Discovery Institute

Ed Brayton reviews the new report to Rep. Mark Souder which argues that Richard Sternberg of the Smithsonian Institution, former editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was a victim of persecution. The evidence in the report itself fails to support that conclusion, which appears to be politically motivated. Brayton finds that: 1. What little ill-treatment Sternberg may have gotten (in fact, all of the comments expressing distrust and anger at Sternberg and urging his dismissal were made not to his face, but in private emails that he never saw) was largely self-inflicted, the result not only of his violation of procedures in regard to the Meyer paper, but in regard to several other instances of professional malfeasance and prior examples of poor judgement as PBSW editor. ...

The Discovery Institute has been trying to criticize last year’s Dover decision on the grounds that Judge Jones followed common judicial practice by copying text from the winning side’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in setting out the facts of the case in his opinion. Now, it turns out that the Discovery Institute’s David DeWolf, John West, and Casey Luskin (the first two of which are the authors of the critique of Judge Jones just referred to) submitted a paper to the Montana Law Review about the Dover case that was virtually identical to content in the DI’s book, Traipsing Into Evolution, published in March 2006. This violated the journal’s requirement that all submissions be original content, not previously published elsewhere, and the authors were forced to rewrite and resubmit–after this was brought to the journal’s attention by a third party. The DI authors intentionally concealed this information. More details at Dispatches from the Culture Wars. UPDATE (December 20, 2006): The editor of the Montana Law Review has responded, pointing out facts that absolve the DI folks of any deception.

After a year of careful analysis of Judge Jones’ decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the Discovery Institute has determined that the Judge made considerable use of the plaintiff’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law when writing the section on intelligent design as science in his decision for the plaintiff. Somehow, they think that this common practice of using the Proposed Findings of Fact from the winning side in crafting a decision makes Judge Jones a puppet of the ACLU, even though he’s a conservative justice appointed by George W. Bush. The Discovery Institute has issued a press release touting their findings as though it discredits the decision’s reasoning. This press release demonstrates that they are still smarting over the loss in Dover, still spending their time doing things that have nothing to do with scientific research, and that they have as much credibility on legal matters as they do on scientific matters. More by attorney Timothy Sandefur at the Panda’s Thumb. This press release by the DI was telegraphed by a talk given by Michael Behe earlier this month in Kansas. UPDATE (December 13, 2006): Ed Brayton analyzes the DI report in more detail, including responding to its claims that Judge Jones incorporated “errors” from the ACLU into the decision. UPDATE (December 14, 2006): More responses: Timothy Sandefur, “Is John West Dishonest or Just Ignorant?" and “Casey Luskin–Not Too Bright” at the Panda’s Thumb. UPDATE (December 20, 2006): Wesley Elsberry has looked at how much of the plaintiff’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law was actually used in Jones’ decision (and how much of that section of the decision came directly from the plaintiff’s filing). Ed Brayton summarizes at Dispatches from the Culture Wars. Casey Luskin has attempted to respond with a defense, but as Ed Brayton shows, he just keeps digging a deeper hole.

Skeptic Michael Shermer is speaking about his new book, Why Darwin Matters, at noon on October 12 at the Cato Institute in Washington D.C. The Cato Institute is then showcasing a commentary on Shermer by “Intelligent Design proponent Jonathan Wells,” whose dishonest books Icons of Evolution and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism, have been shredded at The Panda’s Thumb. Wells, a follower of Rev. Sun Myung Moon, entered a Ph.D. program at the behest of Moon. Wells wrote: “Father’s [Moon’s] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me to enter a PhD program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle." Rev. Moon, who was crowned in a bizarre ceremony on Capitol Hill thanks to the support of a number of Congressmen, has also been supported by a variety of evangelical Christians who would ordinarily oppose cult groups whose leaders claim to be the second coming of Christ, such as Left Behind co-author Timothy LaHaye, his wife and head of Concerned Women for America Beverly LaHaye, Jerry Falwell, Family Research Council head Gary Bauer, Pat Boone, and Christian Coalition leader and Jack Abramoff pal Ralph Reed. Also involved with Moon have been former president George H.W. Bush and his son and President George W. Bush. (More on Moon and his connections to Christian and Republican leaders here and here.) Why is the Cato Institute giving a forum to a purveyor of pseudoscience and an advocate of Moon’s cult? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Richard W. Rahn, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, is also a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and writes for Moon’s Washington Times?

The Discovery Institute has quote-mined an article co-authored by the National Center for Science Education’s Nick Matzke 16 days before it was officially published in print (it had early publication online). Nick Matzke explains how the quote, pulled from its context, was used to misrepresent the state of the debate about evolution of the flagellum.

The Technology Liberation Front is a blog I’ve been reading for a few months for its quality contributions on issues involving technology, regulation, copyright, digital rights management (DRM), network neutrality, and so on. It covers a lot of the same topics as Ed Felten’s excellent Freedom-to-Tinker blog, with a strong libertarian bent. What a disappointment it was to see that the newest contributor, Hance Haney, comes from the Technology & Democracy Project at the Discovery Institute. While Haney is in Washington D.C. and is not affiliated with the intelligent design wing (the Center for Science and Culture), crackpot George Gilder is a senior fellow of the TDP. I commented to this effect at the Technology Liberation Front, which prompted a response from Lewis Baumstark: As I have no previous knowledge of Hance or the Discovery Institute, I prefer to allow him to live or die here on the merits of his debate and analysis, not on his link to a pro-ID institution.Lewis should remedy his ignorance of the Discovery Institute before coming to a conclusion about whether such an association taints Hance’s reputation and credibility–surely he would not have said the same if Hance was a representative of the (in some ways more honest) Institute for Creation Research or International Flat Earth Society. As readers of this blog know well, the Discovery Institute has a long history of dishonest and deceptive public statements and attempts to influence public opinion, public policy, and educational standards. Do a Google search for “Discovery Institute site:lippard.blogspot.com” or “Dembski site:lippard.blogspot.com” for numerous examples at this blog; many more can be found at scienceblogs.com (especially Dispatches from the Culture Wars and Pharyngula) or The Panda’s Thumb. Jim Harper of TLF responded to Lewis’s comment by writing “And the winner is . . . Lewis Baumstark! Curious. Courteous. Way to go, Lewis!” How odd that he would declare Lewis the “winner” when Lewis claimed ignorance of the Discovery Institute, or call him “curious” when his comment betrayed no interest in rectifying that ignorance. “Courteous,” I’ll grant. I agree with the comment at TLF from Cog (of the Abstract Factory blog): ...

At Dispatches from the Culture Wars, Ed Brayton has an excellent fisking of Seth Cooper, former attorney for the Discovery Institute. Cooper tries to argue that Judge Jones (of the Kitzmiller v. Dover School Board case) displayed bias and hostility towards Jon Buell of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics both in his behavior and by refusing to allow the FTE to intervene in the case. Brayton points out that there’s no evidence of any hostility in the questioning of Buell and that the facts and legal precedent strongly supported the refusal of FTE intervening one month before the end of discovery. He points out dishonesty by Buell, who falsely stated that “Neither “Creationism” nor its synonym, “Creation Science” was ever used in any Pandas manuscript, as alleged." The post is a pleasure to read, go see it here.

After Paul Nelson was misquoted in the Guardian, this was discovered by Nick Matzke of the National Center for Science Education and pointed out at the Panda’s Thumb blog. Here’s how Robert Crowther at the Discovery Institute reports the misquotation and Nelson’s letter and blog post thanking Matzke for pointing out the misquotation: Today there is another urban myth building up a head of steam, and being helped along by Darwinists, about Discovery Fellow Paul Nelson. Gaurdian [sic] reporter Karen Armstrong reports: ‘Great shakings and darkness are descending on Planet Earth,’ says the ID philosopher Paul Nelson, ‘but they will be overshadowed by even more amazing displays of God’s power and light.’ And yet this is pure rubbish because Nelson never said anything like this, and it turns out that Armstrong never even interviewed him. Nelson points this out in his letter to the Guardian demanding a correction. (Note to Paul: don’t hold your breath) Emphasis added. I can think of numerous examples of nonsense, misquotes, bad arguments, and urban legends that are spread around by the creationists (there are many in Mark Isaak’s index to creationist claims, including the “Lucy’s knee joint” issue that I tried for years to stop creationists from spreading), but real examples of urban myths “being helped along by Darwinists” are much harder to come by. Crowther supplies no evidence that this spurious Paul Nelson quote has been “helped along by Darwinists”; the evidence I have shows that evolutionists were the first to try to stamp it out. (Hat tip: Dave Thomas at the Panda’s Thumb.)

Yet another rock formation has been misidentified as Noah’s Ark by evangelical Christian explorers (“Arkeologists”). They apparently forgot to bring a geologist or archaeologist with them, but they did bring “some of America’s leading businessmen, an attorney who has argued several cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, and two leading apologists” and take some incredibly unimpressive photographs. The expedition was led by former Costa Mesa, CA police officer turned “international explorer and author,” Bob Cornuke, who runs something called the BASE (Bible Archaeology Search and Exploration) Institute. I hope his ethics are better than those of former nurse-anesthetist turned international explorer and author Ron Wyatt, who found a profitable career by claiming to find virtually every possible biblical site and artifact. (Wyatt, a Seventh-Day Adventist, was best debunked in a book by his fellow SDA members Russell R. Standish and Colin D. Standish, Holy Relics or Revelation, a book I highly recommend.) Ed Brayton has done a good job of dissecting the claims in the announcement article. As he notes, this is far from the first such claimed discovery of Noah’s Ark. This one is in Iran rather than the usual location of Agri Dagi in Turkey. I actually give them credit for not looking on Agri Dagi (Mt. Ararat), since the Bible only says that the Ark landed in a region called Ararat, not a mountain of that name (2 Kings 19:37, Jeremiah 51:27). For a review of some previous claimed Noah’s Ark sightings, see my 1993-1994 articles from Skeptic magazine, “Sun Goes Down in Flames: The Jammal Ark Hoax” and “Update on the Ark Hoax”.

Paul Nelson, who has usually been known as one of the few honest major advocates of intelligent design at the otherwise disreputable Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, has fallen temptation to make his case stronger by being deceptive about what one of his opponents said in a debate. Ed Brayton gives the full account. UPDATE (May 30, 2006): The discussion continues, with Paul Nelson’s involvement in the comments, here.