The Discovery Institute accuses PBS of airing false facts

Transcript of today's show:

A day after PBS aired a documentary on the court trial that indicted intelligent design as "creationism in disguise", advocates of the theory are crying foul play. [See our previous show]. A report published on the web claims that the documentary contains at least ten blatant misrepresentations. The report, which offers detailed rebuttals to the false information, calls the film nothing more than "inaccurate propaganda".
[source: The Discovery Institute]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from the blog WindowView Press:

Public Broadcasting (PBS) on November 13, 2007, aired their best shot at dogmatizing evolution in the name of countering the concept of Intelligent Design (ID). The television show is based on the Kitzmiller versus the Dover Board of Education trial that was concluded by the decision written by Judge Jones in 2005. The trial is over, the debate is just beginning. NOVA, in the episode entitled “Judgement Day - Intelligent Design On Trial” shows examples of evolution without critique, but in cases where examples of ID are illustrated, the show adds a negative or a rebuttal spin. As a scientist with a doctorate, as the author of this piece you are now reading, I’ve learned to be more the detective, more discerning, than what PBS has done with their programming. If I were to give ID a chance to be known for what it is, I’d engage in a more objective review. Which NOVA did not do … to the detriment of us all.... [more]

from Pharyngula, the blog of biologist PZ Myers:

[The Discovery Institute's rebuttal] misses the point of the program entirely. If you've seen it, think back. What was the story it told? It has two parts. First, it made the case that Intelligent Design is not science…. Second, it showed that Intelligent Design is religion in disguise…. These are the premises that were tested in the court case, and these were the ideas illustrated in the documentary. The Discovery Institute "rebuttal" doesn't even touch these issues; their objections don't address the thrust of the court decision, which was accurately portrayed. The story is very simple, and this is all we need to say: Intelligent Design is not science, and Intelligent Design is a religious idea. That's the message, and that's the decision of a major court case, and that's what the scientists have been saying for years. And now, in the desperate gasp of the creationists, they've failed to even touch these conclusions.

from the blog Uncommon Ground:

P.Z. Myers points out that the Discovery Institute has its predictable “rebuttal” of Judgment Day. Their eight-point rebuttal is, as he says, picking nits. But I think he's wrong about it missing the point of the program entirely.

Basically, the Discovery Institute's Center [for Science and Culture] was in the business of marketing--not research. It had a product to sell - intelligent design -- and was focused on doing whatever it could to sell that idea. (Conservatism's Unintelligent Design, Greg Anrig, Jr.)

The Discovery Institute's “rebuttal” isn't intended to rebut the arguments against intelligent design. It's intended to rebut arguments that they aren't very good at marketing. They aren't in the business of doing science. They're in the business of marketing, and they're trying to protect their business – ineffectively.... [more]

from a comment posted on the blog Darwinian Fundamentalism:

John Stuart Mill had some very good advice for evaluating arguments:

"He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion…. Nor is it enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. This is not the way to do justice to the arguments, or bring them into real contact with his own mind. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form; he must feel the whole force of the difficulty which the true view of the subject has to encounter and dispose of, else he will never really possess himself of the portion of truth which meets and removes that difficulty. ... So essential is this discipline to a real understanding of moral and human subjects, that if opponents of all important truths do not exist, it is indispensable to imagine them and supply them with the strongest arguments which the most skillful devil's advocate can conjure up."

Is Wikipedia biased against intelligent design?

Transcript of today's show:

The Discovery Institute has been reporting unfair and erroneous Wikipedia entries on intelligent design that are biased against the theory. They claim that some statements incorrectly associate intelligent design theory with religious belief, and that in other instances, statements supporting intelligent design have been repeatedly removed. They also contend that critics dominate the Wikipedia entry, with as many as 50% or more of the references containing citations critical to intelligent design. [source: Evolution News and Views/Discovery Institute]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
These allegations are correct. Wikipedia is trying to be factual. The fact is, ID is religious and a subterfuge for the fundamentalist religious right. Wikipedia isn’t falling for the Discovery Institute’s intent to portray themselves as secular.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
It is interesting to me that the Intelligent Design movement can repeat over and again that they are a secular belief system. Yet the left-wing press, and Wikipedia, keep insisting that they are not. A short visit to the Discovery Institute web site will make it luminously clear that the ID movement has no religious affiliation at all. Wikipedia was intended to be the encylopedia of the people, and yet this kind of cultural bias continues to show up in their entries.

Trying to have it both ways

Transcript of today's show:

William Dembski, a leading intelligent design theorist, has an apparent knack for parlaying his theory into one-size-fits-all proselytizing. When addressing Christian audiences, Dembski has named God as the mysterious designer. Yet, when debating scientists on CNN, he insists that intelligent design does not require the designer to be God. Much as Dembski may try to distance his science from the church, blatant contradiction may not be the best approach. [source: Respectful Indolence blog]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
Here is a double-headed Trojan Horse. We know it's common for politicians and salesmen to adapt their parlance for the purpose of resonating with different groups and their different interests. It's ingenious, really, but unfortunately it's disingenuous as well. Perhaps pragmatically, it is the moral price society must pay for winning the race or making the sale.

So, can we really blame Dembski, who is merely putting to practice one of the oldest sales tricks on the books? Yes and no. No because, come on, he's selling a product that has been patently rejected by the whole scientific community! This is a hard sell. He deserves a trick or two.

Yes, we should blame Dembski, because in his effort to sell his Intelligent Design theory to the people, he is a) misrepresenting science, and b) concealing the fact that ID theory is simply creationism dressed up. What Intelligent Design advocates want to sell us is not a cool, alternative 'origins of life' theory, but an entire theocratic agenda which would seek to change fundamental aspects of American society itself. Dembski et al, should indeed be blamed, not only for their fraudulent misrepresentation of science, but ultimately for attempting to perpetrate a fundamentalist-based covert operation on the American public.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
Christians, of course, do believe the Designer is God. Mr. Dembski is not out of line speaking agreeably to this belief when he addresses a Christian audience directly. He himself a believer, so would it not be dishonest for him to say otherwise? As for the secular audiences, it is altogether appropriate for Dembski to state no opinion on the matter, given that the scientific method insists on impartiality and the absence of personal beliefs.

An accusation of plagiary in the Dover court ruling

Transcript of today's show:

Scholars at the Discovery Institute claim that a key section of last year’s influential Dover court decision on intelligent design was plagiarized. Their investigation has revealed that part of Judge John Jones’ ruling was copied nearly verbatim from a document he received from the ACLU a month before the ruling. The Discovery Institute says that this finding seriously undercuts the credibility of the ruling, which abolished intelligent design from Pennsylvania classrooms. [source: Discovery Institute]


Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
The idea that a Bush-appointed Republican judge would be swayed by an ACLU document in his Dover Court ruling strikes me as ludicrous. I have not seen the ACLU report nor the final ruling, so I cannot comment on the veracity of the Discovery Inst.’s accusations. But for fun, let’s assume that the accusation of plagiary is true. Does that really mean the ruling itself – its intent and meaning - is flawed? Or are the guys at Discovery naive enough to believe that Judge Jones was, in the end, hijacked and brainwashed by the ACLU repPublish Postort, causing him to reverse his original intention in the final ruling he handed down. I think not.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
The question we must ask ourselves (and Judge Jones particularly), is: Was Judge Jones thinking for himself? A plagiarism of this magnitude can certainly lead one to believe that the judge was influenced by the plagiarized material. This does not appear to bode well for Judge Jones nor for the ruling. Should a mistrial result, I know there will be many Christians who celebrate the opportunity for a second chance on this very important issue.

McCain delivers keynote speech to Creationism advocacy group

Transcript of today's show:

Senator John McCain spoke last month at the Discovery Institute, an Intelligent Design think tank. Despite his inconsistent support of including Intelligent Design in science education, McCain accepted the group’s invitation to deliver a keynote address. For years, McCain has fluctuated wildly in his advocacy of the religious right think tank, who has been described as a theocratic outfit that advocates the replacement of American civil law with biblical law. [source: Think Progress]


Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
McCain’s on-again, off-again relationship with the religious right appears to be on again. For years, McCain has held an ambiguous position on teaching Intelligent Design in public schools. In 2005, he said it should be taught. Last year he said it should “probably not” be taught. One cannot help but see this speech as a warming up to the Intelligent Design community who may feel snubbed and confused. Perhaps he’s seeking political reconciliation with the well-funded, well-connected Discovery Institute, which we all know is home to a creationist think tank with a theocratic political agenda. Does McCain think that associating with conservative Christians will help him win in 2008? If he does, he better take a pro-Intelligent Design stance and stick to it once and for all.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
Any assumption that Senator McCain is paying lip-service to those at the Discovery Institute is either based on dis-information or sheer denial of the facts. This speaking event was a gathering of the Seattle World Affairs Council and the CityClub of Seattle. The nature of the meeting, and of McCain’s speech itself, was discussion of the role of the U.S. in the global community. Intelligent Design and the teaching thereof in public schools was not topic on the group’s agenda.