Arizona doctors who question evolution

Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity is an organization of Darwin-denying doctors being touted by the Discovery Institute as evidence of growing dissent against evolution. Those on their membership list in Arizona:

Dr. Richard D. Friedman, Internal Medicine, Chandler, Arizona
Dr. Joseph M. Kezele, Emergency Medicine, Cave Creek, Arizona
Dr. William H. Noland, Neurology, Tucson, Arizona
Dr. Joel T. Rohrbough, Orthopaedic Surgery, Flagstaff, Arizona
Dr. Allan T. Sawyer, Obstetrics & Gynecology, Glendale, Arizona

Personally, given the new developments in biological science and medicine that are discovered as a result of evolutionary science, I would not want to use a doctor who denies evolution.

Messianic Jew issues death threats to Colorado University biologists

For over a year, an individual has been harassing several evolutionary biologists at the Colorado University at Boulder about their "devilutionism," and has now crossed the line into threats. The Discovery Institute claims that whoever is doing this is clearly not a Christian, a creationist, or religious (of course, only atheists are capable of doing anything unethical or crazy, right?), but the identity of this individual is known to the people being harassed.

The Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, and Dispatches from the Culture Wars have more.

UPDATE (July 13, 2007): The specific kook responsible has been identified as Michael Korn:

Menacher “Michael” Korn is a 49-year-old Israeli national and former Messianic Jew who says he was baptized into Christianity in the Sea of Galilee seven years ago and is now on a mission to convert Jews and Muslims. His blog, JesusOverIsrael. blogspot.com, references CU-Boulder specifically and says he lives in Denver, although he has a North Carolina area code.

See Pharyngula for links to Korn's website and other information.

NCSE on Answers in Genesis schism

The National Center for Science Education has posted a brief report on the Answers in Genesis schism, with links to the coverage by The Australian, the Lexington Herald-Leader, the Duae Quartunciae blog, and this blog. In their report, they mention that

A piece by Lippard on the schism is to appear in a future issue of Reports of the NCSE; in it, Lippard concludes, "creationism continues to evolve in fascinating ways."

I encourage you to join the NCSE. The NCSE has long been the major force combatting creationism in the United States, including playing a significant support role for the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case decided last year, and it works on a budget that is tiny by comparison to those of Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, and the Discovery Institute.

Casey Luskin misrepresents the law

Tim Sandefur at the Panda's Thumb explains how Casey Luskin, attorney at the Discovery Institute, misrepresents the 1982 U.S. Supreme Court case of Board of Education v. Pico.

Luskin's misrepresentations of biology can be blamed on incompetency, but as a lawyer, shouldn't he at least know the law? I don't see how his continued misrepresentations--and failure to correct them--can be blamed on anything but dishonesty.

Montana Law Review symposium on Dover trial

The Montana Law Review has published an article by three Discovery Institute Fellows, a reply by Peter Irons, and a response by the DI Fellows (DeWolf, West, and Luskin). Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars has now published a reply by Irons to the short response from the DI Fellows; you can find all four contributions at his blog. I recommend starting with the first Irons reply, followed by the short DI Fellows response, followed by the Irons reply that Ed has published.

More Discovery Institute hypocrisy about Dover

Judge Jones' ruling in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case found the Dover Area School District's policy on intelligent design a violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause on two grounds. First, on the ground that it had a specifically religious purpose, and second, that intelligent design is not science but religion, and so the policy was an endorsement of religion. These are two of the three prongs of the "Lemon Test" for whether a state action violates the establishment clause.

The Discovery Institute has argued that Jones' ruling should only have used the "purpose" test and not the "endorsement" test.

Ed Brayton points out that this position is contrary to the position that creationists and intelligent design advocates have argued for the last three decades--that the "purpose" prong of the Lemon Test for violations of the First Amendment's establishment clause is unfair and should be abandoned. Ed observes that at least four DI personnel--Casey Luskin, Frank Beckwith, Mark Ryland, and David DeWolf--have all argued this way in the past.

His post also responds in some detail to the specific arguments made by Philip Italiano, a law student at Rutgers Law School, who is the latest to argue that Jones should only have used the "purpose" test.

Creationist finances: some conclusions

This post is a followup to my series of ten posts about the finances of creationist ministries which were previously reported in Reports of the National Center for Science Education in 2000 in an article by John Cole: Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, Access Research Network, the Creation Evidence Museum, Creation Illustrated Ministries, Creation Moments, Creation Research Society, Creation Worldview Ministries, the Discovery Institute, and, though not reported in Cole's article, I also looked at Walter Brown's Center for Scientific Creation.

As Nick Matzke pointed out in a comment on the last of these, there are other creationist organizations out there of some significance, such as the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (publisher of the creationist/intelligent design textbook, Of Pandas and People), Probe Ministries (Ray Bohlin's group in Texas which authored the annotated bibliography of Josh McDowell's book Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity--the anti-evolution sections of which were ghost authored by an individual who now supports evolution), and Hugh Ross's old-earth creationist group, Reasons To Believe. There are also five groups that were listed in Cole's article which I did not cover--these were the five smallest groups, the Creation Education Society of Tennessee, the Creation Resource Foundation of El Dorado, California, the Creation Science Association for Mid-America of Kansas City, Missouri (originators of the "Lucy's knee joint" argument), the Creation-Science Fellowship of Pittsburgh, and the Genesis Institute of Mead, Washington. And there are still others out there, like the Twin Cities Creation Science Association of Minneapolis/St. Paul, Kent Hovind's organization (which didn't file anything with the IRS, which is part of why he's in jail right now), and various online creationist ministries.

I may, as Nick suggested, take a look at some of these others in the future.

At this point, however, I wanted to see if any conclusions can be drawn from the data in the Form 990s of the groups I've covered so far. I took a look at one section of each of the Form 990s which gives income data for previous years, and totaled those amounts up for each year across all the groups for which I had data. In some cases, I had to use other sources which were not quite comparable (such as the revenue figures from John Cole's article), but are probably good enough for approximation to look at the size of the creationist market each year. (The main difference between the income figures I used versus the revenue figures is that the income figures show money coming in for purchases without subtracting the cost of goods sold, while the revenue numbers deduct the cost of goods sold.) The Discovery Institute's totals were used, even though the DI does more than creationism, so that may have contributed to an overestimate, while the omission of all of the other groups above would have contributed to an underestimate. Since the DI brings in considerably more revenue than the other groups, it would take quite a few creationist groups making less than $100,000 a year to make up the difference. So this can't be considered definitive.

Given this total size of the creationist market for each year, I then looked at each group's percentage of that marketplace, and how it has changed over time. Here are the numbers, rounded to the closest $1 million:

1998:
$13 million market
Institute for Creation Research: 45%
Answers in Genesis: 28%
Discovery Institute: 15%
Creation Evidence Museum: 3%
Creation Moments: 2%
Creation Illustrated Ministries: 3%
Creation Research Society: no data
All others: less than 1% each

1999:
$13 million market
Institute for Creation Research: 41%
Answers in Genesis: 30%
Discovery Institute: 13%
Creation Evidence Museum: 7%
Creation Moments: 2%
Creation Illustrated Ministries: 2%
Creation Research Society: 2%
All others: less than 1% each

2000:
$16 million market
Answers in Genesis: 46%
Institute for Creation Research: 34%
Discovery Institute: 10%
Creation Evidence Museum: 4%
Creation Illustrated Ministries: 2%
Creation Moments: 1%
Creation Research Society: 1%
All others: less than 1% each

2001:
$20 million market
Answers in Genesis: 46%
Institute for Creation Research: 30%
Discovery Institute: 15%
Creation Evidence Museum: 3%
Creation Research Society: 1%
Creation Illustrated Ministries: 1%
Creation Moments: 1%
All others: less than 1% each

2002:
$19 million market
Answers in Genesis: 49%
Institute for Creation Research: 31%
Discovery Institute: 12%
Creation Evidence Museum: 3%
Creation Illustrated Ministries: 2%
Creation Research Society: 2%
Creation Moments: 1%
All others: less than 1% each

2003:
$21 million market
Answers in Genesis: 52%
Institute for Creation Research: 28%
Discovery Institute: 15%
Creation Evidence Museum: 2%
Creation Illustrated Ministries: 2%
Creation Moments: 1%
Creation Research Society: 1%
All others: less than 1% each

2004:
$22 million market
Answers in Genesis: 59%
Institute for Creation Research: 20%
Discovery Institute: 16%
Creation Research Society: 1%
Creation Moments: 1%
Creation Evidence Museum: no data
Creation Illustrated Ministries: no data

Even with these approximations and limitations, there are a few things that stand out clearly:

1. The marketplace for creationism has been growing.
2. Answers in Genesis' market share has grown and dominates the market.
3. The Institute for Creation Research has had a declining market share.
4. The Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture has had a fairly static market share (overrepresented here, as well, since their numbers include other branches of the DI).
5. Other creationist groups have tended to lose market share in the face of Answers in Genesis's dominance, even if their overall revenue has grown.

Creationist finances: the Discovery Institute

This is the ninth in a series of posts about the finances of the creationist ministries which were previously reported in Reports of the National Center for Science Education in 2000 in an article by John Cole: the Access Research Network, Answers in Genesis, the Creation Evidences Museum, Creation Illustrated Ministries, Creation Moments, the Creation Research Society, Creation Worldview Ministries, the Institute for Creation Research, the Discovery Institute, and I'll add Walter Brown's Center for Scientific Creation to the list. I've already commented on Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, Access Research Network, the Creation Evidence Museum, Creation Illustrated Ministries, Creation Moments, Creation Research Society, and Creation Worldview Ministries. Now, the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute is a Seattle-based think tank founded by Bruce Chapman, former secretary of state for the State of Washington and former deputy assistant to Ronald Reagan. He founded DI in 1990, initially focused on regional issues such as transportation and communication. The DI's transportation arm, called the Cascadia Project, received several million dollars in funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. In 1996, Chapman and political scientist John G. West secured funding from C. Davis Weyerhauser's Stewardship Foundation, Howard Ahmanson, and others to create an organization within DI called the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture "seek[ing] nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies" and promoting "intelligent design." The initial DI research fellows were Steven Meyer, William Dembski, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, and Paul Nelson, with Meyer and West as co-directors of CRSC and Phillip Johnson as an advisor. The name of the center was subsequently shortened to the Center for Science and Culture (CSC). In 1999 the DI's "Wedge document" was leaked to the public, the circumstances of which became known in a 2006 story in the Seattle Weekly. You can find much more about the Discovery Institute at The Panda's Thumb blog. The financial figures below are for the Discovery Institute as a whole, not the CSC specifically. As usual, the baseline financial information (1997) is from John R. Cole's "Money Floods Anti-Evolutionists' Coffers" in Reports of the National Center for Science Education 20(1-2, 2000):64-65: 1997: Revenue: $1,832,398 Expenses: $1,323,899 And the last three years available through GuideStar.org: 2002: Revenue: $2,386,072 ($2,293,047 donations, $13,277 from goods sold) Expenses: $2,404,242 Net expenses at end of year: $1,819,294 Salaries: $238,035 executives/directors, $756,659 other salaries Individual salaries not listed, Form 990 states they are "available at office." 2003: Revenue: $4,233,814 ($4,141,679 donations, $10,466 from goods sold) Expenses: $2,499,077 Net assets at end of year: $3,554,031 Salaries: $338,977 executives/directors, $627,285 other salaries Executives/directors: Douglas Bilderback, treasurer: $23,397 Steven Buri, executive director: $72,621 Bruce Chapman, president: $131,696 Eric Garcia, treasurer: $16,430 Jay Richards, vice president: $56,750 Marshall Sana, secretary: $38,083 Employees: Bruce Agnew: $92,500 Steven Meyer: $90,000 John Drescher: $75,000 Teresa Gonzales: $55,000 2004: Revenue: $3,504,062 ($3,260,859 in donations, $18,572 from goods sold) Expenses: $3,539,228 Net assets at end of year: $3,518,865 Salaries: $354,000 executives/directors, $947,479 other salaries Steven Buri, executive director: $80,000 Bruce Chapman, president: $132,000 Eric Garcia, treasurer: $39,000 Jay Richards, vice president: $63,000 Marshall Sana, secretary: $40,000 Steven Meyer, vice president: $102,500 Employees: Bruce Agnew, program policy director: $105,000 Tom Till, program director: $105,000 John Drescher, program director: $85,000 Teresa Gonzales, program manager: $60,000 The Discovery Institute is an organization with considerable revenue, allowing it to pay extremely lucrative salaries to its senior management and employees. It has shown growth over the years, though revenue dipped in 2004. It has been influential in media coverage of intelligent design, though it has yet to fulfill its promises of scientific research supporting intelligent design and has suffered major defeats in the legal arena. Despite its high revenue, it is still smaller than Answers in Genesis or the Institute for Creation Research, which appear to me to continue to have better grassroots support than the Discovery Institute. You can find DI's 2002 Form 990 here, 2003 Form 990 here, and their 2004 Form 990 here.

Creationist finances: Access Research Network

This is the third in a series of posts about the finances of the creationist ministries which were previously reported in Reports of the National Center for Science Education in 2000 in an article by John Cole: the Access Research Network, Answers in Genesis, the Creation Evidences Museum, Creation Illustrated Ministries, Creation Moments, the Creation Research Society, Creation Worldview Ministries, the Institute for Creation Research, the Discovery Institute, and I'll add Walter Brown's Center for Scientific Creation to the list. I've already commented on Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research. Access Research Network was originally known as Students for Origins Research, which published a periodical on newsprint called Origins Research, a publication I subscribed to for a number of years and enjoyed reading. The periodical promoted an open-minded approach, avoided ad hominem, and was a cut above most other creationist publications. They printed two letters from me, one about Donald Johansen and Lucy's knee joint in 1989 (vol. 12, no. 2, p. 12) and one titled "Science Education" (I forget the specific subject matter) in 1992 (vol. 14, no. 2, p. 9). Origins Research began publication in 1978 and ceased publication in 1996, replaced by a quarterly journal called Origins & Design. Origins & Design suspended publication in 2001 and was supposed to resume publication online, but has not rematerialized. According to the expanded 2006 edition of Ronald Numbers' The Creationists (p. 550, note 21), C. Davis Weyerhauser of the Weyerhauser paper fortune was the primary benefactor who made Origins & Design possible; after he died in April 1999 the funds dried up. I don't see that reflected in a difference between the 1998 financial data (though I do not have a copy of the Form 990, only the revenue and expense numbers) and the last three years of data. Access Research Network has covered other areas besides the creation/evolution debate, involving science, technology, and society. Their website lists "genetic engineering, euthanasia, computer technology, environmental issues, creation/evolution, fetal tissue research, AIDS, and so on" as "controversial topics" of interest. They've been heavily involved in promoting "intelligent design" and have published and promoted the work of ID advocates such as Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, and William Dembski. The ARN board of directors is Dennis Wagner, Mark Hartwig, Steve Meyer, and Paul Nelson. ARN is a small nonprofit organization headquartered in Colorado Springs with no paid staff. On to the financial data--first, the 1998 information from John R. Cole's "Money Floods Anti-Evolutionists' Coffers" in Reports of the National Center for Science Education 20(1-2, 2000):64-65: 1998: Revenue: $59,311 Expenses: $82,548 And the last three years: 2003: Revenue: $46,674 Expenses: $56,874 Net assets at end of year: $14,624 2004: Revenue: $136,238 Expenses: $121,828 Net assets at end of year: $29,034 2005: Revenue: $78,855 Expenses: $82,306 Net assets at end of year: $25,583 ARN is a small organization, so it doesn't take much to result in large fluctuations (on a percentage basis) in revenue and expenses. Their expenses don't include any salaries, and are thus fairly easy to keep low. A few large donations or a popular book or DVD to sell can make a huge difference in annual revenue. In 2005, they made $28,397 of their revenue by selling items such as books and DVDs, $49,211 in donations, and the remainder from interest and book royalties. The largest categories of expense were $36,315 for Internet services (e.g., webhosting), $14,397 for postage and shipping, $12,155 for accounting fees, and $7,300 for office expenses. You can find ARN's 2003 Form 990 here, their 2004 Form 990 here, and their 2005 Form 990 here. Their website, www.arn.org, is currently ranked 375,303 on alexa.com. By contrast, the Internet Infidels website is ranked 68,915, despite having comparable revenue. (Consider an end-of-year donation at the Internet Infidels website.)

How the Office of Special Counsel got the Sternberg issue so wrong

Steve Reuland at the Panda's Thumb points out how egregiously bad the OSC has become under Special Counsel Scott Bloch, and how that led to its poor handling of the Sternberg affair:

1. Bloch is a far-right wing activist and a notorious homophobe.
2. Upon taking office Bloch immediately removed references to sexual orientation discrimination from the OSC website. Bloch has indicated that he will not protect gays from discrimination in contradiction of White House policy.
3. Bloch is alleged to have used the OSC for partisan political purposes by ignoring claims made against Republicans while vigorously pursuing complaints lodged against Democrats.
4. Bloch doubled the number of political appointees in the OSC, giving high paying salaries to many of his friends and fellow right-wing activists who have no relevant experience. He has simultaneously eviscerated the OSC’s professional staff, much of whom has either been fired for not relocating on short notice or resigned in frustration.
5. James McVay, who wrote the preliminary report concerning Sternberg, is one of Bloch’s more controversial political appointees. He has no experience in employment law, whistleblower law, or federal-sector work.
6. Many hundreds of meritorious cases, which by all accounts should have been investigated, were dismissed without investigation by Bloch’s office. Meanwhile, matters over which OSC has no jurisdiction have been pursued rigorously. (Sound familiar?)
7. According to the OSC’s own polling, Federal employees are extremely dissatisfied with the work being done by the OSC, and effectively no whistleblowers have received relief as a result of the complaints they filed.
8. When complaints were made about Bloch’s behavior and mistreatment of the staff, Bloch not only dismissed the complaints, he allegedly retaliated against the people who made them and issued a gag order preventing the OSC staff from speaking to anyone outside of the agency. Ironically, it is precisely this type of retaliation and intimidation of whistleblowers that the OSC is tasked with investigating.
9. As a result of OSC failing to discharge its duties and taking revenge on aggrieved staff, former staff members and numerous whistleblower protection groups have filed a complaint with the Office of Personnel Management, which has launched an investigation (still on-going, as far as I can tell). Additionally, two Senate committees were forced to hold hearings concerning Bloch’s behavior.

It almost couldn’t get worse. There is a long and sordid history since Bloch took over the OSC of cronyism, political bias, shirking, and unfair treatment of staff. Scott Bloch makes former FEMA director Michael Brown look like a brilliant leader and seasoned professional by comparison.

This explains how the OSC managed to produce an preliminary investigation on the Sternberg affair that is so completely divorced from reality. Put simply, it was a political hatchet job, yet another in a long line of abuses that the OSC has become infamous for. What’s perhaps most telling about all of this is that in spite of having a major backlog in cases, in spite of trying to pare down this backlog by dismissing meritorious cases without investigation, the OSC somehow found the time to investigate a case for which they knew they had no jurisdiction. Amazing, isn’t it? If you are a whistleblower who needs protection, or a gay federal worker who’s been discriminated against, the OSC simply doesn’t have time for you. They’re too busy pursuing cases outside of their jurisdiction in service of the Culture Wars.

Considering that Sternberg should have known that the OSC lacked jurisdiction, it is my belief that the Discovery Institute referred him to Bloch’s office knowing that even though the case was outside the OSC’s purview, even though there were more appropriate venues for handling a legitimate grievance of this kind, Bloch and McVay would dutifully issue a preliminary report that would serve the propaganda purposes of the DI. One even wonders if the DI wrote the report for them.

Reuland has more at the Panda's Thumb.

(The Sternberg affair is described here, here, and here.)

UPDATE (May 7, 2008): The FBI raided Scott Bloch's home and offices yesterday, Tuesday, May 6, 2008, seizing computers and shutting down email service as part of a Justice Department probe.

UPDATE (October 27, 2008): Scott Bloch has been fired.

Richard Sternberg, false martyr for intelligent design

Ed Brayton reviews the new report to Rep. Mark Souder which argues that Richard Sternberg of the Smithsonian Institution, former editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was a victim of persecution. The evidence in the report itself fails to support that conclusion, which appears to be politically motivated.

Brayton finds that:

1. What little ill-treatment Sternberg may have gotten (in fact, all of the comments expressing distrust and anger at Sternberg and urging his dismissal were made not to his face, but in private emails that he never saw) was largely self-inflicted, the result not only of his violation of procedures in regard to the Meyer paper, but in regard to several other instances of professional malfeasance and prior examples of poor judgement as PBSW editor.

2. The evidence does not support the conclusion that Sternberg was discriminated against in any material way. At absolute worst, he was greeted with professional mistrust and anger on the part of some of his colleagues, who were upset that his actions in regard to the Meyer paper brought disrepute to the Smithsonian and to them as associates. Disapproval and criticism, of course, are not the same thing as discrimination nor are they a violation of his civil rights.

3. Sternberg has grossly exaggerated several alleged instances of "retaliation" in the early days of the scandal. In particular, he claimed that he had his keys taken away, his access to the Smithsonian's collections taken away, and lost his office space. In reality, the keys and office space were exchanged as part of larger museum changes and he retains the same access today that all others in his position have.

4. The accusations, in particular, against the National Center for Science Education - that they conspired with Smithsonian officials to "publicly smear and discredit" Sternberg - are not only not supported by the evidence in the appendix, they are completely disproven by the emails contained therein.

5. All of that leads to the only possible conclusion: that this is a trumped-up report orchestrated by political allies of the Discovery Institute, particularly Rep. Mark Souder and former (I love saying that) Sen. Rick Santorum. They have put out a report that simply is not supported by the evidence and was designed, intelligently or otherwise, to support the disingenuous PR campaign that includes the attempt to position themselves as victims of discrimination.

Read the details at Dispatches from the Culture Wars. By my reading, the Smithsonian would have been well within its rights to give Sternberg the boot on the basis of his violations of policy and failure to take proper care of museum specimens which he had taken from the collections and was keeping in his office.

UPDATE: An earlier description of the Sternberg affair may be found here and here.

Discovery Institute's incredible hypocrisy knows no bounds

The Discovery Institute has been trying to criticize last year's Dover decision on the grounds that Judge Jones followed common judicial practice by copying text from the winning side's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in setting out the facts of the case in his opinion.

Now, it turns out that the Discovery Institute's David DeWolf, John West, and Casey Luskin (the first two of which are the authors of the critique of Judge Jones just referred to) submitted a paper to the Montana Law Review about the Dover case that was virtually identical to content in the DI's book, Traipsing Into Evolution, published in March 2006. This violated the journal's requirement that all submissions be original content, not previously published elsewhere, and the authors were forced to rewrite and resubmit--after this was brought to the journal's attention by a third party. The DI authors intentionally concealed this information.

More details at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

UPDATE (December 20, 2006): The editor of the Montana Law Review has responded, pointing out facts that absolve the DI folks of any deception.

Discovery Institute's latest attack on Dover decision

After a year of careful analysis of Judge Jones' decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the Discovery Institute has determined that the Judge made considerable use of the plaintiff's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law when writing the section on intelligent design as science in his decision for the plaintiff. Somehow, they think that this common practice of using the Proposed Findings of Fact from the winning side in crafting a decision makes Judge Jones a puppet of the ACLU, even though he's a conservative justice appointed by George W. Bush.

The Discovery Institute has issued a press release touting their findings as though it discredits the decision's reasoning. This press release demonstrates that they are still smarting over the loss in Dover, still spending their time doing things that have nothing to do with scientific research, and that they have as much credibility on legal matters as they do on scientific matters.

More by attorney Timothy Sandefur at the Panda's Thumb. This press release by the DI was telegraphed by a talk given by Michael Behe earlier this month in Kansas.

UPDATE (December 13, 2006): Ed Brayton analyzes the DI report in more detail, including responding to its claims that Judge Jones incorporated "errors" from the ACLU into the decision.

UPDATE (December 14, 2006): More responses:

Timothy Sandefur, "Is John West Dishonest or Just Ignorant?" and "Casey Luskin--Not Too Bright" at the Panda's Thumb.

UPDATE (December 20, 2006): Wesley Elsberry has looked at how much of the plaintiff's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law was actually used in Jones' decision (and how much of that section of the decision came directly from the plaintiff's filing). Ed Brayton summarizes at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

Casey Luskin has attempted to respond with a defense, but as Ed Brayton shows, he just keeps digging a deeper hole.

Cato Institute provides forum to ID crackpot cult member Jonathan Wells

Skeptic Michael Shermer is speaking about his new book, Why Darwin Matters, at noon on October 12 at the Cato Institute in Washington D.C. The Cato Institute is then showcasing a commentary on Shermer by "Intelligent Design proponent Jonathan Wells," whose dishonest books Icons of Evolution and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism, have been shredded at The Panda's Thumb.

Wells, a follower of Rev. Sun Myung Moon, entered a Ph.D. program at the behest of Moon. Wells wrote: "Father's [Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me to enter a PhD program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle."

Rev. Moon, who was crowned in a bizarre ceremony on Capitol Hill thanks to the support of a number of Congressmen, has also been supported by a variety of evangelical Christians who would ordinarily oppose cult groups whose leaders claim to be the second coming of Christ, such as Left Behind co-author Timothy LaHaye, his wife and head of Concerned Women for America Beverly LaHaye, Jerry Falwell, Family Research Council head Gary Bauer, Pat Boone, and Christian Coalition leader and Jack Abramoff pal Ralph Reed. Also involved with Moon have been former president George H.W. Bush and his son and President George W. Bush. (More on Moon and his connections to Christian and Republican leaders here and here.)

Why is the Cato Institute giving a forum to a purveyor of pseudoscience and an advocate of Moon's cult?

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Richard W. Rahn, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, is also a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and writes for Moon's Washington Times?

Efficient creationist quote-mining

The Discovery Institute has quote-mined an article co-authored by the National Center for Science Education's Nick Matzke 16 days before it was officially published in print (it had early publication online). Nick Matzke explains how the quote, pulled from its context, was used to misrepresent the state of the debate about evolution of the flagellum.

Tech Liberation Front brings on a Discovery Institute representative

The Technology Liberation Front is a blog I've been reading for a few months for its quality contributions on issues involving technology, regulation, copyright, digital rights management (DRM), network neutrality, and so on. It covers a lot of the same topics as Ed Felten's excellent Freedom-to-Tinker blog, with a strong libertarian bent.

What a disappointment it was to see that the newest contributor, Hance Haney, comes from the Technology & Democracy Project at the Discovery Institute. While Haney is in Washington D.C. and is not affiliated with the intelligent design wing (the Center for Science and Culture), crackpot George Gilder is a senior fellow of the TDP.

I commented to this effect at the Technology Liberation Front, which prompted a response from Lewis Baumstark:

As I have no previous knowledge of Hance or the Discovery Institute, I prefer to allow him to live or die here on the merits of his debate and analysis, not on his link to a pro-ID institution.

Lewis should remedy his ignorance of the Discovery Institute before coming to a conclusion about whether such an association taints Hance's reputation and credibility--surely he would not have said the same if Hance was a representative of the (in some ways more honest) Institute for Creation Research or International Flat Earth Society. As readers of this blog know well, the Discovery Institute has a long history of dishonest and deceptive public statements and attempts to influence public opinion, public policy, and educational standards. Do a Google search for "Discovery Institute site:lippard.blogspot.com" or "Dembski site:lippard.blogspot.com" for numerous examples at this blog; many more can be found at scienceblogs.com (especially Dispatches from the Culture Wars and Pharyngula) or The Panda's Thumb.

Jim Harper of TLF responded to Lewis's comment by writing "And the winner is . . . Lewis Baumstark! Curious. Courteous. Way to go, Lewis!" How odd that he would declare Lewis the "winner" when Lewis claimed ignorance of the Discovery Institute, or call him "curious" when his comment betrayed no interest in rectifying that ignorance. "Courteous," I'll grant.

I agree with the comment at TLF from Cog (of the Abstract Factory blog):

The Discovery Institute ought to be shunned by all right-thinking people, simply as punishment for so shamelessly polluting our public discourse about science. Everybody associated with the Discovery Institute should know, and never be permitted to forget, that their affiliation with that institution tars their name and calls their integrity into question.

This isn't to say that we should pre-emptively dismiss everything Hance says, but that he should never forget the cost that this affiliation will have for his professional reputation and all the views that he professes to hold. The suspicion of Lippard and others (myself included) is entirely rational, and promotes the proper working of the information ecosystem, just an investor's skepticism about former Enron executives would be rational and promote the proper working of the market.

Precisely so--it's not that Hance can't make valid or useful contributions, it's that anything he says needs to be given extra scrutiny because he willingly associates with and is employed by an organization with an established and continuing record for deception and dishonesty. "Guilt by association" is fallacious for evaluating the validity of an argument, but the company you keep is often a good indicator of your character and can create prima facie evidence about your reliability that your own words and actions may then confirm or refute.

I've experienced this myself--I'm employed by a company with a financial scandal in its past (Global Crossing). I continue to work there because I believe that the scandals are in the past and those responsible for them are no longer associated with the company, though my resume will likely always be somewhat tainted by the association and give me an extra hurdle to overcome. I consider myself fortunate that not only has the company cleaned up its act (the financial filings under the current CFO have been praised by former critics of the company for their completeness and transparency) but that my area of employment was quite distant from the scandal and has received public praise.

UPDATE August 28, 2006: Julian Sanchez comments on this subject here. Adam Thierer has responded to the controversy at the Technology Liberation Front, but he does not even attempt to address the issue raised by the Discovery Institute's regular practice of deception and dishonesty.

UPDATE August 30, 2006: Tim Lee has responded to the controversy head on at TLF.

Ed Brayton fisks Seth Cooper

At Dispatches from the Culture Wars, Ed Brayton has an excellent fisking of Seth Cooper, former attorney for the Discovery Institute. Cooper tries to argue that Judge Jones (of the Kitzmiller v. Dover School Board case) displayed bias and hostility towards Jon Buell of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics both in his behavior and by refusing to allow the FTE to intervene in the case.

Brayton points out that there's no evidence of any hostility in the questioning of Buell and that the facts and legal precedent strongly supported the refusal of FTE intervening one month before the end of discovery. He points out dishonesty by Buell, who falsely stated that "Neither "Creationism" nor its synonym, "Creation Science" was ever used in any Pandas manuscript, as alleged."

The post is a pleasure to read, go see it here.

Discovery Institute repays kindness with slap in the face

After Paul Nelson was misquoted in the Guardian, this was discovered by Nick Matzke of the National Center for Science Education and pointed out at the Panda's Thumb blog. Here's how Robert Crowther at the Discovery Institute reports the misquotation and Nelson's letter and blog post thanking Matzke for pointing out the misquotation:

Today there is another urban myth building up a head of steam, and being helped along by Darwinists, about Discovery Fellow Paul Nelson. Gaurdian [sic] reporter Karen Armstrong reports: 'Great shakings and darkness are descending on Planet Earth,' says the ID philosopher Paul Nelson, 'but they will be overshadowed by even more amazing displays of God's power and light.' And yet this is pure rubbish because Nelson never said anything like this, and it turns out that Armstrong never even interviewed him. Nelson points this out in his letter to the Guardian demanding a correction. (Note to Paul: don’t hold your breath)

Emphasis added.

I can think of numerous examples of nonsense, misquotes, bad arguments, and urban legends that are spread around by the creationists (there are many in Mark Isaak's index to creationist claims, including the "Lucy's knee joint" issue that I tried for years to stop creationists from spreading), but real examples of urban myths "being helped along by Darwinists" are much harder to come by. Crowther supplies no evidence that this spurious Paul Nelson quote has been "helped along by Darwinists"; the evidence I have shows that evolutionists were the first to try to stamp it out.

(Hat tip: Dave Thomas at the Panda's Thumb.)

Josh McDowell helps discover Noah's Ark

Yet another rock formation has been misidentified as Noah's Ark by evangelical Christian explorers ("Arkeologists"). They apparently forgot to bring a geologist or archaeologist with them, but they did bring "some of America’s leading businessmen, an attorney who has argued several cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, and two leading apologists" and take some incredibly unimpressive photographs. The expedition was led by former Costa Mesa, CA police officer turned "international explorer and author," Bob Cornuke, who runs something called the BASE (Bible Archaeology Search and Exploration) Institute. I hope his ethics are better than those of former nurse-anesthetist turned international explorer and author Ron Wyatt, who found a profitable career by claiming to find virtually every possible biblical site and artifact. (Wyatt, a Seventh-Day Adventist, was best debunked in a book by his fellow SDA members Russell R. Standish and Colin D. Standish, Holy Relics or Revelation, a book I highly recommend.)

Ed Brayton has done a good job of dissecting the claims in the announcement article. As he notes, this is far from the first such claimed discovery of Noah's Ark. This one is in Iran rather than the usual location of Agri Dagi in Turkey. I actually give them credit for not looking on Agri Dagi (Mt. Ararat), since the Bible only says that the Ark landed in a region called Ararat, not a mountain of that name (2 Kings 19:37, Jeremiah 51:27).

For a review of some previous claimed Noah's Ark sightings, see my 1993-1994 articles from Skeptic magazine, "Sun Goes Down in Flames: The Jammal Ark Hoax" and "Update on the Ark Hoax".

Dishonesty from Paul Nelson

Paul Nelson, who has usually been known as one of the few honest major advocates of intelligent design at the otherwise disreputable Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, has fallen temptation to make his case stronger by being deceptive about what one of his opponents said in a debate. Ed Brayton gives the full account.

UPDATE (May 30, 2006): The discussion continues, with Paul Nelson's involvement in the comments, here.