sex, lies and a <s>math mistake</s> II

Posted 26 November 2007 by Dave Thomas

In "sex, lies and a math mistake" I described how the Discovery Institute's rapid response to the NOVA program on ID (a booklet called “The Theory of Intelligent Design: A briefing packet for educators, to help teachers understand the debate between Darwinian evolution and intelligent design”) was filled with egregious math errors and lies. Perhaps it's getting cold down under (and I don't mean Australia), but the Discovery Institute has actually corrected the math mistake in their booklet. Of course, they did not acknowledge making a mistake, nor did they acknowledge making a correction. They simply re-announced the release of the revised booklet, without mentioning that it was a revision. Anyway, there has been a little progress. Now all they need to do is to get rid of the aforementioned lies.

13 Comments

Toni Petrina · 26 November 2007

We did what? What mistake? You dirty little evilutionists, you would claim that we evolved, nothing but lies from you.

Our booklet is intelligently designed...sort of.

Jeremy Mohn · 26 November 2007

You know, Dave, the first version of that statement was technically correct. The Kansas Board of Education did adopt science standards that (wrongly) impugned evolutionary theory on November 8, 2005. Therefore, saying that Kansas is one of five states that "already adopted" such standards was technically true.

Of course, such a statement conveniently omits the fact that those standards were rejected and replaced on February 13, 2007.

If this turns out to be the DI's excuse, then what you originally called "math mistake" just turns out to by another lie (of omission).

Mike Elzinga · 26 November 2007

Maybe they just forgot to initialize their variables.

creeky belly · 26 November 2007

I'm reminded of Mel Brooks in the History of the World: "These 15 commandments! *crash* These 10 commandments!"

Crudely Wrott · 26 November 2007

They are, I must admit, pretty smooth here. As if readers everywhere would automatically read four as five when they had previously read five as five. I guess the idea is that many readers would have only read the count of states a not the names. When later reading essentially the same list regarding a handful of states, many readers might not notice that one is missing. Sounds reasonable to me. If I were desperately trying to do something I knew was wrong or misinformed, such tactics would be among my prime concerns. Still, I detest such tactics except in extreme moments.

Well, come to think about it, the present moment must seem extreme to the ID cohort.

Braxton Thomason · 26 November 2007

Jeremy Mohn: You know, Dave, the first version of that statement was technically correct. The Kansas Board of Education did adopt science standards that (wrongly) impugned evolutionary theory on November 8, 2005. Therefore, saying that Kansas is one of five states that "already adopted" such standards was technically true. Of course, such a statement conveniently omits the fact that those standards were rejected and replaced on February 13, 2007. If this turns out to be the DI's excuse, then what you originally called "math mistake" just turns out to by another lie (of omission).

The point isn't that they listed originally 5 states that supposedly had these loopholes, because none of them have what the DI is claiming -- the point is that, elsewhere in the booklet, they claimed there were only 4 states. So, the "math mistake" was really an internal consistency issue.

Mike Haubrich, FCD · 26 November 2007

I really get irritated that they continue to slander Minnesota in this way. Our standards most emphatically DO NOT emphasize "critical analysis." They do require that students learn how theories are developed, tested and refined.

waldteufel · 26 November 2007

Just another example of the machinations of the buffoons and hucksters that run the DI.

Thanks for holding their probably cloven hooves to the fire, Dave.

stevaroni · 26 November 2007

I really get irritated that they continue to slander Minnesota in this way.

How do you think I feel - I went to Lehigh.

Jeremy Mohn · 26 November 2007

Braxton Thomason:
Jeremy Mohn: You know, Dave, the first version of that statement was technically correct. The Kansas Board of Education did adopt science standards that (wrongly) impugned evolutionary theory on November 8, 2005. Therefore, saying that Kansas is one of five states that "already adopted" such standards was technically true. Of course, such a statement conveniently omits the fact that those standards were rejected and replaced on February 13, 2007. If this turns out to be the DI's excuse, then what you originally called "math mistake" just turns out to by another lie (of omission).
The point isn't that they listed originally 5 states that supposedly had these loopholes, because none of them have what the DI is claiming -- the point is that, elsewhere in the booklet, they claimed there were only 4 states. So, the "math mistake" was really an internal consistency issue.

But the latter claim was that four states "have" such standards, and the former claim was that five states "have already adopted" such standards. My point is that I could see someone from the DI trying to argue that these statements were correct because the Kansas 2005 standards were indeed adopted, even though they are no longer in effect. In any case, the folks at the DI apparently noticed the inconsistency and "fixed" it, so there's no real point in speculating any further.

Tardis · 27 November 2007

Braxton said: "So, the “math mistake” was really an internal consistency issue."

Since when have Fundies been concerned about internal consistencies.

bernarda · 27 November 2007

Speaking about math, here is a xmas voucher idea for a book from Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/Irreligion-Mathematician-Explains-Arguments-Just/dp/0809059193

Another good book from John Allen Paulos apparently. Why the publisher is releasing it on December 26th is beyond me. November 26th would have been much better.

David K · 27 November 2007

"...following Congress' advice"? Congress is now advising science teachers to teach intelligent design? Since when did this buffoonery start?