“[The Discovery Institute] needs to be destroyed”

_{Salvador Cordova

June 16, 2010

Humor, Intelligent Design, theistic evolution}

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

Further, in my other thread on Matheson, I pointed out how you might well be able to knock something out and there is no ill effect in the majority of context, but there could be ill effect in another context. It may well be in such contexts, the functional importance is elucidated. You could probably knockout entire modules of Windows 7 (like say ceratin printer drivers) and see contexts where there is absolutely no ill effect, maybe even improvement. It would be illigitimate however to say such modules are non-functional. Finally, though I appreciate you raising this important issue, this thread about "destroying the DI" is not the place for this discussion. There is another thread on that topic.scordova_{June 16, 2010
June
06
Jun
16
16
2010
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

Nakashima wrote: Arguments for the utility of intron transcripts will eventually have to deal with the fact that megabases of the genome can be deleted with no obvious ill effect
That's an obviously flawed Darwinist viewpoint. Robust systems can suffer massive deletions and still function. Knockout experiments are a clumsy way to adjudicate function. See an example of how such reasoning actually failed in biological analysis: Airplane Magnetos Contingency Designs and Reasons ID will Prevail Briefly, we can knock out huge amounts of computational power in 4 of the 5 navigations systems of the Space Shuttle, and the shuttle can still get back to Earth. If we applied "knock out" standard to space shuttles, you'd easily conclude all the spare and contingency systems of the shuttle were useless! I provided a citation where such reasoning resulted in mis-analysis of a biolgical system. The fact that biological systems can self-heal is good evidence we can knock systems out and there is little if any detectable effect along various dimensions of functionality.scordova_{June 16, 2010
June
06
Jun
16
16
2010
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

One thing I have learned from my debates with evolutionists, they HATE free speech. This was also proven by the censorship of the California Science Center which has since decided to settle the lawsuit brought against them by the Discovery Institute.Blue_Savannah_{June 16, 2010
June
06
Jun
16
16
2010
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

Not that it matters much, but the guy calling for the "destruction" of his intellectual enemies - who is backed by the virtual whole of the academy, the whole of the media, and the public policy and legal machine of the science establishment - is whining about "attack dogs" out to get him. Frankly, I never thought much about Matheson the few times his name has perculated to the surface. But now going back and reading his words. Wow. He is bloated with certainty. He may need to go spend a few days at a children's burn unit and get his head straight. pfftUpright BiPed_{June 16, 2010
June
06
Jun
16
16
2010
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

Is Matheson free to post on UD's website?StephenB_{June 16, 2010
June
06
Jun
16
16
2010
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

scordova, Arguments for the utility of intron transcripts will eventually have to deal with the fact that megabases of the genome can be deleted with no obvious ill effect, as in the well known experiments on mice. If the Discovery Institute would like to pursue that line of experimentation, it could directly prove how much of the mouse genome was necessary. I think pursuing such an experimental program would increase the respect people have for the DI across the spectrum of the ID debate.Nakashima_{June 16, 2010
June
06
Jun
16
16
2010
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

Matheson claims "attack dogs" and "operatives" launched a pattern of attacks: For the UD reader's benefit here are some of the essays written after the Biola event: Which Steve Said Design and Gotcha on Checking Stephen Meyer and Mathesons Intron Fairy Tale and Let's Do the Math Again All these were posted after the event, with the last one one June 3 before Matheson wrote his letter on June 6. And Jonathan Wells wrote more on June 8: The Fact Free Science of Matheson Anika Smith reported Doug Axe's contributions on June 10: Doug Axe Knows His Work I invite the readers to decide for themselves if these postings at ENV are deserving of the responses offered by Matheson.scordova_{June 16, 2010
June
06
Jun
16
16
2010
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

Green, I would agree with you, save for the fact that Matheson largely behaved this way far in advance of this event. It wasn't like he was critical but considerate, showed up at Biola thinking he was the loyal opposition among friends, and then suddenly turned hostile in response to the fallout. Go read his review of Meyer's book. Go read his review of Behe's book. There was no "recent nasty turn" because Matheson has been nasty for a long time. And worst of all? The criticism he got from the DI, and Sternberg in particular, was honestly rather tame - especially compared to Matheson himself. The guy clearly is one of those "can dish it out but can't take it" sorts. That said, I agree entirely that ID needs to engage respectful critics - and respectful critics should be treated with respect in turn. But it's a two-way street.nullasalus_{June 16, 2010
June
06
Jun
16
16
2010
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

Steve Matheson said:
//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, and some of them seem unconstrained by standards of integrity//
Whilst I don't agree with Matheson's viscious, vitriolic, exaggerated and nasty tone here, I think there is a grain of truth in what he is saying. After Biola, the ID blogs did not seem courteous to Steve Matheson, but instead seemed to be championing a victory. For example, there was a post with the headline: "Which Steve said 'design is an excellent and irrefutable explanation'?" - where upon reading seeing the context, it was clear that Matheson did not say this as a concession to ID. Aside from posts with a misleading title, I think posts with a "winner-loser" feel like these tend to shut down dialogue. Maybe such a format is necessary with ultra-Darwinists like PZ Myers et al. but they don't seem necessary with more respectful critics like Matheson used to be. Indeed, as evidenced by Matheson's recent nasty turn, "winner-loser" posts seem only to antagonise such people and make them even more hostile to ID. If we want more debates and interaction with these type of people, then it might be worth writing about their arguments in a less hostile and more 'dialogue-esque' way.Green_{June 16, 2010
June
06
Jun
16
16
2010
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

Scordova Re. post 9 - Sorry, I meant "materialist" in the sense of methodological materialism or naturalism, rather like Ayala, Collins, et al and quite distinct from Philosophical Naturalism.toc_{June 16, 2010
June
06
Jun
16
16
2010
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

Quite apart for the ID/Evolution debate, Matheson is insisting introns have little or no function, and worse, he labels defenders of intron functionality as drinker's of kool-aide (a reference to poison kool-aide of Jim Jones). But what if Matheson is wrong. Why not rather encourage exporation even into a daring hypothesis such as intron functionality. It could have extremely important implications for medical advancement. Matheson belligerence is possibly making him party to "the biggest mistake in the history of molecular biology". It would seem to me, on those grounds alone, quite apart from the issue of ID and Evolution, that the Discovery Institute, on the issue of junk DNA, is clearly on the right side of the betterment of the human condition and medical science. Matheson's determination to destroy the Discovery Institute seems more of a personal vendetta, not rooted in a commitment to scientific exploration. I'd like to express my thanks to the Discovery Institute staff for all that they've done toward the advancement of the human condition and their work in promoting the awareness of important issues. To that end, I just now sent a donation (which I should have done long ago). UD readers who feel the Discovery Institute has done a good public service and who wish to make a donation (especially to their Center for Science and Culture) can do so here: http://www.discovery.org/csc/donate.php Uncommon Descent also accepts donations to help pay for our administrative costs. There is a button on the UD webpage through which donations can be made. It is apparent there are forces that would rather serve personal vendettas than advance the cause of scientific exploration. Readers are invited to help the cause of intellectual freedom. Thanks in advance to all who are willing to help in whatever capacity they are able. PS As a matter of public disclosure, I personally make no money for my involvement in Intelligent Design.scordova_{June 16, 2010
June
06
Jun
16
16
2010
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

Setting aside the question of ID and evolution, where Matheson argument was discredited was with respect to the functionality of introns. One of the authors of the paper in the prestigious scientific journal Nature Barash that strongly support Sternberg and Meyer's claims, did research on the links between disease and malformed introns. If introns are indeed vital to physical health, quite apart from the ID debate, it's really bad form for Matheson to be dissing investigation into the question of intron functionality. SERIOUSLY bad form! Frankly he ought to be grateful that Sternberg and Wells have pointed out his mistakes.scordova_{June 16, 2010
June
06
Jun
16
16
2010
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

toc: Fairly typical of a materialist, so far as I can tell.
My understanding is that Matheson considers himself a Christian and teaches at a religious institution. (I could be wrong, so anyone weigh in if I'm mis-stating his position). His website has a banner which features a Chrsitian cross (though not distintly one), and higher up on the banner is also a photo of Darwin. If Matheson is a TE, he echoes sympathies similar to many other TE's: "the Discovery Institute is a dangerous cancer on the Christian intellect".scordova_{June 16, 2010
June
06
Jun
16
16
2010
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

The problem most TE's have with ID is that the information ID brings to the table is that of a "Tinkering" designer (who most think is God) and one that could not get it right the first time but has to come back to correct His mistakes. To many of them ID is demeaning the omniscient, omnipotent God. The problem is that this point of view claims to know the mind of God and how He would work. And it is not ID's part to say the designer is God but to be honest the way religion is quoted here, most of the pro ID people believe it is the Christian God.jerry_{June 16, 2010
June
06
Jun
16
16
2010
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT}

Charlie: “Bow”? … not “Bones”, Sal?
Thank you. I corrected my comments. Thank you again!!!scordova_{June 16, 2010
June
06
Jun
16
16
2010
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

I'm still trying to digest this. What means, exactly, is Matheson prepared to use in the destruction of Discovery? Does Discovery have the right to exist ueberhaupt? Does freedom of thought and expression apply to Discovery?William Dembski_{June 16, 2010
June
06
Jun
16
16
2010
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

"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". So I guess as far as he's concerned, this is an ecclesiastical problem? He acknowledges that he can't provide a sufficient materialistic explanation for information's origin and he calls someone else who does provide such an explanation as dishonoring the church. Who is confused here and who is making this a theological issue? Debates offer opportunities for rebuttal on both sides. Matheson needs some thicker skin or offer up a better argument. The noise increases when the logic breaks down. Fairly typical of a materialist, so far as I can tell.toc_{June 16, 2010
June
06
Jun
16
16
2010
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

That anyone, let alone a distinguished member of the scientific and academic community, would deliberately spew such frothing hate for all the public to see is tragic. I think Matheson is taking this debate far, far too personally.William J. Murray_{June 16, 2010
June
06
Jun
16
16
2010
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

"Bow"? ... not "Bones", Sal?Charlie_{June 16, 2010
June
06
Jun
16
16
2010
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

By the way, notice the use of the Skull and Crossbone when Matheson says here
I think it will be useful to send a clear message to the Discovery Institute as an organization, now that I've seen its mode of response to me since Meyer and I met. Here's my simple message:
Skull and Crossbonescordova_{June 16, 2010
June
06
Jun
16
16
2010
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

Casey Luskin is an awesome guy, Matheson shouldn't be dissing him.scordova_{June 16, 2010
June
06
Jun
16
16
2010
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply