Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

“[The Discovery Institute] needs to be destroyed”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

After Darwinist Steve Matheson debated Stephen Meyer at Biola, various essays appeared on the internet pointing out Matheson’s numerous errors and oversights. In the face of having his assertions publicly discredited (see a summary in Fact Free Science of Matheson), he wrote an open letter to Stephen Meyer.

Your Discovery Institute is a horrific mistake, an epic intellectual tragedy that is degrading the minds of those who consume its products and bringing dishonor to you and to the church. It is for good reason that Casey Luskin is held in such extreme contempt by your movement’s critics, and there’s something truly sick about the pattern of attacks that your operatives launched in the weeks after the Biola event. It’s clear that you have a cadre of attack dogs that do this work for you…I can’t state this strongly enough: the Discovery Institute is a dangerous cancer on the Christian intellect, both because of its unyielding commitment to dishonesty and because of its creepy mission…It needs to be destroyed, and I will do what I can to bring that about.

Steve Matheson,
Open Letter to Stephen Meyer

Even though Matheson really said those words, I felt that this blog posting is most appropriately filed under the Humor category. 🙂

Comments
Cabal, Darwinism is a false science, the Discovery Institute is made up of people. Which one would you like to see destroyed?Clive Hayden
June 25, 2010
June
06
Jun
25
25
2010
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
Clive Hayden,
I hope you realize that advocating destruction of the Discovery Institute qualifies you for banning, because if destruction isn’t incivility, then what is?
While not addressed at me - I am no part of the debate in this thread, I just don't see much of a difference between expressing a desire to dispose of DI, meaning the burial of the concept of Intelligent Design vs. the DI & UcD's stated intention of destroying Darwinism?Cabal
June 25, 2010
June
06
Jun
25
25
2010
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT
Hey Guys, Stephen Meyer has another interview with CBN up at ENV: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/06/stephen_meyer_discusses_craig035991.htmlbornagain77
June 22, 2010
June
06
Jun
22
22
2010
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT
Voltaire, and a little document called the Constitution.DATCG
June 20, 2010
June
06
Jun
20
20
2010
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT
Toronto, You should take StephenB's advice.Upright BiPed
June 19, 2010
June
06
Jun
19
19
2010
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT
Hey Guys, Stephen Meyer has a new video interview up at ENV: watch Stephen Meyer's interview on the evidence for intelligent design, which aired Friday, June 18, on The 700 Club. Believing Life's 'Signature in the Cell' an Interview with Stephen Meyer http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/06/believing_lifes_signature_in_t035911.htmlbornagain77
June 19, 2010
June
06
Jun
19
19
2010
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT
Toronto, I asked you a question.Clive Hayden
June 19, 2010
June
06
Jun
19
19
2010
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
"I share Matheson’s opinion of the Discovery Institute but he should have remembered Voltaire’s dictum..." Nothing like having it both ways, eh Seversky?Upright BiPed
June 19, 2010
June
06
Jun
19
19
2010
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT
I share Matheson's opinion of the Discovery Institute but he should have remembered Voltaire's dictum: "I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it"Seversky
June 19, 2010
June
06
Jun
19
19
2010
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT
Toronto, in the midst of your and Matheson's delusion for "Destroying the Discovery Institute", do you favor making it a thought crime to even think Intelligent Design thoughts about the unparalleled complexity being discovered in life?: 1984 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9PQ16KVntQbornagain77
June 19, 2010
June
06
Jun
19
19
2010
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
---Toronto: "These organizations have to be shown for what they are, i.e., groups that promote a narrow focused world-view." Why not simply retract your statement agreeing that the Discovery Institute ought to be destroyed and acknowledge that you got carried away with your own rhetoric? Many of us on both sides have been guilty of pushing the envelope a bit too far at times.StephenB
June 19, 2010
June
06
Jun
19
19
2010
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
The Discovery Institute must be destroyed for one and only one reason - the evidence for ID cannot be denied. It cannot be brushed aside, explained away, and falsified by evidence that doesn't exist. Absolutely no one knows this better than a materialist, or even more striking, no one knows this better than a scientist. The training that empowers science is also the training that cannot ignore ID. The strategem that design in nature is obvious but not real didn't come about by chance. ;-) Matheson is at wits end. He's being practical.Upright BiPed
June 19, 2010
June
06
Jun
19
19
2010
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT
Toronto- THe truth may seem like a narrow focused world-view. Is it narrow focused to think 1+1=2? Does every organization have to consider every possible world-viiew in order to exist? This seems absurd.Phaedros
June 19, 2010
June
06
Jun
19
19
2010
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
Toronto,
While at one time I would have said that reasoned discussion is the road to take against ID, I now agree with Steve Matheson.
What would you do to bring the about the destruction of the Discovery Institute? I've asked the same question to Steve Matheson, and he hasn't yet responded, so what is your response? I hope you realize that advocating destruction of the Discovery Institute qualifies you for banning, because if destruction isn't incivility, then what is? But I'll let you answer this one last question.Clive Hayden
June 19, 2010
June
06
Jun
19
19
2010
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
StephenB @ 66,
—Steve Matheson: “It needs to be destroyed, and I will do what I can to bring that about.”
While at one time I would have said that reasoned discussion is the road to take against ID, I now agree with Steve Matheson. The Evo side has to engage ID organizations in the courts to prevent ID from getting into our schools. These organizations have to be shown for what they are, i.e., groups that promote a narrow focused world-view.Toronto
June 19, 2010
June
06
Jun
19
19
2010
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
---Steve Matheson: "It needs to be destroyed, and I will do what I can to bring that about." Perhaps you can begin by suing Stephen Meyer for dueling with an unarmed man.StephenB
June 19, 2010
June
06
Jun
19
19
2010
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
Wow. You ID opponents must have had a severe upwelling of righteous indignation when Miller went on the radio and said if ID has its way all medical advancement will come to a stop.
You bet I did when I hear that accusation. Matheson is labeling people that think introns have function as "driniking kool aid". I've listed several mainstream pappers that link disease to intron malfunction. You'd think he'd be a little more circumspect in light of the fact such accusations also insult the work of these scientists who are making medical advances. Pellionisz is an ID sympathizer of sorts (unorthodox ID), and he had this to say:
uncounted millions of people died miserable deaths while scientists were looking for the “gene” causing their illnesses – and were not even supposed to look anywhere but under the lamp illuminating only 1.3% of the genome (the genes)
Pellionisz also mentione the ABC News Documnetary that was not aired in the US (where it is not politically correct to advocated junk DNA research, as evidence by Matheson and Ken Miller's prejudice), but did air elsewhere in the world. The documentary included Mattick and an equally important pioneer of Junk DNA research, Malcom Simons. Here is a link to that documentary: Genius of Junkscordova
June 18, 2010
June
06
Jun
18
18
2010
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
Wow. You ID opponents must have had a severe upwelling of righteous indignation when Miller went on the radio and said if ID has its way all medical advancement will come to a stop. Yes, ID will kill your babies. Or when Dawkins uses descriptors like "insane". Or when Moran says Liars for Jesus, or Matheson says just plain liars without even a hope of integrity.Upright BiPed
June 18, 2010
June
06
Jun
18
18
2010
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
pelagius, Fair enough, but StephenB has already answered this, anticipating yours and Nakashima's difficulty with context. This is the last of it, from now on let's keep the comments on topic please.Clive Hayden
June 18, 2010
June
06
Jun
18
18
2010
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
Clive, You asked for the evidence:
StephenB, Yes I’m interested in him backing it up too, I don’t remember such characterizations by you at all.
The least you can do is to let it appear. Otherwise you are allowing StephenB's baseless accusation of slander to stand. Here's the relevant comment from StephenB on March 31st:
Lawless neurotics [surprisingly they are like legalistic psychotics in the sense that they seek to tyrannize as soon as they gain power], who hated the Declaration of Independence and the idea of God as a lawgiver, set out to change that absolute standard into the relative and unstable standard of law by popular opinion and judicial fiat, and, for the most part, they have been successful. Their strategy was to characterize advocates of the natural moral law, which is the rational midpoint between two extremes, as legalistic psychotics. Meanwhile, real legalistic psychotics have been stumping for Sharia Law and their lawless counterparts, though their total opposites, encourage this because they hope that, as a coalition, they can team up to destroy the Judeo/Christian formulation and form a new ruling class, much like the psychotic Pharasees and the neurotic Sadducees, who temporarily put aside their mutual hate to crucify who they hated even more.
pelagius
June 18, 2010
June
06
Jun
18
18
2010
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
Nakashima, I'm going to stop this threadjacking, as you put it, in it's place right now. No more discussion of the Pharisees and Sadducees. This was, if you recall, an offshoot discussion of my moderating, which was, itself, an attempt at threadjacking. Let's keep the topic on the thread topic.Clive Hayden
June 18, 2010
June
06
Jun
18
18
2010
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT
To say the “Jews” were responsible for Christ’s death would be the equivalent of saying that the “Romans” were responsible for Pontius Pilate’s acts of cowardice. Get it Nakashima? Probably not! oh, I agree. You can't use collective nouns to assign responsibility. The Jews did not crucify Christ. The Romans did not crucify Christ. Pilate crucified Christ. Of course, we can't use collective nouns for "X plotted to kill Jesus", either. The plot was the act of individuals. The Pharisees did not plot to kill Jesus. Some individual Pharisees plotted to kill Jesus. Of course, "plotted to kill" and "crucify" - ie sucessfully killing - are also different. Your previous statement was that two collective groups crucified Jesus.Nakashima
June 17, 2010
June
06
Jun
17
17
2010
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PDT
Clive, in keeping with your question, here is a point I have alluded to in the past: The Sadducees and The Pharisees, did indeed, plot to kill Jesus Christ. That is a simple fact of history. The Catholic Church has never repudiated that fact because it isn’t in the business of repudiating facts. What the Church condemned was the idea that the Jews as a race were responsible for Christ’s death. It wasn’t the Jewish people who committed deicide; it was the Jewish and Roman leaders. It is ridiculous to persecute a race in the twentieth century or in any century for something that a small group of privileged leaders did 2000 years ago. To say the “Jews” were responsible for Christ’s death would be the equivalent of saying that the “Romans” were responsible for Pontius Pilate’s acts of cowardice. Get it Nakashima? Probably not! What was remarkable about the arrangement between the Sadducees and the Pharisees was their temporary truce, given the fact that they not only hated each other but were also, in fact, psychological opposites. The Sadducees were glued to the world, disbelieving in an afterlife, and prone to hate all forms of religion, especially the presumptuous variety offered by the Pharisees. Indeed, they were so morally lax and as to be neurotic. They loved change for the sake of change even when no change was needed. By contrast, the Pharisees found excessive fault with the world to which the Sadducees were glued and embraced rituals and forms at the expense of the natural moral law. (Notice I didn't say "Jews.") In complete contrast to the Sadducees, the Pharisees, were so rigid as to hate all change, even the kinds of change that are needed for progress. Sort of like radical Islamists. (Notice I didn't say Muslims). If one group tends to love change for the sake of change, even when no change is needed, it exhibits signs of neurosis; if another group tends to hate all change, especially the kinds of change that are needed for progess, it exhibits traits of psychosis. Get it Nakashima? Probably not! Thus, and this is the point I once made, when two mortal enemies who would normally be inclined to destroy each other, and who would normally find it impossible to co-exist, call a temporary truce in order to form an alliance to kill a third person, that is a remarkable event which speaks of hatred at another level. It would be the equivalent of radical Islam [recognize the rigidity?] forming an alliance with atheist Darwinists [recognize the laxity?] to take out the Christians. Come to think of it, that isn’t a bad description of a current political phenomenon. On the other hand, Nakashima has stated that I claimed that one group of “Jews” was psychotic, likely knowing that I never did and never would use such anti-Semitic language. Thus, his remarks were inaccurate and reckless. As I have stated so often, Darwinists have a terrible time with context.StephenB
June 17, 2010
June
06
Jun
17
17
2010
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT
StephenB, Yes I'm interested in him backing it up too, I don't remember such characterizations by you at all.Clive Hayden
June 17, 2010
June
06
Jun
17
17
2010
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT
here is article Dr. Fazale Rana just released on the splicing code that gives a inkling of the complexity being dealt with: Splicing Together the Case for Design, Part 2 (of 2) - Fazale Rana - June 2010 Excerpt: Remarkably, the genetic code appears to be highly optimized, further indicating design. Equally astounding is the fact that other codes, such as the histone binding code, transcription factor binding code, the splicing code, and the RNA secondary structure code, overlap the genetic code. Each of these codes plays a special role in gene expression, but they also must work together in a coherent integrated fashion. The existence of multiple overlapping codes also implies the work of a Creator. It would take superior reasoning power to structure the system in such a way that it can simultaneously harbor codes working in conjunction instead of interfering with each other. As I have written elsewhere, the genetic code is in fact optimized to harbor overlapping codes, further evincing the work of a Mind. http://www.reasons.org/splicing-together-case-design-part-2-2 Well Nakashima you seem quite upset at my using videos in my posts. Yet most of my youtube/metacafe videos deal directly with the topic I'm on, but I do put other videos up if it is somewhat in harmony with the tone of the thread. Such as this one: Cool Hand Luke "Failure To Communicate." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_aVuS7cOIQbornagain77
June 17, 2010
June
06
Jun
17
17
2010
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
---Nakashima: "Right. StephenB spreads the Easter message by calling one group of Jews psychotic, another group of Jews neurotic, then repeats the calumny that together they killed Christ, an anti-semitic slur that even his own church has repudiated. I call him on it with “Your Savior and His Mom say thanks.” Now which of us is in moderation?" Would you care to back up that slanderous statement?StephenB
June 17, 2010
June
06
Jun
17
17
2010
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT
Art cited: most transcripts originate from known genes.
First of all, I'd like to thank Dr. Hunt for appearing. I've had a history of exchanges with Dr. Hunt over the years and some were not so cordial. I'm deeply appreciative of the fact that despite this he is providing important technical information. That said, I have no problem with the majority of transcripts coming from known genes if we are talking PHYSICAL transcripts. However, we have the issue of the VARIETY of transcripts. I state again an important analogy:
Say we have 1000 cars, 900 of them are identical, but 100 of them are unique, and the unique cars emerged out of Alternative Manufacturing (Splicing if you will). Thus we have 101 different kinds of cars, and 100/101 = 99% emerged via Alternative Splicing. Thus even though 90% of the physical cars did not go through alternative splicing, 99% of the VARIETY of cars went through alternative splicing (so to speak).
We have to be careful in how we classify something as functioning or transcribed. Do we mean NEVER transcribed in a certain way, or sometimes transcribed in a few select instances in a few select cell types. If the paper is talking about known physical transcripts in known cell types (versus an exhaustive search of all 1,000,000,000,000 positionally differentiated cell types), then this paper does not necessarily invalidate the claims of ENCODE. To quote Francis Collins:
"I've stopped using the term [junk DNA]," Collins said. "Think about it the way you think about stuff you keep in your basement. Stuff you might need some time. Go down, rummage around, pull it out if you might need it."
Finally, I have to take issue with a sweeping claim that something is NEVER transcribed. The human being has a long life and passes through many developmental stages. If indeed there are 1,000,000,000,000 positionally differentiated cell types, how can we definitely claim a particular alternative splice NEVER happens and is NEVER used without an exhaustive search of the behavior of all 1,000,000,000,000 positionally differentiated cell types? Also, we also know that introns aren't necessarily just involved in Alternative Splicing, Sternberg points out there are more functions for them. My take is that it is extremely premature to say something is junk. It is certainly not ludicrous to hypothesize these regions have function.scordova
June 17, 2010
June
06
Jun
17
17
2010
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT
Adel, I don't give notice. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilityClive Hayden
June 17, 2010
June
06
Jun
17
17
2010
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT
Clive Hayden @46:
Toronto, You seem to labor under a misunderstanding. I put commenters of both sides in moderation for not being civil.
Yet I've been placed in moderation without any notice that I've been uncivil. (How do you define incivility?) Please clarify.Adel DiBagno
June 17, 2010
June
06
Jun
17
17
2010
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT
Mr Hayden, I moderate those contrary to civility, and I don’t appreciate the insinuation otherwise. Right. StephenB spreads the Easter message by calling one group of Jews psychotic, another group of Jews neurotic, then repeats the calumny that together they killed Christ, an anti-semitic slur that even his own church has repudiated. I call him on it with "Your Savior and His Mom say thanks." Now which of us is in moderation? I know that you do put ID-friendly participants in moderation. I know you've put the brakes on Joseph when he's over the line on bluster, when BA^77 goes off on some tangent and spams every thread with a YouTube video. And I know that moderating this site must be very time consuming and a pretty much thankless task. But I do think you've been inconsistent in some decisions.Nakashima
June 17, 2010
June
06
Jun
17
17
2010
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply