Christine Shellska: “Discovering the Discovery Institute” (NOT)

_{Salvador Cordova

July 31, 2012

Culture, Education}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

An entire PhD dissertation about the Discovery Institute is being put together by Christine Shellska. Her claim is:

I argue that the Discovery Institute has “rebranded” creationism as ID, and that its strategies include attempts to disrupt the translation of evolution into education and the broader public.

Discovering the Discovery Institute

Some problems with her thesis:

1. “creation science” was the term used in the book Pandas and People and later changed to “intelligent design”. Even presuming purely for the sake of argument the change to from “creation science” to “intelligent design” was for nefarious purposes, that name change cannot be attributed to the Discovery Institute since they weren’t the publisher this work or any other such work (at least that I know of).

2. “creation science” even as used in Pandas and People is not the same as the “creation science” that was the subject of the Edwards and Aguillard Case which effectively banned the teaching of “creation science”. There is a problem of equivocating what “creation science” actually means:

From Wiki:

The main ideas in creation science are: the belief in “creation ex nihilo”; the conviction that the Earth was created within the last 10,000 years; the belief that mankind and other life on Earth were created as distinct fixed “baraminological” kinds; and the idea that fossils found in geological strata were deposited during a cataclysmic flood which completely covered the entire Earth.[6] As a result, creation science also challenges the geologic and astrophysical evidence for the age and origins of Earth and Universe, which creation scientists acknowledge are irreconcilable to the account in the Book of Genesis.[4]

whereas in the earlier version of Pandas and People creation is:

Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent Creator with their distinctive features already intact—fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc

So arguably, the “creation science” in Pandas and People is not really the same “creation science” in the Edwards and Aguillard case. And in fact, elements of the modern version of Intelligent Design can be argued to be “anti-creationist” (which is my next point).

3. There has definitely been a strong paper trail that ID is different from tradition creationism as creationism is defined by Edwards vs. Aguillard. One only need look at the relevant literature to see the distinctive differences and disagreements. For example, the celebrated ID work Privileged Planet is based on a very different cosmology than Young Earth Creationism. This can’t be attributed to some sort of “rebranding” or stealth creationism. In fact, some YECs would argue that Privileged Planet is anti-creationist in as much as YECs argue the stars and planets were created, not evolved! So to be accurate, ID (as described in Pandas and People) has been rebranded to have some anti-creationist elements. These nuances are not mentioned in her work so far, but it is not too late for her to make corrections (if she is willing).

Again, Christine says:

I argue that the Discovery Institute has “rebranded” creationism as ID, and that its strategies include attempts to disrupt the translation of evolution into education and the broader public.

If she said “disrupt the translation of the falsehoods of evolution into education and the broader public” that would be a more accurate statement. Even assuming purely for the sake of argument that the motivations by the Discovery Institute are nefarious, there are evolutionary falsehoods going into education and the broader public that are called out in the scientific literature but prevented from reaching educational institutions and the broader public.

Her work doesn’t strike me as being malicious so much as being deeply misinformed (She confesses she relies on Josh Rosenau and PZ Myers for her information.) From her writings, she seems temperate and polite. There is no hint of the sort of invective that is usually put forward by Darwinists. However, her thesis needs to account for some nuances. If she hasn’t already, she would do well to actually interview the leaders of the Discovery Institute! I mean, after all her dissertation is about the Discovery Institute. Scholarship would demand better standards than rehashing second-hand biased information from Josh Rosenau and PZ Myers.

Comments

F/N 2: S, slide 27, immediately following the above:
Views From Which Science Proceeds • Materialism – All that exists is composed of matter – Consequently, there is no spiritual component to reality
1 --> A priori, Lewontinian materialism, in so many words. (See how this is a real problem, not a made-up one?) 2 --> Fails to understand that materialism is a questionable worldview, on phil terms, much less that it is not a proper a priori for doing science. 3 --> For just one instance, Haldane:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms." ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]
4 --> S's approach begs for Johnson's retort to Lewontin, in First Things, in 1997:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
KFkairosfocus_{August 1, 2012
August
08
Aug
1
01
2012
12:21 AM
12
12
21
AM
PDT}

F/N: From Shellska's slideshow:
Views From Which Science Proceeds • Methodological naturalism – We acquire knowledge by looking for natural causes and effects – Appeals to the supernatural are unnecessary or irrelevant to explain natural phenomena . . . . ID Spin on Naturalism • It is not broad enough in scope because it fails to accommodate evidence of intelligence • Biased against evidence of a designer • The dominant paradigm in science • Undemocratic • Viewpoint discrimination! • Be skeptical about evolution! • Think critically about how naturalism restricts academic freedom! • Teach the controversy!
Problems (reflective of a lack of background to address objectively and substantially on the merits -- which here is not an ad hom evasion of issue by attacking person, it is saying that something is wrong with the project undertaken by S and her department which will ultimately not reflect well on a uni I have had dealings with and have had reason to like and respect): 1 --> From Plato The Laws Bk X on, the key alternative has been nature (= chance and necessity vs ART-ificial) so this is not latterday spin. 2 --> It can be inductively shown and backed up by needle in haystack analysis similar to what grounds stat form of 2nd law of thermo-D, that there are characteristic signs of mechanical necessity, stochastic contingency and choice contingency that under those circumstances can be reliably empirically observed. (Think (a) a coin falls like other heavy objects when released, (b) 501 coins in a line in no particular H/T order and with H:T near 1:1, (c) 501 coins in a line arranged to spell out the first 73 or so characters of this post in ASCII code. Ask, why we see as different?) 3 --> So we do not ONLY acquire knowledge by looking for natural causes and effects, but for INTELLIGENT causes and effects too, e.g. forensic investigations are a common case, which do use scientific methods as a matter of routine. 4 --> The design inference is NOT an appeal to the supernatural, that is B Forrest's/NCSE's/ACLU's irresponsibly false talking point -- copied, errors and all by Judge Jones at Dover. 5 --> We are only entitled to eliminate a possible intelligent cause if we know already that no intelligence was possible at the point of causation, which in this case begs the question (and the atheistical milieu at work in S's case easily shows why this is going on). 6 --> So, a strawman backed up by question begging has been erected 7 --> The DI objection regarding question begging is sustained on examination. 8 --> That methodological naturalism is currently dominant in science of origins, only says that we have a current orthodoxy. For over 1,000 years, Ptolemaic astronomy was reigning orthodoxy, one backed by considerable evidence and invested talent. It was capable of good enough predictions, just it kept getting more and more complex. It was overthrown on further investigations, but not without a few famous scientific-political fights (they are often miscast as sci vs religion). But, appeals to the reigning orthodoxy can be quite persuasive, to those who are in a milieu that makes that appealing. As we are seeing, in ever so many ways for this case. 9 --> In addition, precisely because the past of origins is unobservable, the degree of warrant* attaching to theories of origins is inherently lower than that attaching to investigations of the current world as a going concern. So, it is entirely appropriate to call for a philosophically and historically literate presentation of the limitations and controversies for such cases, in the wider context of the same for scientific methods in general. 10 --> Notice, Newton's frank admissions on limitations in Principia, his Rules of thought in science, and in Opticks, Query 31. The latter, being written in English so accessible to the ordinary man. KF *PS: M, FYI, warrant is not a "bayesian" term as such, it is primarily brought up in the context of Gettier counter-examples to "knowledge is justified, true belief," which led to a need for a distinction in terms that allows an indication of objective grounding of knowledge claims. It is possible to have a justified and true belief that is not properly a case of knowledge.kairosfocus_{August 1, 2012
August
08
Aug
1
01
2012
12:11 AM
12
12
11
AM
PDT}

scordova: "But Maus, why do you rebuke me, and not Gregory? Your criticism is hardly equitable." Absolutely correct, I expect more of you than him. The both of you will take that however your prefer.Maus_{July 31, 2012
July
07
Jul
31
31
2012
11:04 PM
11
11
04
PM
PDT}

Should we then brand Joseph Stalin a creationist as well?
Or how about Mao Tse Tung? Good one johnnyb!scordova_{July 31, 2012
July
07
Jul
31
31
2012
09:04 PM
9
09
04
PM
PDT}

If the importation of emotion is the showstopper for you then simply replace ‘ideology’ with ‘philosophy’ and ‘ideologue’ with ‘philosophical commitment’. And then reread Gregory’s posts.
But Maus, why do you rebuke me, and not Gregory? Your criticism is hardly equitable. You could say, "Gregory, you better rephrase your comments, you're adding needless distraction. Re-write what your wrote."scordova_{July 31, 2012
July
07
Jul
31
31
2012
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT}

"“A creationist is defined as someone who is an ideologue.”" So Richard Dawkins is a creationist? Who knew? Seriously, if you want to offer up a definition, you should, but the definition you offer has nothing to do with creationism. Should we then brand Joseph Stalin a creationist as well?johnnyb_{July 31, 2012
July
07
Jul
31
31
2012
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT}

In saying iD is rebranded creationism is a ACCUSATION that iD is dishonest in its identity. Its just a old accusation . Nothing new here. Then its also saying that since YEC etc creationism is wrong and bad then ID being these folks makes ID bad too. ID is clear in who and what it is. Call her on this accusation about the motives and so character of ID folks!! Words matter. ID is based on ideas, criticisms, and conclusions like anything else. ID is not YEC. Nail these critics on their malicious or ignorant accusations. if they want prestige then they should rebrand their point of view. She is calling ID 'ers LIARS! Plead not guilty and accuse her of incompetence or dishonesty.Robert Byers_{July 31, 2012
July
07
Jul
31
31
2012
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT}

scordova, I hate to step between you two lovebirds, but Gregory has the right of it by function. And you have the right of it by perjorative emotional connotations. If the importation of emotion is the showstopper for you then simply replace 'ideology' with 'philosophy' and 'ideologue' with 'philosophical commitment'. And then reread Gregory's posts. Does the difference matter? Only if you wish to be an ideologue about the word 'ideologue'.Maus_{July 31, 2012
July
07
Jul
31
31
2012
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT}

Dictionary definition:
ideologue an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology
Gregory, even if (for the sake of argument) someone is blind, you're rude for insinuating people to their face they are blind, especially JohnnyB. You're manners stink Gregory, for a social "scientist", you rarely demonstrated social graces toward ID proponents. You try to psychoanalyze them to their face. That's plain rude.scordova_{July 31, 2012
July
07
Jul
31
31
2012
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT}

John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research, says:
"The differences between Biblical creationism and the IDM should become clear. As an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization, ICR is concerned with the reputation of our God and desires to point all men back to Him. We are not in this work merely to do good science, although this is of great importance to us. We care that students and society are brainwashed away from a relationship with their Creator/Savior. While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them."-
All Creationists are IDists but not all IDists are Creationists, well unless you redefine "Creationist". But then again the only way to make ID anti-evolution is to redefine "evolution".Joe_{July 31, 2012
July
07
Jul
31
31
2012
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

I will if you will, Salvador. You have already admitted that you are a 'creationist.' I have suggested to you that 'creationists' are 'ideologues.' Do you admit then that you are a 'creationist ideologue' because all creationists are ideologues? I have a feeling you haven't a clue about what 'ideology' means or how it influences you. So, if you decide to admit to me only a pseudo-ideology, it won't be a fair trade. Tell me you are a 'creationist ideologue' and I'll tell you what kind of ideologue I am (and it's not an evolutionist or Darwinist!). You may be happy to make clear what sort of ideologue I am, but are you equally ready to make clear what sort of ideologue you are? Most, if not all sociologists are ideologically committed or biased. That is not a secret (it is less secretive than for most other scientists/scholars, who are also inevitably ideologically committed and biased). But asking a personal question of which ideological committments or biases a given sociologist has is another story.Gregory_{July 31, 2012
July
07
Jul
31
31
2012
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT}

The traditional usage and meaning of the term "creationist" is quite clear. Anyone interested and open to the truth can easily figure it out. Ask any creationist and they will tell you. Ask any IDer and they will tell you. There is a difference between the two. Most IDers believe in some kind of Creator, but that has nothing to do with their science. The only difference between IDers and non-ID evolutionists is that non-ID evolutionists rule out any role for the supernatural from the beginning and look for purely natural causes for the universe no matter how difficult the problem they face, while ID scientists recognize the implications of design and are willing to consider a role for the involvement of an outside Intelligence. Creationists start with a clear bias, just like non-ID evolutionists. Instead of rejecting a role for a Creator in the emergence of life, true Creationists begin with the axiom that God did create the world ex-nihilo - most believing that took place in the recent past. Yes, if you re-define the term creationist to mean anyone open to the role of a Creator in the origin of life, then IDers can be called creationists, but there is a big difference between true creationists and IDers. I'm a "true creationist" so I should know. I don't view IDers as creationists. Some even believe in common descent! That is a far cry from creationism. It is telling that evolutionists simply ignore the truth and make up their own definition to suit their needs that allows them to characterize both creationists and IDers with that horrible brand of "creationist". It is actually quite a smart strategy as the horror that people feel towards creationists is now channeled towards IDers as well simply because of the re-branding and new use of the baggage-loaded word "creationist".tjguy_{July 31, 2012
July
07
Jul
31
31
2012
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT}

do you want to apologise to me for calling me a ‘commie sociologist ideologue’?
I didn't call you that. So no apology from me. So what sort of ideologue are you? I'm happy to make clear from now on what sort of idealogue you are.scordova_{July 31, 2012
July
07
Jul
31
31
2012
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT}

By that definition, commie sociologist ideologues are commie sociologist ideologues. Thankfully, however, they are not 'creationists.' These are not 'veiled insults,' Salvador. I speak as someone who has studied ideology more thoroughly than *anyone* in the IDM. Simply I am telling you that 'creationists' are 'ideologues.' That includes you, since you've labelled yourself as a 'creationist'. To connect with the other thread: you being a 'creationist' extends from you accepting (as true, real, right, justified, etc.) creationist ideology. If you take that as insulting, that's on you, not on me - you are insulting yourself by consciously taking an ideologue's label. (It would be similar if I called you a Clippers fan, given that you cheer for the Clippers, have season's tickets and argue with anyone who down-talks the Clippers about how great the Clippers are.) The insult is not in what I say if those are the facts and what you choose to believe. Drop the ideology of 'creationism' and you will cease to be a 'creationist ideologue;' it's that simple, Sal. But you likely think that means you would have to 'give up faith in God,' according to your view of religion and the pressure of your local church community. You don't seem to understand the power of creationist ideology mixing with your (personal) religion. So, there's a real dilemma. There was nothing insulting meant in my cordial reply to johnnyb. It was unemotional and scholarly. An expression of fact and opinion informed by studying ideology and having lived and breathed with its remnants. 'Creationism' is a textbook example of ideology. Now, do you want to apologise to me for calling me a 'commie sociologist ideologue'? A 'commie' I most surely am not. Respectfully, Gr.Gregory_{July 31, 2012
July
07
Jul
31
31
2012
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

“A creationist is defined as someone who is an ideologue.”
LOL! By that definition commie sociologist ideologues are creationists.scordova_{July 31, 2012
July
07
Jul
31
31
2012
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

From Shellska: "I argue that the Discovery Institute has “rebranded” creationism as ID, ..." And Kepler "rebranded" epicycles as ellipses. From scordova: "There is a problem of equivocating what “creation science” actually means:" "Creation science" is a philosophical commitment to origins. No more and no less than current Cosmology or Evolution. It is only equivocation if you are under the misunderstanding that by 'Evolution' they mean a scientific theory, complete with falsifiable predictions, and not an umbrella notion of 'which' 'creation science' is 'The Creation Science'. But then if they meant a scientific theory they would hardly have their knickers in a twist about apostates and heretics. From kairosfocus: "Ms Shellska, you don’t have the relevant technical qualifications (much less facts) to speak with credibility on this matter." Argumentum ad Hominem. Your initial response was good, but you should make an effort to leave 'warrant' and other Bayesian fallacies at the door. Specifically there's a good need to ensure that people are aware that if 'Rehnquist' or any other justice states that any philosophical commitment is 'permissible' to teach then the judgement reached is not that 'religion' shall not be taught. But that the state approved religion may or must be taught. Good for States that have an 'official' religion such as Iran, or last I was aware, then UK. Not so good in nations in which there is to be a separation between government and religion. Or any other thought crime.Maus_{July 31, 2012
July
07
Jul
31
31
2012
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

My definition of ‘creationists’ is that they are ideologues
By the way, Gregory, thanks for attempting to respond to JohnnyB's question. But you seem to not appreciate to this day that the way you communicate is insulting, not to mention, you didn't really answer JohnnyB's question. You did it at ARN. You describe people to their face in insulting terms. You did so to JohnnyB who asked you a question politely. Even if you believe in your heart that someone is this or that, it's not polite to fire off veiled insults to their face.scordova_{July 31, 2012
July
07
Jul
31
31
2012
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

would not creationism be that God the Creator made all things existing, heaven and earth, if by direct word or by indirect processes? if all living things created individually or descent from like kinds, all are still creation? sergiosergiomendes_{July 31, 2012
July
07
Jul
31
31
2012
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

"A creationist is defined as someone who is an ideologue."Gregory_{July 31, 2012
July
07
Jul
31
31
2012
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

My definition of ‘creationists’ is that they are ideologues
Er..Gregory, that's not a defintion, that might be the way you characterize them, but that is not a definition. A definitions would take the form of: "A creationist is defined as someone who believes...."scordova_{July 31, 2012
July
07
Jul
31
31
2012
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

Shellska seems to have used Kitmziller vs. Dover for most of her source material. Below is a sample of how, according to her, the Discovery Institute "disprupts" transmission of evolution to the public. These "disruptive" communications also address some of her points. In my own biased opinion, I think the Discovery Institute has some of the most skillful communicators I've ever witnessed. Sharp, scholarly, and very polished. Here is an example of the shaprness and polish from the first link below:
For example, biologist Kenneth Miller, one of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, conceded on the witness stand that he was a creationist when “creationist” is understood to mean anyone who believes that the universe was created by God. Yet clearly it would be misleading to call Miller—an avowed evolution proponent—a “creationist.”
See below for more of these "disruptive" techniques used by the Discovery Institute. But she is mistaken that it is all about the Discovery Institute. What about organizations like Illustra Media? Or Foundation for Thought and Ethics? Or even InterVarsity Press? Or ARN? Or say, in the present day The Evolution Informatics Lab? Or the now non-existent Polanyi Center? Or the host of independent writers like Michael Denton, Robert Jastrow, John Barrow or Fred Hoyle? The narrative that the DI was responsible for ID is not defensible. She might want to revise her thesis.... Most ironic, some of these organizations were listed in Barbara Forrests book, Creationism's Trojan Horse. Anyway, here is a link to some of the DI's "disruptive" instruments: * "Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover," by David DeWolf, John West, and Casey Luskin; Montana Law Review, 68:7 (Winter, 2007); http://www.discovery.org/f/1372 * "Dover in Review" by John West; http://www.discovery.org/a/3135 * Traipsing Into Evolution, by David DeWolf, John West, Casey Luskin, and Jonathan Witt; http://www.amazon.com/Traipsing-Into-Evolution-Intelligent-Kitzmiller/dp/0963865498 * "Whether Intelligent Design is Science: A Response to the Opinion of the Court in Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District," by Michael Behe; http://www.discovery.org/f/697 * "Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones's Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum," by Casey Luskin http://www.discovery.org/a/3718 * "How Kenneth Miller Used Smoke-and-Mirrors at Kitzmiller to Misrepresent Michael Behe on the Irreducible Complexity of the Blood-Clotting Cascade," by Casey Luskin http://www.discovery.org/a/8561 *"The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Citation Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information," by Casey Luskin. http://www.discovery.org/a/14251scordova_{July 31, 2012
July
07
Jul
31
31
2012
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

johnnyb, My definition of 'creationists' is that they are ideologues. I wouldn't call all Christians 'creationists,' because not all Christians are ideologues. As consistent with Abrahamic theology, I belive in creativity and in creation; this doesn't make me a 'creationist' and it is one of the labels I reject and would never accept. Creationism is not just a boogeyman; it is ideology in general that scares Americans, mainly because of Karl Marx. There's a lot of 'getting over it' and 'learning to understand it' still to come in the USA with regard to ideology, including the ideology of 'creationism.' You need more developed social sciences, other than T. Parsons' 'evolutionism' to persuade and educate you. p.s. yes, I'm aware of that, KFGregory_{July 31, 2012
July
07
Jul
31
31
2012
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

PPS: are you aware that there are Design Theorists who accept universal common descent, e.g. Behe?kairosfocus_{July 31, 2012
July
07
Jul
31
31
2012
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT}

PS: I would let her interview under independent taping and legal oversight, so no monkey business games can be played.kairosfocus_{July 31, 2012
July
07
Jul
31
31
2012
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

GS: Comm strategies of DI could -- in the abstract -- serve as a topic for research, but this is not that. She embeds a decision about science and scientific issues she has no credible basis to judge as regards its warrant. She multiplies such by assertions that are historically or factually questionable or outright demonstrably false (though ideologically welcomed in the milieu her F/b page indicates). I notice too SC's comment on failure to contact principals on the matter, with concern. If this is confirmed, that would be a serious matter indeed. KFkairosfocus_{July 31, 2012
July
07
Jul
31
31
2012
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

So, Gregory, what is your definition of creationism? By some definitions, all Christians would be creationists. By others, only a few. That's one of the problems with the word - it doesn't really specify anything specific, it is just used as a generic boogeyman.johnnyb_{July 31, 2012
July
07
Jul
31
31
2012
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

Although I'm not defending Ms. Shellska and disagree significantly with her approach, it is conceivable that "communication strategies of the Discovery Institute" could serve as the basis for a PhD dissertation. There is undoubtedly enough literature and materials publically available over the past 16 years to conduct a thorough study of this topic. Whether or not she will and how ideologically slanted it will be is another story. If she contacts the DI, will the DI grant her an interview? Likely not. (And I wouldn't if I were them either.) So she will be required to use evidence from media sources and from colleagues, including their e-mails with DI leaders, to gather the necessary information about the DI's 'communication strategies'. "Privileged planet pre-supposes planetary and galactic evolution, not planetary and galactic special creation." Thank you. That's enough of an explanation. *Any* evolution seems to be too much for a 'special creationist'. Even if it is not 'evolutionistic'.Gregory_{July 31, 2012
July
07
Jul
31
31
2012
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

PS: My son just advised me to be plain. Ms Shellska, you don't have the relevant technical qualifications (much less facts) to speak with credibility on this matter. Please, think again.kairosfocus_{July 31, 2012
July
07
Jul
31
31
2012
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

What ‘anti-creationist elements’ of ID do you mean?
You obviously missed it, so I'll repeat:
Privileged Planet is anti-creationist in as much as YECs argue the stars and planets were created, not evolved!
Privileged planet pre-supposes planetary and galactic evolution, not planetary and galactic special creation. and
Chapman, Meyer, West, et al. surely wouldn’t grant her an interview. That’s the PR game involved with the IDM.
Even if true, it appears Shellska hasn't attempted to contact the Discovery Institute. I've asked around and so far no one even heard of her until I raised the issue. She has some scholarly obligation to at least try to get in touch with them.scordova_{July 31, 2012
July
07
Jul
31
31
2012
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

GS: Please read the definition of ID here at UD, and the weak argument correctives. They are top this and every UD page. Then, compare actual Creationist sites such as AiG: "Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics" and ICR:
"the Institute for Creation Research has equipped believers with evidence of the Bible's accuracy and authority through scientific research, educational programs, and media presentations, all conducted within a thoroughly biblical framework."
If you still equate the two, you are being willfully irresponsible. Next, I observe Ms Shellska's F/b page:
Proponents of intelligent design (ID) argue that the origins of life can be better attributed to an intelligent cause rather than to evolutionary processes. [a --> Nope, that things with features such as CSI or IC are per induction, consistently designed and that per needle in haystack analysis there is good reason on the gamut of the solar system or observed cosmos. Life exhibits such signs, and in absence of observationally well warranted dynamics to form these features without intelligence, is best explained as designed. OOL is a particularly important case as origin of the von Neumann self replication facility is antecedent to cell based life as we know it.] The phrase was coined in 1987 [b --> the PHRASE traces to remarks by Hoyle in the early 80's, and possibly others, with antecedents for centuries. the more important concept traces through the likes of Newton to Cicero and Plato. the first ID technical work was TMLO, 1984.] to replace the term “creation science,” [c --> Tendentious, accusatory in the teeth of good explanations otherwise for usage in Pandas and people which is NOT a technical work] after US Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist ruled that teaching creationism in public schools was in violation of the Constitution. While the scientific and legal communities recognize its religious underpinnings and reject ID, [d --> Appeal to questionable, ideologically dominated consensus in teeth of relevant facts.] strategies to discredit evolution [e --> Design theory is not opposite to "evolution," up to and including universal common descent [cf. Behe etc] but points out the defects of imposed a priori evolutionary materialism as a censoring constraint on the science of origins] and position it as a theory in crisis [f --> Denton's view is here backed up by want of pivotal evidence of the proposed wholly unintelligent mechanism to create CSI, and with particular reference to the origin of gated, encapsulated, metabolic automata using von Neumann self replication facilities dependent on internally stored coded digital info] have successfully influenced a significant percentage of the broader public, as well as many influential politicians and academics, who have been persuaded to accept ID is a valid scientific alternative to evolution. [g --> This serves to change subjects from the pivotal scientific issue to a loaded strawman distortion. Is Ms Shellska giving an eval of the technical case, on what grounds, or is she assuming that a given school must be right and is then reframing the issue as an ideological contest.]
This is PhD research? In what field, under what supervision, in what University? The answers are illuminating and disappointing for one who has a generally high opinion of Commonwealth universities:
Christine M. Shellska is a PhD student in the Department of Communication and Culture in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Calgary. She is currently researching the communication strategies the Discovery Institute is using to position intelligent design as a scientific theory. She has recently spoken on this topic at the Atheists Without Borders conference in Montreal, the Essays in the Philosophy of Humanism symposium at the 70th Annual AHA conference in Boston, and the Apeiron Society for the Practice of Philosophy’s Annual Symposium in Kananaskis. Along with Dr. Marcia Epstein, Christine is also involved in an initiative to represent the community of atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, humanists, skeptics and others who identify as non-religious at the Multi-Faith Chaplaincy on campus.
This is an ideological hit piece in the guise of research. An arts student will not normally be in a position to evaluate a technical scientific case on a controversial matter, even if she has some phil and history of sci. Communication strategies have little or nothing to do with it. A sad day for Commonwealth learning. KFkairosfocus_{July 31, 2012
July
07
Jul
31
31
2012
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply