Does the DI's latest Fund Raising Appeal Cross the Line?

...and the idea of intelligent design (ID) is truly a powerful one...

Well, they're just waiting for the first convincing pieces of evidence to appear.

You can't rush these things, you know, God Designer doesn't work on human deadlines.

But when the DI finally does have evidence of design, time for triumphal revenge. You'll wish you had been on the right side of religion science in that day.

Glen Davidson

I'm not seeing the creepiness here. I'm seeing the stupid, I'm seeing the denial, but that's it. It's not as if they're asking for money to assassinate evolutionists so as to move the process along more quickly. Now that would be creepy.

Is that bird in the likeness of Klinghoffer?

Yes, everytime they talk at a church or wherever, they gather email addresses and build their db to send out this trash. It's like once you sign the anti-Darwin statement, you're on their list forever.

No its not creepy or crossing the line. WHY?? Its just saying the good ideas take time to overthrow the wrong and they need and want support to keep the cause in high gear.
They are not desiring death for anyone and today evolutionism iand company is not based on a few people.
If the top ten evolutionists realized the error of evolutionism it wouldn't persuade the next hundred.

At least PT might be helping fund raising by reaching other audiences!!

They're not trying so hard that they're actually doing any sort of ID science.

That would take more than just homilies on how wonderfully complex life is that it just has to be designed.

Bothering with a positive science program would just play into the evil materialists' hands. You know, because they can't match our pathetic level of detail.

Glen Davidson

I was curious as to these "summer seminars", since I'd never heard of them before. What I found made me throw up in my mouth.

http://sententias.org/2015/02/03/discovery-institutes-summer-seminar-2015/

This guy (a PhD candidate in philosophy) seemed to enjoy it and listed the curriculum. It seems like a complete list of every failed claim and tactic the DI has ever used.

Planck was probably wrong, at least with respect to evolution in Britain. See here: David L. Hull, Peter D. Tessner, and Arthur M. Diamond, “Planck's Principle,” Science 202, 717-723 (17 Nov 1978). The subhead to the article is, "Do younger scientists accept new scientific ideas with greater alacrity than older scientists?" Answer: Age was only a small factor in determining who accepted evolution in 1869, or 10 years after the publication of On the Origin of Species. Intelligent designauts may have to wait a long time if they are waiting for skeptics to die out.

Matt Young said: Planck was probably wrong, at least with respect to evolution in Britain.

It's just projection. They know that they aren't doing any actual science. They know that they don't have any actual evidence. They know that all they have got is a few ignorant dipsticks that scream and jump up and down and get some attention. They know that all we have to do is wait for them to die and the entire movement will die off. They just assume that the same thing is true of science. They are incorrect.

Apparently the DI thinks that this is the way scientists actually do science.

So what will they teach at this "Summer Seminar?" How to plug variables into equations with total disregard for units; ala Granville Sewell? Or perhaps Dembski's log₂(K ^L) as the amount of unexplainable "information" in complex molecular assemblies? How to quote-mine real scientists to make them appear to say things they didn't say?

How about David L. Abel's self-cited works funded by his "institute" that operates out of his house? Or maybe Stephen Meyer's mish-mash of the Cambrian? Or how to destroy one's own ability to imagine how a complex molecular system can evolve from other complex molecular systems? How about multiple variations on the tornado-in-a-junkyard "argument?"

Will they learn how to set up green-screen laboratories and "publish" made-up stuff in the DI journal? Will they flip a coin 500 times to see if it comes up all heads? Will they learn how to trump science with "philosophy" and "metaphysics?"

Sheesh; $2500 for a seminar in junk science. And probably a "certificate" showing to the world that one wasted a summer learning stuff that is dead wrong. Not something to be proud of.

I can imagine better things to do with $2500; such as taking some real, beginner-level science courses at a nearby accredited community college or university; and then working and studying hard to be sure that the money doesn't get wasted.

You forgot about how to add sound effects to a video.

I bet 90% of their "seminar" is reading the text of their books. And the rest is explaining that God really is the designer, but you can't say that because of the evil atheists who control the country.

Robert Byers said: No its not creepy or crossing the line. WHY?? Its just saying the good ideas take time to overthrow the wrong and they need and want support to keep the cause in high gear.

Kevin said: I was curious as to these "summer seminars", since I'd never heard of them before. What I found made me throw up in my mouth. http://sententias.org/2015/02/03/discovery-institutes-summer-seminar-2015/ This guy (a PhD candidate in philosophy) seemed to enjoy it and listed the curriculum. It seems like a complete list of every failed claim and tactic the DI has ever used.

We must, however, not deceive ourselves – this naive belief does not exist nowadays even among common people, and it cannot be revived by backwards oriented (rückwärts gerichtete) considerations and measures. Since to believe means to consider something true (fürwahrhalten), and the growing knowledge of the nature, proceeding forwards incessantly along incontestably reliable path, had led to the result that for a man educated at least slightly in natural sciences it is entirely (schlechterdings) impossible to consider as reliable many reports about extraordinary events contradicting natural laws, about miracles (Naturwunder) which used to be generally accepted as essential support and confirmation (Bekräftigung) of religious teachings and which people considered formerly as facts without critical examination (Bedenken). The one who takes his religion really seriously and cannot tolerate that it gets into contradiction with his knowledge (Wissen), is facing the question of conscience whether he can still honestly consider himself to be a member of religious community which in its confession (Bekenntnis) contains belief in miracles. For a certain period of time many a believer could find a kind of reconciliation in an effort to take the middle way and to restrict his belief to acceptance (Anerkennung) of few miracles, considered to be extremely important. However, such a position is not tenable for a long time. The belief in miracles must retreat step by step before relentlessly and reliably progressing science and we cannot doubt that sooner or later it must vanish completely (zu Ende gehen muss). - Max Planck, fully Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck

Their vulture should itself by now be a skeleton.

Joe Felsenstein said: Their vulture should itself by now be a skeleton.

I would call it less creepy than unintentional self-parody. What can possibly be hoping to accomplish (unless they really are funding an assassination campaign)?

paulc_mv said: I would call it less creepy than unintentional self-parody. What can possibly be hoping to accomplish (unless they really are funding an assassination campaign)?

The initials on the cartoon vulture are D.T. Is that Dave Thomas?

If so, Dave is a pretty good cartoonist. Nice!

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

Joe Felsenstein said: Their vulture should itself by now be a skeleton.

It's been eating the generations of creationists/IDists going back to 1859, who died after predicting the demise of evolutionary theory. Not very appetizing, but for a vulture it's a living. Glen Davidson

It is not just about convincing opponents about the merits of ID. While books such as Stephen C. Meyer’s Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt have been met with critical acclaim, there is still a long way to go.

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: No its not creepy or crossing the line. WHY?? Its just saying the good ideas take time to overthrow the wrong and they need and want support to keep the cause in high gear.

No, No it doesn't, Beyers. The two slit diffraction experiment obliterated the controversy between the wave and particle theories in one afternoon. Once Arthur Eddington actually Einstein's relativity by measurements taken during a solar eclipse in 1919 the argument was over. How is DNA built? One good x-ray and we totally knew. What is the surface of the moon like? Stony? Powder? Ten feet of dust? Well aged Gruyere? As soon as someone landed there and came back with a picture the argument was over. It doesn't take time, Robert. If that was true organized religion would have won long, long ago with it's 4000 year lead. It just takes one good piece of evidence and the game is over. Yet despite all the time religion has already had, they still come with empty hands saying "if only you give us some more".

Creepy, or what? Discuss.

BTW, there is an all too brief exposition on what is called "Planck's principle" in Wikipedia.

A life that starts out in a test tube could be classed as intelligent design, as it has taken someone's intelligence to design it and to set it in motion. But whatever the outcome it couldn't be set in motion without the original genotype present. Alterations can be made, such as the colour of hair or eyes, and even personality, and that would make the life designed.

Mike Elzinga said: The initials on the cartoon vulture are D.T. Is that Dave Thomas? If so, Dave is a pretty good cartoonist. Nice!

The Planck quote is at best an exaggeration, and through the ambiguously salutatory influence of Kuhn, science studies has acquired in many quarters a deeply exaggerated view of the 'revolutionary' potential of new discoveries. Some more recent science studies have pushed back quite a bit on this exaggeration. The fact that some useful idiots like Steve Fuller have gone to the DI side indicates a deep lack of subtlety of thought in some areas of science studies. The guy Kevin linked to has not got the news.

So, even in history and philosophy of science, the DI is way behind the times even as they convince themselves that they are bold pioneers. The view of theory-change by analogy to political revolution always was highly questionable, and absolutely is not compelled for a new philosophy of science scholar. Of course, given their lack of scientific competence, the DI has nothing else. They've been waving these extremist views on scientific theory-change since the beginning.

Even taking an uber-Kuhnian view, the DI get no purchase on reality, because their arguments are jokes, their evidence is unserious, their mathematical posits risible and deeply fallacious, and so on. All of the 'revolutionary' discoveries cited in Kuhn's initial texts came form the mainstream of science (electron diffraction, etc.), not by arbitrary posits obviously designed to assert cultural dominance (creationism). There are sociologists of science who deny this distinction: I'd propose such people instead be called 'sociologists' of 'science'.

Please don't judge philosophy of science based on the ravings of the pinheads. And: too un-self-aware to be creepy. Idiots, that's all.

a tempest in a teapot

or another slow news day

You must be currently enrolled in a college or university as a junior, senior, or graduate student. Required application materials include (1) a resume/cv, (2) a copy of your academic transcript, (3) a short statement of your interest in intelligent design and its perceived relationship to your career plans and field of study, and (4) either a letter of recommendation from a professor who knows your work and is friendly toward ID, or a phone interview with the seminar director.

Why don't they require a letter from your pastor? documentation of baptism? virginity unless married?

What would be an acceptable career goal? Overthrow materialism and its cultural legacy?

RJ said: Please don't judge philosophy of science based on the ravings of the pinheads. And: too un-self-aware to be creepy. Idiots, that's all.

Their “metaphysics” skips all evidence and goes straight to their desired conclusions.

Vultures are bighly beneficial to the ecosystem and essentially harmless to living humans. And they,have a very cool looking way of flying.

Meanwhile, this is weak evidence for my hypothesis that donors are asking the DI where the progress is. They over-promised. Ken Ham just goes for KY sales tax discounts, the6y promised to "overthrow materialism" and strongly hinted that they would sneak creationism into public schools. There may be vultures circling over them.

DavidK said:

Kevin said: I was curious as to these "summer seminars", since I'd never heard of them before. What I found made me throw up in my mouth. http://sententias.org/2015/02/03/discovery-institutes-summer-seminar-2015/ This guy (a PhD candidate in philosophy) seemed to enjoy it and listed the curriculum. It seems like a complete list of every failed claim and tactic the DI has ever used.

Yes, the Dishonesty Institute offers such critical thinking talks on: Natural theology in cosmology Theistic evolution ID and the origins of modern science The metaphysical implications of ID And maybe they'll study the current research being done by illustrious people such as Meyer and Behe, perhaps study green-screen techniques as well? But I don't see anywhere a discussion on the strengths and weaknesses, particularly the latter, of ID, nor a discussion regarding actual research and evidence of ID being presented.

By 'pinheads' I was referring to undiscerning so-called 'scholars' as Fuller and his gang of anti-intellectuals. Not the ID'ers ('idiots').

Wow, these 'admission' requirements really tell the whole story, huh? The technical term for someone who i) claims to be a scholar/intellectual with a seminar to give, but ii) seeks to block those who disagree from participation, is 'asshole'.

So keep it straight on your intellectual villains, the important distinctions between 'pinheads', 'idiots', and 'assholes'. This should be the first question asked about a ID supporter - exactly what kind of moral and/or intellectual deficiency is on display?

I had thought that the University of Edinburgh was a relatively discerning place. How did a guy with two 'degrees' from 'Liberty' 'University' get in?

I think we need to be open to the bare theoretical possibility that physical science can be 'trumped' by metaphysics. We should not reject the possibility out of hand but refute on a case-by-case basis. Up to a point anyway.

If someone wants to do this however, they had better have something really, really good. And they had better acknowledge that every single past attempt has failed, almost always for totally elementary reasons, particularly the fact that metaphysical consensus is much harder to achieve than scientific.

RJ said: I think we need to be open to the bare theoretical possibility that physical science can be 'trumped' by metaphysics. We should not reject the possibility out of hand but refute on a case-by-case basis. Up to a point anyway. If someone wants to do this however, they had better have something really, really good. And they had better acknowledge that every single past attempt has failed, almost always for totally elementary reasons, particularly the fact that metaphysical consensus is much harder to achieve than scientific.

Here's a commentary by Casey Luskin about his interview with Wayne Rossiter who has written an anti-theistic evolution book. His thesis seems to be that TE doesn't give God the designer anything to do in the present.

Michael Fugate said: Here's a commentary by Casey Luskin about his interview with Wayne Rossiter who has written an anti-theistic evolution book. His thesis seems to be that TE doesn't give God the designer anything to do in the present.

Dr. Elzinga, you don't have to convince me, just the lurkers. Yes, the ID'ers always mangle the science, and often if not always the humanities input too. Yes, they confuse word games with substantive philosophical theses, and chronically. You'll notice I share your habit of scare-quoting the idiots and pinheads.

I decline your invitation to visit UD. 'Skeptical Zone'? Oh geez.

I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world.

Lets see Intelligent Design is giving chickens genes for growing:

meat eating teeth, heavy jaws, a long segmented tail, and a penis

All of which are first grown and then absorbed wasting vital food energy from the fixed food resource which is the yolk. In addition there is the waste of food energy as a result of the genes controlling the development and then breaking down of these features being copied over and over during cell division throughout the life of the chicken.

Nope more like totally Inept Design. Mind you it is exactly what the Theory of Evolution predicts would happen.

Not to mention, that it even tastes like chicken!

$75 will pay for the cost of ground transportation for one student. $200 will provide books and other curricular materials to one student. $800 will pay to house and feed one student for the entire program. $2,500 will cover the full cost for admitting an additional student into the program.