The Discovery Institute’s “Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” not so scientific


(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #1


The common rejoinder is “how many Steve’s do you have, and how many of them actually have a PhD in a relevant field?”.

The statement people sign at Project Steve is a bit more specific than the one at the DI.

To get on the list you have to be a Steve (or derivation thereof, e.g. Esteban, Stephen), have a relevant degree, and be willing to sign that statement. As of now, there are 1,435 Steves. There are appear to be less than 10 Steves on the DI list, for comparison.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #3

In fairness, there is zero professional risk to the Steves, and there is immense risk to the IDers. So they have a drop off filter (who is willing to take a risk?) that Steve’s do not. It is not a valid comparison.


That’s fine. However, that isn’t an excuse to bloat a list with dentists, meteorologists, and nutritionists.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #5

Sure. The whole effort on BOTH sides is just public theatre and not the least bit scientific.

(Retired Professor & Minister.) #6

True. And whatever purpose the “Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” may have originally had, it’s questionable usefulness has surely expired and/or become counter-productive. It seems odd to project to the general public so much opposition to Common Descent when so many of the scholars associated with the Discovery Institute affirm evolutionary processes and Common Descent. It’s as if there is one message for the donor base and another for the academic audience.


Exactly. Red herring does taste good with a bit of tartar sauce, however.