Pharyngula::Politicized Scholars…

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Sunday, August 21, 2005

Politicized Scholars…

PZ Myers • 61 Comments (last page)

I have mixed feelings about the latest NYT story on Intelligent Design creationism. On the one hand, it does clearly state how politicized the Discovery Institute is, describes the religious sources of their funding and how some charitable institutions find the DI repugnant, and gives a decent account of the Institute's history. On the other hand, Arthur Silber dislikes it intensely, and I can see why. It also allows a gang of pseudoscientific frauds to state their message loudly on the pages of a fairly prestigious newspaper. Even the title is objectionable: "Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive". The first word is good, but it's all downhill from there. They are not scholars, except in the loosest sense of the word. They have most emphatically not put evolution on the defensive; evolutionary biology is completely untouched by their posturings. Some biologists are on the attack now, because the creationists have made political gains in damaging public school education in biology. Basically, this article gave the creationists free rein to repeat their lies over and over again, such as that they are funding actual research. Carl Zimmer, while acknowledging that the article is a "useful overview", rips that claim apart.

A search for "Intelligent Design" on PubMed yields 22 results--none of which were published by anyone from the Discovery Insittute. There are a few articles about the political controversy about teaching it in public schools, and some papers about constructing databases of proteins in a smart way. But nothing that actually uses intelligent design to reveal something new about nature. ScienceDirect offers the same picture. (I'm not clever enough with html to link to my search result lists, but try them yourself if you wish.)

Here's another search: "Discovery Institute" and "Seattle" (where the institute is located). One result comes up: a paper by Jonathan Wells proposing that animal cells have turbine-like structures inside them. It describes no experiments, only a hypothesis.

Perhaps the other prominent fellows of the Discovery Institute (Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, and William Dembski) have published scientific papers that have a bearing on intelligent design, without identifying their affiliation. Aside from a couple letters to the editor, the databases yielded only one paper, in which Behe offers a simple model of gene duplication and expresses doubt that new genes could evolve by this process. Given that other scientists have published 2266 papers exploring gene duplication's role in evolution, it's safe to say that his is not a view held by most experts.

That's the kind of response I would have expected from the NYT—when someone says, "$792,585 financed laboratory or field research in biology, paleontology or biophysics, while $93,828 helped graduate students in paleontology, linguistics, history and philosophy", don't just report it, investigate and follow through and see where the money is actually going, because it sure isn't funding real science.

There are a few errors of fact that you should expect to see dismantled on The Panda's Thumb soon, and I was also surprised to see this statement fly by unchallenged:

…the institute has opposed legislation in Pennsylvania and Utah that pushes intelligent design, instead urging lawmakers to follow Ohio's lead.

They are setting Ohio as an example to follow? The Ohio situation is a clear case of biased backroom politicking, in which corrupt ideologues maneuvered to override the recommendations of qualified scientists and educators to impose anti-scientific changes on Ohio school curricula. Why not point out in an article on "politicized scholars" that they are representing the worst of politics, using croneyism and dishonesty to squirt their slime in through the back door? The Discovery Institute is very good at that, I will admit.

I won't be as harsh on the article as Arthur Silber…yet. There's supposed to be a second article in the series coming up, which I presume will express the views of real scientists and will attempt to counter the facade of "scholarship" the DI put up in the first one. I do wish the reporter had been more thorough in dismissing those claims in this first one, though.

Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/2773/uuA4JM2q/

Comments:

#36709: Alon Levy — 08/21 at 08:16 AM
In the article's defense, it does explain that the DI is only putting evolution on the defensive in the political battle for public school curricula and that descent with modification is scientifically unchallenged.

#36720: ekzept — 08/21 at 10:00 AM

Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed.

--Mark Twain

#36722: — 08/21 at 10:26 AM

Dr. Meyer, who had grown friendly enough with the Ahmansons to tutor their young son in science...

there you have it: child abuse.

#36723: Arun — 08/21 at 10:29 AM
The newspaper could be presenting this like a case in court, or like a traditional debate. First one side has the floor, and then the other. I think perhaps Arthur Silber has spoken prematurely.

#36726: Arthur Silber — 08/21 at 11:02 AM
Perhaps I've judged the article prematurely in certain respects; we'll see. But in that connection: PZ, how do you know about the second part of this article? Unless my eyes are going completely (in which case, I plead for tolerance based on my decrepit middle age...hehe...), I see nothing in the article at all (or at the beginning or end) to indicate a second part is coming. Inside info? ESP? Ah, THERE'S the proof we've been waiting for...:>))

But in terms of my criticisms and Wilgoren's lack of clear exposition, consider this sentence as just one example (and I hadn't commented on this before, or on many similar statements): "Mainstream scientists reject the notion that any controversy over evolution even exists."

Notice how Wilgoren conflates two separate issues. Obviously, there's a controvery about evolution -- but it's a *political* controversy. But Wilgoren fails to make clear WHY there is no SCIENTIFIC controversy about evolution. This kind of muddiness suffuses the article -- which is why I said it leaves the impression to some extent that those scientists are just crabbed, narrow-minded old meanies.

Which they may be, but that hardly speaks to the scientific issues involved...:>))

When is the supposed second part appearing? Any idea?

#36727: davidm — 08/21 at 11:09 AM
More than a second article is coming up. This is the first of a series of articles. I've no doubt that the supposed "scientific content" of ID will be thoroughly scrutinized, and laid bare.

One could certainly find fault here and there with this article, but overall I think it was brilliant. Because this is a series, each article will have a focus. The focus of the first article was to rip the mask off the Discovery Institute. Bearing in mind that most people are not invested in this debate, I suspect that the average person, on hearing about The DI and evolution/id, assumes that the Discovery Institute is a standard scientific enterprise that merely has come to different conclusions about the validity of evolution. The article demolishes such beliefs. It also connected the dots of the financing, motives, ideology and history of the institute in painstaking detail.

Again, this is the first of a series. I suspect the overall purpose here is to nail down every last detail of this conflict. And this is why you should not be disappointed that in the first article, the views of real scientists were not expressed as you might have wanted (though certainly scientists were cited as debunking DI even in this article). When a newspaper wants to do a thorough investigative piece of a subject like this one, it is limited by space. To condense the whole issue into a s ingle piece would render it superficial. That's why this is a series, and why each article will have a focus. The focus of this one was to expose the Discovery Institute. And that is what it did.

#36729: Arthur Silber — 08/21 at 11:15 AM
Oh, I see where it says this is the beginning of a series. Not in the printer-friendly version, but on the regular page. Okie dokey. We shall see...

#36730: PZ Myers — 08/21 at 11:19 AM
We'll see. The article was also a mouthpiece for the DI to express their baloney...and one problem is that exposing the DI as a front for Jesus Christ may be damning to me, but will be considered an asset to many of the readers of the NYT, and can be used by the DI to flog more donors for money.

Like I said, I have mixed feelings about the article. If I'd been under the impression that it was a one-shot deal, as Arthur was, I would have been appalled (davidm had mentioned this before, and some people at the NCSE told me it was part of a series). Right now, I'll just hold fire until I see what happens.

Although, today's Safire piece sure doesn't make me feel confident. The NYT sure does let some crap trickle through.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris

#36731: davidm — 08/21 at 11:19 AM
I hope everyone here realizes that the New York Times has been hammering ID in its editorials. Arthur, I read your blog entry. Really, I hope you'll amend it. You're doing the Times a disservice. As I noted in my previous post, the focus of this article was to lay bare the history, means, motives, ideology and financing of the DI. The science part will come.

#36732: davidm — 08/21 at 11:28 AM
PZ, if pointing out the religious ideology of the institute might prove to be an asset for it in the minds of some readers, how can that be helped? It's just a fact. Also, aren't you being a bit self-contradictory? In your blog you keep stressing that ID has a Christian creationist motivation; now when the Times lays bare this connection, you're unhappy with this being done. What am I missing?

#36734: Arthur Silber — 08/21 at 11:35 AM
Davidm: I've added several updates, one at the beginning, two at the end. So I've covered that. BUT: I still object to many of the formulations in the article, which reveal a considerable sloppiness of thought and writing in my view. Whether Wilgoren clarifies these points in the subsequent parts remains to be seen. And in that connection, keep in mind the specific points that PZ mentions, for example, that are not challenged or followed up. Moreover, while those of us with a keen interest in this debate may be certain to read the further installments, many people will not. For them, this will be the entirety of what they read in this series. And that most certainly would be appalling.

#36735: — 08/21 at 11:36 AM
The fastest-growing category on surveys that ask people to give their religious affiliation, says Patricia O'Connell Killen of Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma, Wash., is "none." But "spirituality," the impulse to seek communion with the Divine, is thriving. The NEWSWEEK/Beliefnet Poll found that more Americans, especially those younger than 60, described themselves as "spiritual" (79 percent) than "religious" (64 percent). Almost two thirds of Americans say they pray every day, and nearly a third meditate.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9024914/site/newsweek/

#36736: — 08/21 at 11:37 AM
I didn't think it was too bad. As PZ mentions, they don't really report on the lack of science from the DI. They mention number of fellowships supported, but not anything about the paucity of actual journal publications. They do mention books, which are not peer-reviewed.

They do mention the religious backers of the DI, including Ahmanson, but they don't mention just how extreme he is or that he has supported theocracy.

Near the end, they seem to take West at his word when he complains of others acting prematurely and not concentrating on the science. Since they mentioned the religious purpose and backing of the DI, and the Wedge Document, they could have nailed him outright as a posturing hypocrite.

#36740: ekzept — 08/21 at 11:54 AM

... can be used by the DI to flog more donors for money.

for some reason that struck me as very funny. i got this image of a prospective donor, back bared, tied with rope to a wooden stake, eyes raised to heaven in rapture as the whip cut into their skin.

maybe i should go back on that medication ...

#36741: ekzept — 08/21 at 11:57 AM

The NEWSWEEK/Beliefnet Poll found ...

Beliefnet is a crock, IMO.

hey, what's inherently wrong with meditation? it's a practice that improves physical and mental well-being. it needn't have religious connections at all.

#36742: — 08/21 at 12:00 PM
Reading the article and the commentary on it made me think of a quote that I think summarizes my view:
"When thinkers accept those who deny the existence of thinking, as fellow thinker of a different school of thought-it is they who acheive the destruction of the mind. They grant the enemy's basic premise, thus granting the sanction of reason to formal dementia. A basic premise is an absolute that permits no co-operation with it antithesis and tolerates no tolerance. In the same manner and for the same reason as a banker may not accept and pass counterfiet money, granting it the sanction, honor and prestige of his bank, just as he may not grant the counterfeiter's demand for tolerance of a mere difference of opinion..."
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged 35th anniver. ed. page 390

#36743: davidm — 08/21 at 12:11 PM
Arthur, people, especially experts in their fields, are constantly accusing newspapers of superficiality. There is some truth to this charge, but the single most overlooked reason for the problem of superficiality is limited space. You simply can't present a non-superficial treatment of this subject in the space of a single article. That's why it's going to be a series. If people read only one or two of the articles and not the whole thing, there's no help for it. You can't blame the Times for that.

I appreciate your alterations to your blog entry, but I think your characterization of the Times as a "know-nothing" paper based on a single article that blew the cover off the Discovery Institute -- something you guys try to do every day, and which the Times just did before the whole world -- is peculiar, to say the least. I should think you'd be cheering this unmasking of DI, especially now that you know this is the first of a series of articles.

#36745: davidm — 08/21 at 12:21 PM
*Sees Ayn Rand quote, makes desperate gestures to ward it off while dissolving into spasmodic shuddering...*

#36746: PZ Myers — 08/21 at 12:37 PM

PZ, if pointing out the religious ideology of the institute might prove to be an asset for it in the minds of some readers, how can that be helped? It's just a fact. Also, aren't you being a bit self-contradictory? In your blog you keep stressing that ID has a Christian creationist motivation; now when the Times lays bare this connection, you're unhappy with this being done. What am I missing?

That the NYT article did a poor job of bringing up the contradiction between the DI's claim of being a scientific institution, and the reality of their religious foundation.

Being religious is not a damning problem for the DI. Being dishonest is. While the article did a fairly good job of laying out the DI's story, it did a poor job of playing that against their purported purpose.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris

#36747: Arthur Silber — 08/21 at 12:38 PM
PZ's mention of the Safire piece made me curious. So I checked it out. And I had a few things to say about it: Safire's Dangerous Folly. Heh. Indeed.

#36750: — 08/21 at 12:58 PM

a single article that blew the cover off the Discovery Institute -- something you guys try to do every day, and which the Times just did before the whole world

Maybe they were goaded into doing some actual journalism by Nightline beating them to the punch with their 'follow the money' expose'.

#36751: rob skipper — 08/21 at 01:01 PM
I'm as annoyed as PZ about the article's title and display of the DI crowd. But the piece is one in a series, a fact PZ didn't mention. So we wait until next Sunday and see what happens.

#36760: PZ Myers — 08/21 at 01:29 PM
Umm, my last paragraph plainly says, "There's supposed to be a second article in the series coming up".

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris

Trackback: NYT on the Discovery Institute - Where did the money go? Tracked on: stranger fruit (129.219.245.62) at 2005 08 21 13:57:25
In today's New York Times there is an interesting piece on the Discovery Institute by Jodi Wilgoren. Like PZ over at Pharyngula, when I read the piece yesterday I was not completely happy as to the follow-through on some issues. However the discussion ...

#36766: Arthur Silber — 08/21 at 02:48 PM
Davidm: My description of the NYT as a "know-nothing" newspaper was hardly "based on a single article...."

I had in mind the performance of the Times for many years past on a variety of subjects, and more particularly in recent years. As just one rather monumental example: how "even the liberal NYT" helped propagandize on behalf of the Bush administration in the leadup to the Iraq war -- repeating administration talking points, even those from entirely disreputable sources, without question, without analysis, and without reflection. And then injecting that propaganda directly into the center of the national dialogue.

"Know-nothing" is much too kind a term for this kind of intellectual crime. Perhaps the rest of Wilgoren's series will redeem at least part of the Times' despicable record. But if the entire series on evolution manages to do that (which I frankly consider unlikely in terms of a full intellectual case), it will redeem only a very, very small part of that reprehensible legacy.

Page 1 of 3 pages 1 2 3 >

Next entry: Insanely good pictures of flying insects

Previous entry: Happy Twenty-First Carnival of the Godless!

<< Back to main

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Sunday, August 21, 2005

Politicized Scholars…

Info