
Here, we see Stein questioning Dawkins on the origin of life. Fact is that scientists do not even need an origin of life theory for evolution to work; evolution by natural selection requires living forms to act upon. The film, however, apparently makes the case (like much of the ID movement) that the lack of a universally accepted origin of life theory debunks evolution. It doesn't. Evolution and abiogenesis are closely related. However, they are not one in the same. This fact shows the lack of credibility behind the ID movement as a whole; it shows that they don't even know what they're arguing against as a science.
"BEN STEIN:What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution.
DAWKINS:Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
Ho,ho! That is precisely what the Raelians say:
Years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. Everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth. Today, everybody knows that life on earth is either the result of random evolution or the work of a supernatural God. Or is it? In "Message from the Designers", Rael presents us with a third option: that all life on earth was created by advanced scientists from another world"
The problem with this statement is as follows: Ben Stein asks a question which makes Dawkins give a possible origin-of-life scenario based on Intelligent Design. It is apparent that Dawkins was most likely quoted out of context here; anyone familiar with his writings would see that he means this statement to be cynical/mocking towards Intelligent Design. Why not let Dawkins explain his perspective himself? Consider the following quote:
"Another example. Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots ("oh NOOOOO, of course we aren't talking about God, this is SCIENCE") and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists' whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella! Evolution by natural selection is the only known process whereby organized complexity can ultimately come into being. Organized complexity -- and that includes everything capable of designing anything intelligently -- comes LATE into the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have explained again and again in my writings.
This 'Ultimate 747' argument, as I called it in The God Delusion, may or may not persuade you. That is not my concern here. My concern here is that my science fiction thought experiment -- however implausible -- was designed to illustrate intelligent design's closest approach to being plausible. I was most emphaticaly NOT saying that I believed the thought experiment. Quite the contrary. I do not believe it (and I don't think Francis Crick believed it either). I was bending over backwards to make the best case I could for a form of intelligent design. And my clear implication was that the best case I could make was a very implausible case indeed. In other words, I was using the thought experiment as a way of demonstrating strong opposition to all theories of intelligent design.
"
(taken from http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins).
So apparently the Discovery Institute actually promotes academic dishonesty. This leads to a whole new level of credibility issues. As shown by this blog, as with many of the blogs on this page, the Discovery Institute and the ID movement are not to be trusted. The Discovery Institute itself continues to come across as a dishonest organization, a very dishonest organization indeed.
PS. While you may argue that the linked article is an anomaly, here's another article showing your basis of dishonesty (and also the fact that Dawkins was forced to resort to sneaking into a showing of the film to see the film that HE was interviewed in)
"Ben Stein has him on camera acknowledging that life on Earth may, indeed, have been intelligently designed, but that it had to have been accomplished by space aliens! This is hilarious, of course, because Dawkins is death on intelligent design. But it turns out that that view applies only if it includes the possibility that the designer might be God."
(taken from http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/03/richard_dawkins_worlds_most_fa.html)
Someone is obviously being dishonest here, and judging from my knowledge of Dawkins' claims, and also his response to the film, I would say that it isn't Dawkins. The Discovery Institute has been shown to be dishonest on here before, so why not repeat the pattern? Besides, misquotation is Creationist tactic #1. It would make sense for the Discovery Institute to engage in the practice.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
cdesign proponentist
Dear Discovery Institute,
Today we will be discussing my personal favorite transitional form, Cdesign proponentist. This organism falls between "Creationist" and "Design Proponent". First discovered in 2005, Cdisign proponentist was a major player in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. This organism was discovered in a draft of the textbook suppliment that you actually support, "Of Pandas and People". This transitional form occured as the book was being changed from a Creationist textbook supplement to an "Intelligent-Design"-based textbook suppliment.
Cdesign proponentist is a transitional form that proves that Intelligent Design arose from Creation Science. In fact, one could argue the point that this organism is proof that Creationists are, in fact, evolving. As for Michael Behe, if a stack of textbooks proving the evolvability of the bacterial flagellum is not enough to demonstrate the validity of evolution at this level, Cdesign proponentist must at least be sufficient to prove that evolution does, in fact, occur at least at some level.
Why are we talking about Cdesign proponentist right now? I was kind of hoping that Ben Stein would include this transitional form in his film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". However, as with any film that an individual is interviewed to be in, and subsequently blocked from viewing the film, I strongly question the validity of its claims. Oh well, I guess I probably won't be allowed to see it either, because I accept evolution and see Intelligent Design for what it really is (as shown by Cdesign proponentists).
Well let's take a look at your Wedge strategy for a bit. The Wedge Document sets up ID in 3 phases. Now that you have created your own "research" programs (funded by yourself, and not supported by the scientific community), it appears that you are in phase 2 of the Wedge Strategy (publicity). Stein's documentary falls right in with that process. However, given your governing goals for spiritual and cultural renewal, and the fact that A) you've been pushing Stein's documentary and B) Answers in Genesis was allowed to see it but scientists interviewed within the film were not, it seems to me that there are questions in the air with regards to credibility of the film. Go ahead and show it; anyone with an ounce of intelligence will see through what you're trying to do.
It may serve the reader of this blog to have the Discovery Institute's goals for spiritual and cultural renewal posted in this blog, so I will post them below:
"5. Spiritual & cultural renewal:
* Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism
* Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s)
* Darwinism Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions
* Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God "
This looks like Creationism. Thanks to the discovery of Cdesign proponentist, I think we have the smoking gun proof of this evolutionary linaeage.
Today we will be discussing my personal favorite transitional form, Cdesign proponentist. This organism falls between "Creationist" and "Design Proponent". First discovered in 2005, Cdisign proponentist was a major player in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. This organism was discovered in a draft of the textbook suppliment that you actually support, "Of Pandas and People". This transitional form occured as the book was being changed from a Creationist textbook supplement to an "Intelligent-Design"-based textbook suppliment.
Cdesign proponentist is a transitional form that proves that Intelligent Design arose from Creation Science. In fact, one could argue the point that this organism is proof that Creationists are, in fact, evolving. As for Michael Behe, if a stack of textbooks proving the evolvability of the bacterial flagellum is not enough to demonstrate the validity of evolution at this level, Cdesign proponentist must at least be sufficient to prove that evolution does, in fact, occur at least at some level.
Why are we talking about Cdesign proponentist right now? I was kind of hoping that Ben Stein would include this transitional form in his film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". However, as with any film that an individual is interviewed to be in, and subsequently blocked from viewing the film, I strongly question the validity of its claims. Oh well, I guess I probably won't be allowed to see it either, because I accept evolution and see Intelligent Design for what it really is (as shown by Cdesign proponentists).
Well let's take a look at your Wedge strategy for a bit. The Wedge Document sets up ID in 3 phases. Now that you have created your own "research" programs (funded by yourself, and not supported by the scientific community), it appears that you are in phase 2 of the Wedge Strategy (publicity). Stein's documentary falls right in with that process. However, given your governing goals for spiritual and cultural renewal, and the fact that A) you've been pushing Stein's documentary and B) Answers in Genesis was allowed to see it but scientists interviewed within the film were not, it seems to me that there are questions in the air with regards to credibility of the film. Go ahead and show it; anyone with an ounce of intelligence will see through what you're trying to do.
It may serve the reader of this blog to have the Discovery Institute's goals for spiritual and cultural renewal posted in this blog, so I will post them below:
"5. Spiritual & cultural renewal:
* Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism
* Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s)
* Darwinism Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions
* Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God "
This looks like Creationism. Thanks to the discovery of Cdesign proponentist, I think we have the smoking gun proof of this evolutionary linaeage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)