Former DI Employee Whistle Blower

Posted on by

From here:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/28/creationism-whistleblower-academic-freedom-is-sneak-attack-on-evolution.html

” Despite the scientific-sounding name, a former Discovery Institute employee says it’s anything but.

“DI is religiously motivated in all they do,” the person said, requesting anonymity. “One way to tell that the motivation is religion, and not science, is to compare DI work product to tech papers produced by working scientists in the field of biology or subfield of evolutionary biology. The two kinds of work product look very different, read very different, and were produced by very different means.” ”

…

” “Critical thinking, critical analysis, teach the controversy, academic freedom—these are words that stand for legitimate pedagogical approaches and doctrines in the fields of public education and public education policy,” said the former Discovery Institute employee. “That is why DI co-opts them. DI hollows these words out and fills them with their own purposes; it then passes them off to the public and to government as secular, pedagogically appropriate, and religiously neutral.” ”

…

” “I will take out all references to creationism and just focus on the stupidity of evolutionary theory,” Pennington wrote. “I believe they can be shown in classrooms… I know what to say and what not to say.” Other supplemental materials Pennington created say, “Macroevolution has never occurred,” and promote the creationist theory of irreducible complexity, which was debunked by scientists during the Kitzmiller trial. ”

Click through to the full article.

68 thoughts on “Former DI Employee Whistle Blower”

  1. Mung: Yes, obviously. Only obtuse and willfully dishonest persons would say otherwise.

    Well, you must think me obtuse and wilfully dishonest then, as I don’t see such an element.

  2. Mung: You’ve confirmed what, exactly?

    That human beings have no capacity to determine truth-values in non-formal domains independent of empirical data?

    And you’ve confirmed that pragmatically, you say? So we can use pragmatism to determine truth-values, and only pragmatism? And you’ve established this empirically, without using any logic?

    I suppose you contend that one can know truths by means of faith, right?

  3. Alan Fox: Well, you must think me obtuse and wilfully dishonest then, as I don’t see such an element.

    Indeed I do, but for reasons completely unrelated to whether or not you think there is a scientific element to the “Intelligent Design” movement.

    Pragmatic reasons. 🙂

    In fact, I had considered starting a thread discussing “posting in good faith,” but I’m always afraid now that my threads will be censored. But at least they won’t be disappeared! Oh yay.

  4. dazz: I suppose you contend that one can know truths by means of faith, right?

    I think it’s absurd to deny that there is an element of faith in just about everything we think or do, including whether or not truth-value can be discerned via empirical data.

    The very use of the term data calls that whole enterprise into question.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/datum

  5. Mung: Yes, obviously. Only obtuse and willfully dishonest persons would say otherwise.

    Alan Fox: Well, you must think me obtuse and wilfully dishonest then, as I don’t see such an element.

    For me, I have to agree with Mung on this, though only in the narrowest of margins. I do think there are elements within the concept of intelligent design that can be said to be scientific. For instance, I would say that in principle, the hypothesis that “living things look designed given their complexity and resemblance to the purpose-driven characteristics of human designs” could be pursued scientifically. That no actual proponents of ID, particularly those engaged in a culture war against secularism and “materialism”, have any interest in investigating that hypothesis scientifically is irrelevant to the point I think. Clearly though, how ID is presented and, more importantly, the basis of much of it’s promotion (for instance the Wedge document and the “Cdesign Proponentsists”, reduce much of its scientific value and credibility.

  6. Mung: I think it’s absurd to deny that there is an element of faith in just about everything we think or do, including whether or not truth-value can be discerned via empirical data.

    The very use of the term data calls that whole enterprise into question.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/datum

    There is no faith involved in scientific knowledge. It involves trusting reason and empirical verification can lead to tentative truth, but no a-priori belief. Reason can’t be negated anyway. It would lead to hard solipsism, no knowable truth

  11. Never has so little science been cashed in so often by so few.

    Never? I can think of one case. 🙂

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creflo_Dollar

    Dollar began developing World Changers Ministries Christian Center in 1986.[5] He held the church’s first worship service in the cafeteria of an elementary school in College Park, Georgia, with eight people in attendance. He later renamed the ministry as World Changers Church International (WCCI), and the congregation moved from the cafeteria to a dedicated chapel. Four services were held each Sunday, and Creflo added a weekly radio broadcast. On December 24, 1995, WCCI moved into its present location, the 8,500-seat facility known as the World Dome. The church has said that the nearly 18 million World Dome was built without any bank financing.[6] As of 2007, the congregation reported having around 30,000 members, and 69 million in revenue (gross cash collections) for 2006.

    and

    On November 24, 2014, Dollar’s private Gulfstream III jet, N103CD ran off the runway at Biggin Hill Airport, United Kingdom.[19] There were no serious injuries.[20] To replace the old jet, Dollar launched a fundraising campaign to get his followers to pay approximately 60,000,000 for a new Gulfstream G650 jet. He suggested his followers each commit to giving “$300 or more.” The jet he wanted was the “fastest plane ever built in civilian aviation.”

  14. Mung:
    Another ID book is coming.

    Maybe the cover photo will be Ann Gauger posing in front of the phony ID lab green screen.

  15. Intelligent Design can be tested and potentially falsified, meaning it has the hallmarks of science. I have a post waiting that explains how to test Intelligent Design- “Testing Intelligent Design” please review and release it for discussion.

  16. Frankie,

    I have a post waiting that explains how to test Intelligent Design- “Testing Intelligent Design” please review and release it for discussion.

    Published.

Leave a Reply