Denyse O'Leary

The skinny:  Discovery Institute filed the public documents request on October 9, 2009, following the Center’s October 6, 2009 cancellation of a contract with the American Freedom Alliance (AFA) to screen a pro-intelligent design video, Darwin’s Dilemma, at the California Science Center’s IMAX Theatre on October 25, 2009. Podcast here, media release below: Discovery Institute Sues California Science Center for Suppressing Public Documents Showing Viewpoint Discrimination Against Intelligent Design Go here to listen. This episode of ID the Future features a special news alert by Casey Luskin. Discovery Institute has filed a lawsuit against the California Science Center for unlawfully refusing to disclose public documents requested by Discovery Institute under the California Public Records Act. Now the media release. For Read More ›

Justin Roberti, for AccuWeather, advises in a media release (December 2, 2009),

Climategate Used to Settle ‘Vendetta,’ says Mann

State College, Pa. — 2 December 2009 — Michael Mann, Penn State University meteorology professor, said Climategate is an attack on man-made global warming scientists.

“I think it is unfortunate that some scientists out there are using this situation to settle personal scores, to settle a vendetta,” Mann said, in an exclusive interview with AccuWeather.com’s Katie Fehlinger.

Watch interview with Michael Mann

Mann said that the e-mail leak happened just in time for the Dec. 7, 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, where world leaders, including President Obama, hope to come to an agreement on a framework for future international climate change mitigation.

“It is not a coincidence… that this event happened in the weeks leading up to the summit in Copenhagen,” said Mann. “They’ve taken scientists’ words and phrases and quoted them out of context, completely misrepresenting what they were saying.”

We also learn that

Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) from which questionable global warming e-mails were leaked, temporarily stepped down from his position yesterday to allow for investigation to continue without disruption. Mann protected his work and the work of his peers as Penn State launched an investigation into what critics call a fabrication of global warming data.

I don’t think AccuWeather’s people get it.

No one is misrepresenting plans to manipulate journals and sideline peer reviewers. They said it themselves. Then there was  the suggestion one would destroy data rather than let other scientists see it, via the Freedom of Information Act. 

If that latter comment was just a joke, well, that guy is definitely not ready for his standup at Laff Riot Nite. So I wrote back to Roberti and said,

Read More ›

Recently, Bill Dembski noted the Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience, aimed at Christians who take their faith seriously. It points out that the direction of public policy (= what Top People want) in the United States is in stark contrast to the beliefs of most of the people. It has been signed by many key leaders.

In my view, too many Christians in North America spend too much time stomping for Jesus and not enough asking themselves – what should I do about the general direction of public policy, given that I have a vote in my own country and – so far – also the right to learn the truth and to appeal to government?

American citizen: In many places in the world, you would never be so lucky as to have a real chance.

So is Manhattan relevant to ID? Well, like “climategate”, Manhattan helps us see the huge struggle we all face, once we allow facts to matter.

Many people today routinely make a living misrepresenting facts and – in Canada where I live – a surprising number also make a living chipping away at their neighbours’ civil rights in the name of “human rights.” Often, these cases target religious values, so “hate” becomes whatever lifestyle codes or opinions Top People or their proteges don’t like.

Many Americans, apparently anxious to compete, want into the shakedown. Shakedown can be very lucrative on the government tab. In Canada, for example, the “human rights” defendant must pay his own costs, but the plaintiff is funded by government. Also, some legislation is constructed in such a way that it is very, very difficult to be found innocent. One can in fact be a complainant for a living.

None of this current culture is good for honest appraisal of evidence, which is what ID represents. However, the current culture is very good for suppressing evidence, and for demanding that others suppress it too, and thus violate their consciences. Unless, of course, those others are self-righteous authoritarians who actually feel good about all this. In which case, they will feel even better about themselves and indulge their vice even more.

(Recent Canadian cases: Peterborough bishop charged over refusing to have a gay guy living with another gay guy as an altar server; gay bed-and-breakfast owner had to pay shakedown for not wanting a dog in his home because he is allergic to dogs; late nite comic whose jokes were deemed not funny charged under the BC “human rights” Tribunal. Once fulltime busybodies get their nose into government, professing to fight “hate,” there is nothing with which they will not interfere. And then, no surprise, the system is rapidly overtaken by political interests who suppress free speech about topics of vital public interest.)

This much else I know is true: Read More ›

I make no accusation, I am simply asking a question passed on to me by a reader. The reader copied this divulged e-mail on to me. Also, it is important for us if you can transfer the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day) will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible. Please, inform us what kind of documents and financial reports we must represent you and your administration for these money. Schemes to avoid taxes may be illegal in some jurisdictions, and I would welcome Read More ›

At Wired Science, we are informed “Birth of New Species Witnessed by Scientists” (November 16, 2009):

On one of the Galapagos islands whose finches shaped the theories of a young Charles Darwin, biologists have witnessed that elusive moment when a single species splits in two.

In many ways, the split followed predictable patterns, requiring a hybrid newcomer who’d already taken baby steps down a new evolutionary path. But playing an unexpected part was chance, and the newcomer singing his own special song.

My best guess is that if the girls stop dropping by, he will soon be either singing a different tune or a bachelor. Note the qualifications:

The future of the species is far from certain. It’s possible that they’ll be out-competed by other finches on the island. Their initial gene pool may contain flaws that will be magnified with time. A chance disaster could wipe them out. The birds might even return to the fold of their parent species, and merge with them through interbreeding.

But whatever happens, their legacy will remain: New species can emerge very quickly — and sometimes all it takes is a song.

Hmmm. Read More ›

1. The Positive Case for Intelligent Design Listen here. What exactly is the positive argument for intelligent design? This episode of ID the Future is taken from a recent lecture on intelligent design given by Casey Luskin. Because of the way the media misrepresents the issue, even those who may be predisposed to support ID don’t understand what the theory actually is. Listen in to discover what the scientific theory of intelligent design really entails. Actually, all that it really entails is what most humans have always noticed – that there is design in life, as well as iron law and brute chance. Just how science ended up supporting some unbelievable alternative position will doubtless be the subject of many dissertations Read More ›

Googling “climategate + Dembski” (as a simple way to retrieve a file from our site that I wanted to link to), I came across this” comment at Open Parachute, which makes excuses for the ‘gates:

Predictably only the most apparently damning emails have been quoted in the media.

Sure, it is pretty predictable that the most damning statements would be quoted, rather than the office pizza order.

After all, suppose some fellow – for whatever reason – doesn’t like me much. He wastes his employer’s time recording his opinions – and his computer gets hacked: So we read:

O’Leary’s taste in clothes is terrible … her writing style stinks … she has a most inappropriate sense of humour … I am going to hire a thug to beat her up … her garden is nothing but a tangle of weeds … I bet she is unemployed right now …

Which of these comments do you think would most interest me? I am afraid I cannot offer a prize for guessing.

Open Parachute whiffles on:

While I think some of the language in the emails is disappointing I don’t think it is surprising for informal private communications.

Well, that depends on who you are, I guess. How about this one:

“The two MMs [Canadian skeptics Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”

Wow, the open society on display.

Re Freedom of Information Act:

Read More ›

Darwin and the Mathematicians”, here, is David Berlinsk’s final interview with Evolution News and Views. Berlinski, a Darwin skeptic of long standing, discusses the reasons famous mathematicians have doubted Darwin, along with entertaining anecdotes. In the first part of the 20th century, Darwin v. Dissent had not yet acquired its riveting incarnation as a melodrama of intolerance. No heresy, no heretics is a useful proverb, and using, say, 1950 as a reference point, there were no heretics among the mathematicians because there was yet no heresy. Darwin’s theory was not then considered totemic; and his touch was not widely understood to cure erysipelas. Darwin v. Dissent is of our time and place. For more, go here. Berlinski has a new Read More ›

 I only got round to posting about this conference just now, and do not know if anyone else did before, but note this:

Atheists have disabled the web page for the ID conference in Castle Rock this weekend. They are also calling the 800 number and trying to tie up the lines so others cannot get through. This is really ugly. I am re-posting the information on this event info below. They will take people at the door, but get there early. Despite the opposition, several hundred have already signed up. If so inclined, pray for the vicious souls doing this and for the success of the event itself. (October 29, 2009)

Two comments come immediately to mind: Read More ›

A friend warns, wisely in my view, that we be skeptical about vast claims made in the popular science press about human evolution.

One paper asserts that FOXP2 was probably involved in the evolution of speech and language, but another paper has cautioned about being too hasty in making this conclusion.

Well, after the “Ida” fossil took in Michael Bloomberg, I’d be cautious about anything evolutionary biologists say. So should Bloomberg, herafter.

For what it is worth, I also don’t believe that Flores man is really a separate human species, because I have seen proportionately formed women on the streets of Toronto who were not more than one metre tall. But it’s just the sort of squabble no one cares about, and figures like Michael Bloomberg do not get involved.

Here’s one assessment from the science literature: “The finding that FOXP2 is critical to speech and language does not by itself demonstrate the role of this gene in the origin of human speech, because the function of FOXP2 could have remained unchanged during human evolution while other speech-related genes changed.” (Jianzhi Zhang, David M. Webb and Ondrej Podlaha, “Accelerated Protein Evolution and Origins of Human-Specific Features: FOXP2 as an Example,” Genetics, Vol. 162:1825–1835 (December 2002).)

Here’s a suitably cautious paper by by Alec MacAndrew on the subject:

No-one should imagine that the development of language relied exclusively on a single mutation in FOXP2. They are many other changes that enable speech. Not least of these are profound anatomical changes that make the human supralarygeal pathway entirely different from any other mammal. The larynx has descended so that it provides a resonant column for speech (but, as an unfortunate side-effect, predisposes humans to choking on food). Also, the nasal cavity can be closed thus preventing vowels from being nasalised and thus increasing their comprehensibility. These changes cannot have happened over such a short period as 100,000 years. Furthermore the genetic basis for language will be found to involve many more genes that influence both cognitive and motor skills

Human mind needs human cognition and human cognition relies on human speech. We cannot envisage humanness without the ability to think abstractly, but abstract thought requires language.

One thing to keep in mind is that human language is also governed by the need to communicate things that no ape would need to communicate. So understanding language requires understanding mind. Read More ›

Steven Meyer’s Signature in the Cell (Harper One, 2009) seems to be waking people up to the basic stupidity of modern Darwinism. Here: Most of Turek’s column riffs, quite rightly, off “climategate”: “You mean science is not objective?” No, unless the scientists are, and too often they are not. I don’t want to impugn all scientists, but it is true that some of them are less than honest. Sometimes they lie to get or keep their jobs. Sometimes they lie to get grant money. Sometimes they lie to further their political beliefs. Sometimes they don’t intentionally lie, but they draw bad scientific conclusions because they only look for what they hope to find. Misbehavior by scientists is more prevalent than Read More ›

It’s the ultimate branding strategy. Just slap “neuro” before a word and the goofiest speculation becomes respectable science.” Here: Unfortunately, neurotrash may not always be harmless nonsense in marketing departments about what color of car people choose. Increasingly, in the form of neurolaw, it is catching on in the legal profession, in the same way that lie detector tests did decades ago. What happened there was that some people learned to fake results – people who may well have committed serious crimes. Who knows how many others were damaged by false results when they were innocent? A serious ethical question also erupts as to why the accused’s brain should be scanned anyway. It is not a crime to think about Read More ›