(2/2) Discovery Institute: Let the TRUTH Be Told
The Discovery Institute is the primary think-tank for the Intelligent Design movement. What can we determine about this organization based on its funding, personnel, and research record? By popular request, here is the link to the Panda’s Thumb article by Daniel Brooks on the Wistar Retrospective Symposium: pandasthumb.org The Wedge Document: www.antievolution.org www.antievolution.org More about the Biologic Insitute: en.wikipedia.org For more about the Discovery Institute: en.wikipedia.org www.discovery.org Video clips used are under Fair Use sections 17 USC § 106 and 17 USC § 106A Clips are short, illustrate a point of argument for educational purposes, are by nature published interviews in the public forum of YouTube, and do not affect the livelihood of the Discovery Institute or its members or fellows.
July 12th, 2010 at 7:07 pm
@levonet33, what a right wing moron. Did you stumble on some John Birch Society brochures in your grand-dad’s attic
July 12th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
@purplefuzzythings Only right wing creationist using stupid terms like “Darwinian”. They are simply projecting their fundamentalist simplemindedness on Scientists.
July 12th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
Religious groups are being conned by The Discovery Institute, in hopes of Stopping the teaching of evolution. That’s funny. Evolution is part of western education, that won’t change. Religious groups could find a worthy cause, like Natural Disaster, Poverty or even pay toward National Debt. What jokers…
Someone did their homework, on This Video…It’s juicy. Great Work!!
July 12th, 2010 at 8:07 pm
@sotrder You must be very proud of your commitment to ignorance on scientific matters.
Seriously though, do you really think you know more about this topic than people who have spent their whole lives and many years in University studying science?
Religion has its place, my friend, but trying to disprove evolution is not it. People have been trying to disprove evolution, scientists included, since it was first thought up and no one has managed to. I think it is time to start to accept it.
July 12th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
I wonder if the work in strengthening self deception, rationalisation, and other destructive behaviour has a higher pace than the work in increased critical thinking and other things in society counterworking this trend.
July 12th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
“it’s sad and a little scary” ??
No, it’s terrifying. If they get their way, we’ll be back to living in the dark ages.
July 12th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
Acta biotheoretica. LOL! It’s like the 260th best biology journal and has an impact factor of less than 0.7!
You know your career is over when that’s all you can publish in…
July 12th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
You don’t even know what you’re saying. “Darwinian”?
I guarantee that you have no degree in science at all. I guarantee that you didn’t even pay attention in science class, or went to a low-quality school.
You somehow fuck up in saying that evolution is a “belief”, when there are over 240,000 papers supporting it, and no one, not even the Discovery institute, has published a SINGLE paper supporting intelligent design.
I could go on, but it would be wasted on you. Learn how science works, first.
July 12th, 2010 at 10:44 pm
It’s not a belief system. The problem is you don’t understand the english language and you don’t understand what evolution is or science. Your ignorance allows you to make such a stupid and ridiculous statement. You’re a grade a moron, don’t attempt to make such a stupid ignorant statement again you delusional selfish stupid child.
July 12th, 2010 at 11:08 pm
Please see my latest video for why evolution is important to me, and to all modern research biologists. It works. I use it every day in my efforts to reduce suffering and prevent disease.
This is not, and never has been, between religious belief and evolution. It is between science and anti-science. The Discovery Institute is a handful of scriptural fundamentalists attempting to subvert the US Constitution by rebranding their particular dogma as ‘science’.
EVERYONE should stand up to that.
July 13th, 2010 at 12:08 am
You must be very proud of your commitment to defend your Darwinian beliefs.
July 13th, 2010 at 12:52 am
Excellent review of DI and ID. My compliments and appreciation to the producer for a succinct, methodical examination of a dangerous and unscrupulous organization. Please keep getting the word out about a hoax far greater than Piltdown.
July 13th, 2010 at 1:11 am
I don’t get the joke in the end :S
still 5/5
July 13th, 2010 at 1:58 am
. I would never presume to use a scientific veneer to validate my research on the Nichomachean Ethics and would be ridiculed if I did. The DI needs to stick to its obvious competencies: Communicating ideas about the noumenal and supra-noumenal!
July 13th, 2010 at 2:27 am
as a means to the end of duplicitously confusing their didactic dialogue as one with implicit scientific credentials. Idealists (in the Kantian sense) are of course free to enter the debate on philosophy of science, objections to secular society, epistemological debates on the limits of science or even the validity of the categorical imperative that is logic etc.
July 13th, 2010 at 2:36 am
An excellent and thoroughly well researched and presented defrocking of the DI and its worrying and nefarious insertion into the public dialogue on science in the US. I count myself as one of the philosopher/theologians that seem to dominate the CSC and am appalled at the frankly unethical masking of (what is quite legitimately) a theosophical/Christian think-tank as a science institute,
July 13th, 2010 at 3:24 am
levonet33 is a perfect evolutionary example of how our frontal lobes are too small and adrenal glands are too large showing a direct ancestry with more unintelligent tick chewing apes than a beautifully crafted fallen angel from the clouds.
July 13th, 2010 at 3:30 am
wow they always talk about satan but i guess satan is jesus’s best buddy since they both work same way. maybe satan said ok jesus ill cover ur ass but u suck my dick when no one is looking ok? jesus sure just make sure people will keep believing me so i can damn then to hell to be ur slaves lol! ill keep the males tho hahahaha!
July 13th, 2010 at 4:14 am
Yeah ok whatever, use that red scare type ideology, you religious people are good at being controlled by things like that.
July 13th, 2010 at 4:32 am
I admit I’m a bit confused by that too. Gene duplication and drift account for gene families.
They use symbolic logic for most of their argument that I am unfamiliar with. I much prefer experimental evidence and testing, and we know that natural forces are quite capable of design optimization.
Dembski gives me a headache if I listen to him for too long. His modus is self-contradiction alternating with obfuscation.
July 13th, 2010 at 4:59 am
the thing i’ve never gotten is how people like dumbski and meyer say that we don’t know the source of information ion biological systems. Well we witness various insertions and duplcations all the time.
And dembski’s own definition of information is “a choice among possibilities” (from what i’ve heard)
Well that’s what selection is, it’s a choice among possibilities in a population.
July 13th, 2010 at 5:35 am
haha. you crack me up.
July 13th, 2010 at 6:16 am
Hmmm…
Communism = state owned resources
Evolution = allelic change over time
Ah! It’s so obvious now, the connection!
July 13th, 2010 at 6:18 am
It’s pretty complicated stuff. It deals with a conflict between evolution simulators and biological information.
The DI has always contended that simulations that lead to increased genetic information must have smuggled it in by a specified target. They’ve chosen a non-arbitrary target.
It’s pretty esoteric. They’ve been refuted about “no new information”. This is an attempt to bypass the refutation by writing their own program.
I don’t know if it’s a fair test or not. Not my field.
July 13th, 2010 at 6:25 am
Isn’t trying to reach a given shape in proteins to resemble a han character sort of actually an (albeit surreal) demonstration of how protein shape can evolve?