Evidence for the integrity of the Discovery Institute

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

But I don’t need the Nature News article. I can cite a major reference work: Encyclopedia of Evolution (ed. Pagel), Vol. 2, page 847 (under article “Origin of Life”, section “Origin of Replicators”).

Published in 2002. Is that your idea of scholarship?

And Eddie, you will have a very hard time finding citations of encyclopedias in the primary biology literature. We learn new stuff all the time, so we cite recent reviews (secondary literature). You might want to read one or two before digging yourself in deeper.

@Eddie

The article uses the term “RNA world” exactly as I use it, not as you use it.

In 2002. It isn’t 2002, it’s 2022. We, unlike you, know more. A lot more.

Meyer published his con in 2009.

@Eddie

I’ll stick with the explanation given in the Encyclopedia of Evolution.

Of course you will. You’re desperately trying to remain ignorant of current science, because it makes ID look even sillier.

@Eddie

Indeed, only on this site have I seen your usage, which appears to be entirely idiosyncratic.

False. I linked to this article by a Nobel laureate in RNA biology, written in 2004:

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1989

The title is “Exploring the New RNA World.”

So, an encyclopedia published in 2002, or an article by an true expert in 2004?

[Faizal_Ali]

@Eddie

There is no pedantry involved here. You said that Berlinski and Klinghoffer were “clueless about everything they choose to write about”, but you could not possibly know that unless you had read “everything they choose to write about”.

“No pedantry”, he says.

@Eddie

But you admitted that you knew they were Jews. And you have said, in essence, that they are too stupid to see the danger of an officially Christian society (which you think the DI is trying to bring about) for Jews.

I said no such thing.

“Eddie” is so good at close reading. According to “Eddie”, that is.

@Eddie

You have data to show that you know what “the large majority of scholars and other thoughtful and informed people think”

It’s called “the academic scientific literature.” Something you admit you refuse to read because they are “just magazines.” YouTube debates are more your style,

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Faizal_Ali

It’s called “the academic scientific literature.” Something you admit you refuse to read because they are “just magazines.”

Or an encyclopedia published in 2002 in a discussion about how radically our understanding of the central role of RNA in biology has changed since 2000…

@Puck_Mendelssohn

Don’t you ever feel like turning your wrath upon the people who have taken advantage of your ignorance, rather than upon @Mercer ?

Why, Eddie? Why do you keep defending the people who so easily conned you?

[Art (Arthur Hunt)]

@Eddie

But it’s a bit rich for some people here to be talking about the lack of “integrity” of the DI when many of them have shown they are completely lacking in academic integrity, because they routinely offer opinions about the contents of books they have not read and authors with whose work they are not familiar.

Excellent! @Eddie, I take this to mean that you (who have made several disparaging remarks about my training and work over the years) have read my works. Maybe you would like to offer, say, a ranking (bad to absolutely pathetic, for example). Maybe you have some suggestions that would improve the collection. (LOL maybe I am too brief in my writing. Maybe I need more thousand page productions.)

Please share. All feedback can, in one way or another, be useful.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

We can do them as online journal clubs, with @Eddie presenting.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Mercer

The title is “Exploring the New RNA World.”

You’ve just lost the argument. “The New RNA World” is not what we were discussing. We were discussing the world as it was (hypothetically) at the time of the origin of life, that is, just the plain old “RNA world”. And I correctly characterized that.

@Mercer

Published in 2002. Is that your idea of scholarship?

Only a shallow thinker assumes that later is automatically better. In any case, since we are talking about the meaning of a term as originally coined, the later uses of the term are irrelevant…

@Mercer

No, I don’t spoonfeed people who despise me, and you’ve never been on track in this matter. You simply don’t have the first clue about the science here.

You’ve never published a single thing on the origin of life. Until you have, your attempt to “pull rank” on me because you have a life science Ph.D. and I don’t earns you nothing more than a Bronx cheer.

@Puck_Mendelssohn

You defended Wells and Dembski’s The Design of Life even after being shown the passage on the homology of the middle ear ossicles in mammals with jaw bones of reptiles being attributed to a mere “bone count.”

So if Darwin makes an error anywhere in The Origin of Species, the whole book is rubbish that doesn’t have to be taken seriously? Did I ever say that The Design of Life was a flawless book? Did I ever say that any ID work was error-free?

@Puck_Mendelssohn

Don’t you ever feel like turning your wrath upon the people who have taken advantage of your ignorance, rather than upon @Mercer ?

Maybe if ID proponents ever said they were Christian, but were lying, or if ID proponents were Christian, but were too cowardly to state the contents of their Christian faith when directly asked, I would turn my wrath on them, too.

@Faizal_Ali

I said no such thing.

That was the plain meaning of what you said, whether you used those exact words or not. Your cultural insensitivity to their understanding of their own situation as Jews is duly noted. And, by consequence, so is the hypocrisy of your claiming to be concerned about how Discovery regards “jewz”. I’ve certainly seen more sensitivity to the Jew, as Jew, from ID people than from anyone here or at BioLogos.

@Art

I take this to mean that you (who have made several disparaging remarks about my training and work over the years) have read my works.

I don’t recall ever commenting on any particular article you have written, or on any particular book you have written (supposing you have written any, which would make you a rarity among the atheists posting here). I have doubtless said things such as “Art is not a researcher in the origin of life area”, but that’s just a biographical remark, not a comment on anything you have written. If I have ever dismissed or criticized a work of yours that I have not read, you can let me know where I did so.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@Eddie

So if Darwin makes an error anywhere in The Origin of Species, the whole book is rubbish that doesn’t have to be taken seriously? Did I ever say that The Design of Life was a flawless book? Did I ever say that any ID work was error-free?

These aren’t errors. If ID authors merely made the occasional mistake, nobody would accuse them of dishonesty. These aren’t errors, and it’s really screamingly obvious that they’re not.

@Eddie

Maybe if ID proponents ever said they were Christian, but were lying, or if ID proponents were Christian, but were too cowardly to state the contents of their Christian faith when directly asked, I would turn my wrath on them, too.

I’m fascinated by the notion that you have a right to demand these details and to stomp about when you don’t get them, but that you are at the same time untroubled by many, many examples of patent dishonesty on the part of ID proponents. If it’s only a matter of your own peculiarities, well, de gustibus non est disputandum, I guess. But I think you will find that your audience does not share those peculiarities, or even understand them.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Puck_Mendelssohn

I’m fascinated by the notion that you have a right to demand these details and to stomp about when you don’t get them,

I’m equally puzzled by the fact that you don’t get why I ask for such details. Here we have a site where people regularly claim that ID people are dishonest, have a secret agenda to take over America and turn it into a theocracy, etc., and who fulminate against people (allegedly, DI people) who won’t admit to things they really believe on that grounds that mispresenting what one actually believes (presumably for some selfish political or social advantage) is morally evil, intellectually dishonest, reprehensible, sneaky, underhanded, etc. Yet on this same site one of the leaders in the attacks on ID claims to profess religious beliefs which, based on everything he argues, it seems highly likely that he does not privately hold. Is it not morally evil, intellectually dishonest, reprehensible, sneaky, underhanded, etc. to represent oneself as holding to a particular religion when in fact one does not do so? Where is the indignation when someone does that?

Even supposing, for the sake of argument, that DI people (or some of them anyway) were guilty of all the intellectual dishonesty and political plotting that is here imputed to them, indignation about that is already well-represented here, and is expressed on almost a daily basis. It has whole topics (like this one) devoted to it, and it constantly comes up under just about every other topic. But who is expressing indignation here against culture-war motivated dishonesty on the other side? Only myself. You can hardly claim there’s a terrible imbalance in my favor here!

@Puck_Mendelssohn

But I think you will find that your audience does not share those peculiarities, or even understand them.

I know they do not share my concern; why should atheists share the concerns of a Christian? Nor am I trying to get any atheist to do so. I’m merely recording behavior (i.e., statements about personal faith of particular scientists) and showing it for what it is: either direct dishonesty in claiming to believe something one does not believe (i.e., in Christian religion) or cowardice in refusing to indicate the contents of one’s Christian religion (cowardice which is forbidden by Christian faith, which demands shining one’s light for the world to see, not hiding it under a bushel).

As for “understand”, it’s quite clear that the people to whom my questions about personal faith are directed do understand my concerns, and advisedly choose to ignore them; there is no lack of understanding. Nor do I think there is lack of understanding among a number of others, given that most of the atheists here are prone to psychoanalyzing the motives of people to an almost infinite degree, and they must be aware of my own motivation for asking for theological and religious clarity from those who advertise themselves as people of faith.

It isn’t really rocket science, you know. Someone says he is a Christian, and you ask him something like, “Why are you going so far out of your way to argue (or strongly imply) that the origin of everything came from chance and blind natural laws, without any design, if you are in fact a Christian?” And then he doesn’t answer. Or the same person says, “The God of ID is too small” (meaning, too small to be the Christian God I believe in), and you ask for an explanation of exactly the sort of God the person does believe in, and the person refuses to answer. Even you, as a non-Christian, surely must find that odd behavior for a Christian, no? Have you found the YECs and OECs or even the TEs you have talked with so absolutely reticent to state how they conceive of God? The TEs at BioLogos are often maddeningly vague, but even they give a portrait of God of some kind, rather than avoiding the subject altogether. Have you ever met a Christian scientist, or Christian of any kind, who professes Christianity but deliberately avoids answering any questions concerning how he conceives of God? I haven’t. (Well, except maybe some of the clergy and theologians in organizations like The United Church of Christ, but that actually makes my point rather than contradicts it.)

When someone says he is a Christian but will not talk about what he believes as a Christian, Christians justifiably hear alarm bells ringing. So why would you find it strange that a Christian would be just as concerned with professions of Christianity that don’t sound like Christianity as you are with professions of good science that don’t sound to you like good science?

[Faizal_Ali]

@Eddie

That was the plain meaning of what you said, whether you used those exact words or not.

No, not that, either.

But thanks for providing yet another example of your intellectual inconsistency. I would wonder why you were not able to discern the “plain meaning” of my statement regarding Klinghoffer and Berlinski, except we already know you suck at reading.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@misterme987

If the DI is actually honest, then why haven’t we seen any positive evidence for this, in over 200 posts on a thread which is ostensibly about the integrity of the DI? I’m not saying that the DI is necessarily dishonest; I don’t really care one way or the other. But from the perspective of a (hopefully unbiased) bystander, it really doesn’t look like any evidence has been provided for their integrity.

Hi Andrew
People here are trying to paint the narrative that they are dishonest. Why not just point out the inadequacy of specific claims? This strategy of painting a narrative of dishonesty looks like an attempt to have what ever argument they make ignored. I think the discovery institute has a wide variety of people with different ideas. Like all organizations some are good and some are bad.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

@Mercer

The title is “Exploring the New RNA World.”

You’ve just lost the argument. “The New RNA World” is not what we were discussing. We were discussing the world as it was (hypothetically) at the time of the origin of life, that is, just the plain old “RNA world”.

No, Eddie. The thread title is The most current evidence for the integrity of the Discovery Institute. You have zero evidence of their integrity, so you’re desperately trying to pretend that it’s anything else. It’s clear that YOU don’t believe in their integrity.

We were discussing the DI’s rank dishonesty regarding the empirical predictions of the RNA World hypothesis, which you have mindlessly regurgitated. Meyer lied about the fulfillment of most important prediction and omitted most of the others, while claiming that the evidence is weak. Zero integrity. But thanks for tacitly admitting that you have no defense.

@Eddie

@Mercer

Published in 2002. Is that your idea of scholarship?

Only a shallow thinker assumes that later is automatically better.

In rapidly advancing fields like RNA biology, later is obviously better. You can see that from the citations in Cech’s article. All of the things he cited support the RNA World hypothesis. I also bolded the evidence @Rumraket mentioned above that Meyer omitted. Straight-up dishonesty.

@Eddie

In any case, since we are talking about the meaning of a term as originally coined, the later uses of the term are irrelevant…

No, Eddie. We are talking about the DI’s lack of integrity.

@Eddie

@Mercer

You simply don’t have the first clue about the science here.

You’ve never published a single thing on the origin of life.

The empirical predictions are about what RNA does today; IOW, why we still live in an RNA World. You are demonstrating that simply don’t have the first clue about the science here. You can’t even figure out that “ribozyme” is an obvious portmanteau of “ribonucleic acid” and “enzyme.”

@Eddie

Until you have, your attempt to “pull rank” on me because you have a life science Ph.D. and I don’t earns you nothing more than a Bronx cheer.

I’m pointing you to objective evidence of the DI’s lack of integrity. My degree is irrelevant, but I can see why someone whose academic career did not progress beyond a doctorate would desperately try to make that a focus.

@Eddie

@Puck_Mendelssohn

You defended Wells and Dembski’s The Design of Life even after being shown the passage on the homology of the middle ear ossicles in mammals with jaw bones of reptiles being attributed to a mere “bone count.”

So if Darwin makes an error anywhere in The Origin of Species, the whole book is rubbish that doesn’t have to be taken seriously?

Did he? Did he lie about the identity of the ribosome, as Meyer, Wells, and Dembski all have?

@Eddie

@Art

I take this to mean that you (who have made several disparaging remarks about my training and work over the years) have read my works.

I don’t recall ever commenting on any particular article you have written, or on any particular book you have written (supposing you have written any, which would make you a rarity among the atheists posting here). I have doubtless said things such as “Art is not a researcher in the origin of life area”, but that’s just a biographical remark, not a comment on anything you have written.

Your remark is irrelevant to Art being an expert on RNA biology, which you quite literally denied.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@colewd

People here are trying to paint the narrative that they are dishonest.

No, we’re demonstrating that they are dishonest.

@colewd

Why not just point out the inadequacy of specific claims?

Because they literally lie about the evidence. It’s much more than that.

@colewd

This strategy of painting a narrative of dishonesty looks like an attempt to have what ever argument they make ignored.

Dishonest arguments should be ignored. Science is about evidence. Why did you claim that beta-lactamase is a “single substrate enzyme” when in reality, it’s one of the most promiscuous?

@colewd

I think the discovery institute has a wide variety of people with different ideas.

Yet not a single one of them are viewed, even by those who write about the ideas, as worthy of follup by doing real science. All rhetoric.

@colewd

Like all organizations some are good and some are bad.

Unlike most organizations, all of the DI’s are bad.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Faizal_Ali

except we already know you suck at reading.

Ah, yes, once again that cultured Oxbridge manner of expression long associated with the grand old British-Canadian University of Toronto.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

Some here appreciate brevity.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

It’s possible to be brief without being vulgar. My experience of blogging scientists on origins issues, however, reveals a close connection between the two, at least for a significant number of such scientists. (All of whom, coincidentally, are atheists and/or materialists; none of the Christian scientists here ever engage in vulgarity. Hmmm…)

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Mercer

Your remark is irrelevant to Art being an expert on RNA biology, which you quite literally denied.

I never denied that Art was “an expert on RNA biology” in the sense of knowing how RNA works in organisms today. I might well have said, however, that his field of research was not the origin of life, which, I believe, is true. Nor is it the field of research of anyone posting comments here, as far as I know.

You continue to exhibit massive intellectual confusion between what the RNA world hypothesis claimed and the notion that “we live in an RNA world today”. The latter notion, while true in a certain sense, is materially misleading in conversations about the origin of life, which pertain to a world utterly different from the world of today. You studiously avoid giving any biochemical account of that world or of the capacities of naked strands of RNA in that world. And just as in the case where you studiously avoid committing yourself on your religious beliefs, I will draw the most natural inference from your inability to provide any explanation.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

I never denied that Art was “an expert on RNA biology” in the sense of knowing how RNA works in organisms today.

The most important empirical evidence predicted by the RNA World hypothesis is that RNA continues to play essential roles in organisms today. That’s the evidence that your heroes both omit (making readers think that there are only a few cases of RNA having activity in labs) and outright lie to conceal.

That you continue to argue about that demonstrates your lack of reading skills.

Art is an expert. You, OTOH, can’t even remember that ribozymes are enzymes made of RNA. That also demonstrates your lack of reading skills. Or…

@Eddie

You continue to exhibit massive intellectual confusion between what the RNA world hypothesis claimed

Claimed? You’re talking about massive intellectual confusion? Hypotheses make predictions, not claims.

@Eddie

and the notion that “we live in an RNA world today”.

That’s the prediction, which is true in multiple ways.

@Eddie

The latter notion, while true in a certain sense, is materially misleading in conversations about the origin of life,

We’re not having a conversation and you know it.

@Eddie

…which pertain to a world utterly different from the world of today.

No, many of the roles of RNAs today were never replaced by proteins. Meyer lied about that too:

p. 298:
According to this model, these RNA enzymes eventually were replaced by the more efficient proteins that perform enzymatic functions in modern cells.

A flat-out lie.

…These mRNAs would need to be able to direct protein synthesis using, at first, the transitional ribozyme-based protein-synthesis machinery and then, later, the permanent and predominantly protein-based protein-synthesis machinery.

Another lie, as the current protein-synthesis machinery is ribozyme-based.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Mercer

The most important empirical evidence predicted by the RNA World hypothesis is that RNA continues to play essential roles in organisms today.

So what? That is completely compatible with an ID account of the origin of the DNA-RNA-protein setup. The centrality of RNA in the process doesn’t hurt the design inference one bit.

@Mercer

We’re not having a conversation and you know it.

If so, I’m not the one preventing the conversation.

[Art (Arthur Hunt)]

@Eddie

@Art

I take this to mean that you (who have made several disparaging remarks about my training and work over the years) have read my works.

I don’t recall ever commenting on any particular article you have written, or on any particular book you have written (supposing you have written any, which would make you a rarity among the atheists posting here). I have doubtless said things such as “Art is not a researcher in the origin of life area”, but that’s just a biographical remark, not a comment on anything you have written.

How could you possibly know that I am “not a researcher in the origin of life area” if you have not read any of my research? What is the basis for your assertion?

Remember -

@Eddie

But it’s a bit rich for some people here to be talking about the lack of “integrity” of the DI when many of them have shown they are completely lacking in academic integrity, because they routinely offer opinions about the contents of books they have not read and authors with whose work they are not familiar.

Rich indeed.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Art

How could you possibly know that I am “not a researcher in the origin of life area” if you have not read any of my research? What is the basis for your assertion?

I thought that you stated long ago, or that someone else here stated long ago, that your area of research was plant life or plant genetics. That was the basis for my assertion. If I misheard or misunderstood, please correct me. In fact, why not restate right now, to prevent any future misunderstanding, what your past and present areas of research were and are?