The Discovery Institute, infamous champions of the whole Intelligent Design idea, keep a blog. That blog is called, rather oddly, ‘Evolution News & Views‘. This blog is odd for a few reasons but two immediately stand out. The first is the name … despite what the name might suggest, it does not offer any actual news but a lot of uninformed opinion. The second is that, which is very odd for a blog, comments on stories are not allowed/enabled; I am left to assume this is because they know the positions they take can not be credibly defended and fear debate on them.
The other thing that should be noted about ‘Evolution News & Views‘ is that the authors of it seem to simply not have a clue, as I shall demonstrate by taking apart and examining their last entry.
According to Dean Pizzo’s newsletter, when giving an award recently to a biology researcher, the Koch Foundation’s “Scientific Advisory Board” stated: “Research must remain free and therefore has to be protected from non-scientific influences such as ‘Creationism,’ ‘Fundamentalism,’ ‘Intelligent Design,’ or other non-scientific ideas or religious convictions.”
Oh, the humanity! The newsletter basically says that scientific research should remain uncontaminated by non-scientific hunches, wild guesses and the like. In other words, science is science and they’re not going to let anything religious or non-scientific mess with it. Maybe I’m a bit slow but I don’t exactly see the problem with such a statement.
Ignoring their inappropriate lumping of intelligent design with “creationism,” “fundamentalism,” “non-scientific ideas” and “religious convictions,”
What is inappropriate about that grouping? The Discovery Institute (or anyone else for that matter) have continually failed to show that Intelligent Design is actually science. Behe’s own testimony at the Dover Trial showed that the DI’s bizarre definition of science is something to be avoided at all costs, lest there be PhDs in Astrology. So, in short, ID is not science and should not be in anyway associated with genuine science research.
On the other hand, the Dover trial happened to show considerable and compelling evidence that ID is just Creationism in a rather silly hat.
it seems that in the Koch Foundation’s vision of the future, being “free” means that ID cannot have any influence upon research. I guess that “free” must be their newspeak word for censorship of ideas they don’t like.
More like it means that you are free to research whatever you like but you can not call it science unless you actually meet the criteria that everything else must meet. ID has failed to meet those criteria time and again.
I suppose if you don’t like the conclusion that life was designed, it’s much easier to just ban such ideas and “influences” from the scientific research community.
FSM forbid we leave science to actual scientists…
Such censorship and suppression has been done before, and if the Koch Foundation — cheered on by the Dean of Stanford’s Medical School — has its way, it will be done again.
Expelled showed cases of discrimination and censorship. Oh wait, each and every such case was shown to false. Guess it sucks to be Luskin.