The Discovery Institute gives advice to BioLogos on scientific integrity

David Klinghoffer of the Discovery Institute has some words of advice to BioLogos. I admit that I am not familiar enough with the recent history of BioLogos to know how fair his criticisms are. But his article did remind me of the old saying about people in glass houses.


You wrote:

“Irreducibly complex” systems like the bacterial flagellum cannot be produced by unguided evolutionary processes.

“Complex Specified Information” (CSI) is a rigorously defined mathematical measure that can determine whether something has been designed.

During the Cambrian Explosion, new organisms appear suddenly in the fossil record, fully formed and without transitional precursors.

The Cambrian Explosion required vast amounts of new genetic “information” that could not be produced by unguided evolutionary processes in the time allowed.

Junk DNA does not exist.

Functional sequences are too rare in sequence space to be found by random mutations.

I half way agree with you, but I don’t think they deserve full retractions, just amendments, with the exception of Specified Complexity. I wish Specified Complexity would just go away as far as its association with ID.

Otherwise, I like pretty much everything you wrote.

While the DI promotes creationism in the guise of “Intelligent Design”

Nah, real Henry Morris-Duane-Gish style creationism involves Noah’s Flood.

ID isn’t real creationism. Why settle for an imitation when one can get the real thing!


Rather than litigating specific issues, I’d like to know what policies and standards the Discovery Institute uses to manage errors.

1 Like

That’s easy: They never make any errors. Oh, well there was that one time where they mislabeled part of a diagram illustrating the degree of similarity between the human and chimp genomes. But other than that…


The profoundly sad thing is that their article is largely on point in a critique of a major organization tasked with representing mainstream science.