Evidence for the integrity of the Discovery Institute

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@Marty

Here’s a review from someone who gets Behe’s points (Wow… better than I had anticipated! )

Any more saccharin and I would think it parody.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Marty

As long as people need to attack a viewpoint with such vituperation, it’s often because either they don’t really “get it” or they have an agenda. Given the snarling tone of many responses here, it’s hard not to see them in that context (@Dan_Eastwood excepted).

Emphasis added.

All snarling aside, take that first sentence and consider writings “for” Intelligent Design. Easily more than 99% of pro-ID materials are nothing more than criticism of evolution, “Darwinism”, and sometimes even of Darwin himself. Design as a movement either doesn’t “get it” or it has an agenda. More, we have evidence of that actual agenda. (Skipping details - that’s another well-worn topic.)

Specifically about snarling: A lot of material from the Discovery Institute is pretty vituperous too (thanks for the new vocabulary word!). Just go read some articles written by Klinghoffer and you will see what I mean. This is perfectly deliberate - making people angry with this sort or article drives online discussion and web traffic. We see the same thing from far too many media sources, and we would all be better off if we stopped allowing ourselves to be manipulated in this way. Alas, human instincts do not always serve us well.

Oh, and don’t mind @Tim too much, he’s just plain grumpy.

Summing up, the same appeal you make here against criticisms of ID, is itself a strong criticism against ID. It’s not that you, @Marty, don’t have personal integrity, I think you do. I’m not sure what else to tell you, except that you might try drawing a line between what you believe because of your faith and that which you believe from study of Intelligent Design. Consider it an exercise in epistemology.

[Tim]

@Dan_Eastwood

Oh, and don’t mind @Tim too much, he’s just plain grumpy.

I didn’t realise that it was “grumpy” to point out the elephant in the room that everybody had been carefully avoiding.

Yes, everybody has unimpeachable integrity as long as everybody else is too ‘ungrumpy’ to point out the trifling flaws in their behavior.

Kenneth Lay himself has perfectly unimpeachable integrity, if we’re too polite to sully our ears with that pesky Enron scandal.

In his Devil’s Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce defines a cynic as:

A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic’s eyes to improve his vision.

I will regard my eyes as having been suitably plucked out by @Dan_Eastwood as punishment for my ‘grumpiness’.

[Tim]

@Marty

As long as people need to attack a viewpoint with such vituperation, it’s often because either they don’t really “get it” or they have an agenda. Given the snarling tone of many responses here, it’s hard not to see them in that context (@Dan_Eastwood excepted).

Let me suggest an alternate hypothesis – the more lies and misrepresentations get repeated, the angrier and more ‘vituperative’ the denunciations of these lies and misrepresentations become.

Taking Michael Behe as a prime example:

• His first book, Darwin’s Black Box was not well received by the scientific community. The source that Behe cited for his blood-clotting claims, Russell Doolittle, accused Behe of mirepresenting his work

• Further, he misrepresented this book, under oath at Dover, as being peer reviewed.

• His second book, Edge of Evolution, likewise received negative reviews from the scientific community. I would note that one of the scientists who did most to debunk Behe’s claims in this book was described on this forum as a “arrogant young twit” for her efforts (“vituperative” much?).

• His third book was demolished on this very forum, and one of the key pieces of evidence for it being intentional dishonesty has been presented to you above.

Now given all this evidence that not only does Behe’s claims have no scientific merit, and involves a considerable amount of misrepresentation, how do you think people might react to somebody coming along and stating, without any substantiation of their claim being offered:

@lee_merrill

I don’t think the Discovery Institute does that, they seem to be forthright and people of integrity.

Does that make some of us angry? Hell yes!

Does that anger in any way negate the evidence for the DI’s lack of integrity and lack of scientific merit? Hell no!

Addendum: I would also note that @Marty’s argument is what is known as “tone policing”, a tone argument" or “tone trolling” – and is a well-known logical fallacy.

[Roy (30-year veteran)]

@Marty

The difference between me and most of you guys is a couple of things.

Honesty and integrity?

I know I wouldn’t some-one of ‘making things up’ unless I’d first checked that what they wrote was false; and if challenged I’d provide evidence of that falseness, and retract my claim if necessary. Most of the other regulars act the same way.

But you don’t.

Do you have evidence that Lee Strobel was ever an atheist? If you don’t, and you had any integrity, you would have withdrawn that accusation by now.

As long as people need to attack a viewpoint with such vituperation, it’s often because either they don’t really “get it” or they have an agenda.

Or because those holding the viewpoint spout falsehoods.

@Roy

@lee_merrill

No, they’re both incidental to Luskin’s point. The part of the quote that comes after is what supports his point.

If they’re both incidental, why did you say “the corrected quote still supports Luskin’s point”?

Quite a few people on this thread seem to have trouble with English.

I’m not one of them. But you are:

@lee_merrill points out that nothing in Luskin’s argument relies on the mangled quote.

No, he did not. He said the mangled quote was incidental. That’s not the same thing. Something can be relevant to an argument but not have that argument reliant on it, e.g. if that something is one of multiple pieces of supporting evidence.

Why make a mountain out of it? Recommended to those who see this to read both quotes (the original and Luskin’s “oops”), then read the first sentence of the second paragraph, and decide for yourself if it matters.

@lee_merrill wanted examples of the DI’s lack of integrity. Uncorrected misquotes are such examples.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Eddie

Further, the evidence Wikipedia presented for what “the scientific community” thinks about Behe and/or ID is based on the directly expressed opinion of probably about 1% of 1% of 1% of scientists worldwide, hardly a representative sample.

The people most qualified to address Behe’s work, that is people who are experts in molecular evolution and evolutionary biochemistry, are the people who have the most damning criticisms of Behe’s work.

So whether that is representative of “scientists worldwide” is no more significant than whether it’s representative of airline pilots worldwide.

When one uses a term like “the scientific community” in an argument within a specific field, it is “the scientific community” within that field that matters. When it comes to the intersection of biochemistry and evolution, it is the views of evolutionary biologists and biochemists that matter. And one doesn’t really need to poll scientists in the field to determine whether someone’s ideas have been well-received.

The fact that Behe publishes one book or paper once in a blue moon, and that it is primarily cited in the apologetics and philosophy of religion rather than biology literature, is pretty much as damning an indictment of his work as one can get in science.

[Tim]

@Eddie

[ @Eddie’s pompous credentialism & repetition of his ignorance of how Wikipedia actually works omitted.]

I would note that his diatribe contains not a shred of evidence that Wikipedia’s characterisation of the scientific community’s reception of DBB as being extremely negative is incorrect.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

@Eddie

Third, (and here Tim is deliberately misrepresenting by leaving out explicit statements) the student who was referred to as “an arrogant twit” was given that label *explicitly because of her manners", not because of any claim that anything was wrong with her “efforts” on the scientific side.

@Eddie’s fallacious tone policing/tone argument/tone trolling is noted.

By way of reply, given the number of times that Behe has been proven wrong on everything from Blood Clotting to Philosophy of Science to Virology to Malaria to good Courtroom Practice (and probably dozens of of other issues), it would seem permissible to call Behe an “ignorant old twit” for his serial incompetence on issues directly relevant to his claims.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

@Eddie

And it is appropriate …

What I think is “appropriate” is to point out that @Eddie has provided no evidence of Dr Smith’s “arrogance”, he just expects us to take his word for it. The fact that very few of us would trust his opinion any further than we could spit him doesn’t seem to influence his deranged histrionics in the slightest.

On the other hand, I have repeatedly provided evidence of Behe’s incompetence.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

To summarise:

• Eddie has failed to provide any evidence that the Wikipedia article was factually incorrect.

• Eddie has failed to provide any evidence that the scientific community’s negative assessment of DBB, or Behe’s work more generally, was factually incorrect.

• Eddie has failed to provide any evidence that Dr Abbie Smith’s evisceration of Behe’s HIV claims was factually incorrect.

All else is simply hot air and fallacy.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

&

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

&

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Eddie

@Rumraket

So whether that is representative of “scientists worldwide” is no more significant than whether it’s representative of airline pilots worldwide.

Irrelevant to my point.

Directly relevant to your point. I’ve already provided the necessary clarification for how to understand a term like “the scientific community” used in the Wiki article on Behe.

@Eddie

List the number of “experts in molecular evolution and evolutionary biochemistry” cited by Wikipedia, and tell us what percentage of the “experts in molecular evolution and evolutionary biochemistry” worldwide is represented by the experts cited by Wikipedia.

Whatever the heck Wkipedia lists is irrelevant to my point. And in any case I’ve already addressed your meaningless obsession with polls and lists. The reception and impact of a scientists work can be assessed better by looking at his citations. Who is citing his work and what for?

Behe writes more books than papers, and both are cited almost entirely by apologists and philosophers of religion, and when and if he’s cited by biochemists and evolutionary biologists it’s almost always to either rebut him, or in papers discussing the influence of creationism and religion in the classroom in the US.

Sorry mate. Behe has effectively no scientific achievement worthy of note. His impact on the field of evolutionary biochemistry remains essentially zero. He’s a total nobody in his field of expertise. His ideas are known only as a product of their socio-cultural and political influence in deeply conservative religious circles. His work, in so far as it is used by anyone at all, is used in religious apologetics.

By implication his peers in the field he works in has found no value in his work.

[Tim]

I think I might have misspoken slightly in my last post.

When I said that Eddie gave “not a shred of evidence that Wikipedia’s characterisation of the scientific community’s reception of DBB as being extremely negative is incorrect”, I think I should have gone further and said that Eddie doesn’t even contend that it was incorrect.

Eddie’s only two complaints seem to be that:

1. He is butt-hurt that I used a ‘citation/source of convenience’ for the scientific community’s rejection of DBB rather than spending several hours engaging in pointless research to reinvent the wheel in demonstrating this point myself.

2. That rather than engaging in some arcane and impractical means of determining the scientific community’s reception, Wikipedia simply went the practical route of surveying the most prominent reviews.

That the scientific community regards Behe’s work as utter garbage does not appear to be in any real doubt. As to establishing this obvious point in a way that satisfies Eddie:

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Faizal_Ali]

@Eddie

Further, the evidence Wikipedia presented for what “the scientific community” thinks about Behe and/or ID is based on the directly expressed opinion of probably about 1% of 1% of 1% of scientists worldwide, hardly a representative sample. Wikipedia presents not a single properly conducted poll of scientific opinion on the works of Behe or on ID generally.

Science does not operate on opinion polls.

I guess you somehow missed that in the extensive scientific education you are always bragging about.

[Tim]

No Eddie.

I “mean” exactly what I said.

If you think that the scientific consensus is decided through some cockamamie statistical survey, then you are as equally clueless as to how science works as you are as to how Wikipedia works.

Now I have wasted more than enough time on your ill-informed pompous pretensious bluster.

If you think you can do better than Wikipedia in producing an online encyclopedia that will serve as many people’s (albeit imperfect) first source of information, then you are welcome to try. Many have in fact tried. Until you have successfully supplanted Wikipedia, I have no interest in anything you have to say on the matter.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Eddie

Then why did Wikipedia bring up the number of scientists who supposedly opposed Behe?

Because it is relevant that the scientific community is all but unanimous in rejecting Behe’s claims.

The point is that it does not require an opinion poll to determine this. One need only be familiar with the relevant literature, even if thru secondary sources like textbooks, review articles, and publications intended for the general public.

However, someone who needs a Youtube debate to occur before he can answer a scientific question is unlikely to have such familiarity.

@Eddie

And by the way, given that you have never done a shred of scientific research in your life, how do you know how science operates?

I have done research. Even published an article and presented other work at scientific meetings.

But that is irrelevant. One does not have to have done research to understand how science works, and that it doesn’t require opinion polls.

So, to be clear: Are you actually claiming it is possible that Behe’s clalims have been accepted by the scientific community?

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Tim

I will regard my eyes as having been suitably plucked out by @Dan_Eastwood as punishment for my ‘grumpiness’.

AND they were very tasty too!! Maybe lighten up a little and stop taking every bit of bait waved to front of you.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Eddie

I thought you told us before that you had not published anything. OK, you’ve published one article. I stand corrected. What was the subject? Where can we read it?

Here you go. BTW, remind me: What documentation have you provided for the many academic accomplishments you have claimed for yourself? I seem to be having a memory lapse on that subject. Age, I guess.

Mechanisms of fetal alcohol effects: role of acetaldehyde - PubMed (nih.gov)

@Eddie

I already was clear. I’m not claiming anything at all about anything. I merely pointed out that the vast claim made by Wikipedia was false or undocumented

I see. You insist you have no idea whatsoever regarding the response of the scientific community to Behe’s claims. I therefore suggest you hereinafter keep your mouth shut in this thread unless you have something of substance and relevance to add. The title of this thread is not “And Yet More Whining from ‘Eddie’ about Wikipedia.”

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Faizal_Ali

You insist you have no idea whatsoever regarding the response of the scientific community to Behe’s claims.

That’s not what I said. I said that the claim Wikipedia makes, it does not document. Period.

@Faizal_Ali

The title of this thread is not “And Yet More Whining from ‘Eddie’ about Wikipedia.”

I was responding directly to a claim Tim made, in which he called upon Wikipedia as evidence. My response was therefore on topic – unless you are saying Tim was himself off topic for bringing in Wikipedia.

Congratulations on your article. Ah, cyanamide! That word brings back memories. I worked on sodium hydrogen cyanamide during my very brief research career. (No, I did not have my “own lab”, to use Mercer’s bizarre turn of phrase pertaining to undergraduate researchers; I was employed by others.) I can’t remember exactly what we were trying to determine, but I know it involved lots of titrations. I kept a very tidy lab book of my experiments, which I had to hand in at the end of my stint. It would be amusing to look at it again, all these decades later.

I was hoping that you might provide me with a research article of yours that had something to do with psychiatry, you know, something about the human mind (or even – gasp! – the human psyche). But no such luck.

I’ve provided no documentation for my academic publications. I’m indifferent whether or not people here believe I have any. Maybe someday, when I’m in the position of absolute immunity from employment retaliation enjoyed by most people here, I will share the titles with you. But I doubt you would read anything I wrote with an open mind, even though nothing of my academic work is on ID. Indeed, I doubt any atheist here would do so. In any case, I would not expect any useful feedback on it from any of the atheists here, except possibly from Harshman, who in another life might have made a decent Bible scholar.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Eddie

That’s not what I said. I said that the claim Wikipedia makes, it does not document. Period.

Ah, I see.

Well, if you have any evidence which suggests Behe is considered to be anything other than a lying, incompetent, buffoon by the scientific community (or, to be more accurate, by the segment thereof that even has awareness of his very existence), by all means, feel free to share it.

[John_Harshman]

@Eddie

I said that the claim Wikipedia makes, it does not document. Period.

Your memory is a little faulty. You said:

@Eddie

I merely pointed out that the vast claim made by Wikipedia was false or undocumented.

That’s not “undocumented. Period.”, is it?

@Eddie

I’ve provided no documentation for my academic publications. I’m indifferent whether or not people here believe I have any.

Then you should stop bringing them up.

@Eddie

Harshman, who in another life might have made a decent Bible scholar.

Shudder.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@John_Harshman

Then you should stop bringing them up.

I did NOT bring them up in this thread. Faizal did. I answered his question. Your gratuitous “shot” was unwarranted. Is it only in internet correspondence that you are so prickly and bossy, or are you like that in private life, with family, colleagues, and friends? Sheesh. Chill out!!!

@John_Harshman

Your memory is a little faulty. You said:

Petty catch-you-out quarreling. If you followed the whole conversation, sometimes I said one and sometimes both, but the meaning in context was always plain. When you show your “Mercer side” you are unpleasantly pedantic.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

@John_Harshman

Then you should stop bringing them up.

I did NOT bring them up in this thread. Faizal did. I answered his question.

Then you shouldn’t complain about the existence of responses because you lack self-discipline.