Wedge II - the latest pap from DI

[judanne]

I came across this latest rebuttal (http://www.discover.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2748&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage) from the Discovery Institute. It paints a pretty ugly, paranoid and dogmatic picture of mainstream science. If someone types in the word "wedge" in Google, this is now what comes up on the first page. I was looking for the original wedge document when I came across this. Does this merit a response...er, perhaps one that precedes the original in a Google search?

[Doubting Didymus]

I can't see! Oh no it's a miracle.

[Hookpunch]

I came across this latest rebuttal (http://www.discover.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2748&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage) from the Discovery Institute. It paints a pretty ugly, paranoid and dogmatic picture of mainstream science. If someone types in the word "wedge" in Google, this is now what comes up on the first page. I was looking for the original wedge document when I came across this. Does this merit a response...er, perhaps one that precedes the original in a Google search?

Has that link been removed -I can't find it when I click on it.

[judanne]

Not sure what happened there, the URL seems to be transcribed correctly. It will be the first entry if you use Google with the search term "wedge II"

[Rhaedas]

It's an obvious satire of reaction to the wedge document. Makes fun of opponents of DI. I didn't know they had a sense of humor.

Too bad it wasn't a real response...

[judanne]

a second attempt (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2748&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage)

oops I must have made an error. It's a long URL and I'm not much of a morning person. It should work now. :wave:

[judanne]

It's an obvious satire of reaction to the wedge document. Makes fun of opponents of DI. I didn't know they had a sense of humor.
I gathered that it was satire. It's nevertheless irksome and I wonder whether its satirical nature will be lost on many of the readers who log on to the DI website.
Too bad it wasn't a real response... Agreed. Then we could have some real fun with it, couldn't we?

[ninewands]

It's an obvious satire of reaction to the wedge document. Makes fun of opponents of DI. I didn't know they had a sense of humor.
I gathered that it was satire. It's nevertheless irksome and I wonder whether its satirical nature will be lost on many of the readers who log on to the DI website.
Too bad it wasn't a real response...
Agreed. Then we could have some real fun with it, couldn't we?
Of course it COULD be something more perfidious than that. It could be an attempt to see if they can provoke an over-reaction from folks like us so they can point the finger and say "Gotcha" ... .

After all, the DI has taken a pretty good lick from ELGS in Philadelphia ... :rolling:

[judanne]

Of course it COULD be something more perfidious than that. It could be an attempt to see if they can provoke an over-reaction from folks like us so they can point the finger and say "Gotcha" ... .

After all, the DI has taken a pretty good lick from ELGS in Philadelphia ... :rolling:
Absolutely! An over-reaction would be a big mistake IMO, however irritating it may be. That was more or less what I had in mind when I posted. I would not like to see anyone get involved in some kind of knee-jerk reaction to it. If any kind of response at all is warranted I'd hope it would be of an equally humorous sort. :devil3:

PS. ELGS??? I'm a little overwhelmed by acronyms these days

[Y.B]

PS. ELGS??? I'm a little overwhelmed by acronyms these days

EverLastingGodStopper.

[abaddon]

Real satire is when you make fun of the absurd truth about something (like the Subgenius' "accurate" satire of new age religiosity (http://subgenius.com/)). The mistake here is they've parodied only a parody. Hell, the Subgenius site even has a worthwhile message -- SLACK!!! The DI has no worthwhile message.

"Wedge II, the Discovery Code" was pieced together from office memos, hard copies of emails, shopping lists and fundraising drafts--all suspiciously held in place by what only appeared to be a wad of chewing gum--"The smoking gum!" as Huxley termed it.

So, is that a suggestion that the actual Wedge document isn't real, and doesn't really say what it says?

I can't see the humor in someone lying and pretending it's a joke. And it's too solemn and dire to be funny. This writer has a serious lack of slack.

[judanne]

Well, they're lying to cover their collective asses. It's kind of like they've been caught with their hand in the cookie jar and are now making a bumbling excuse for it, trying to cast doubt on whether or not the witnesses actually saw what they saw. Plausible denial? How about a web page to parody the DI? We could call it the Discovery Instatoot.

[RBH]

Or the reDiscovery Institute (http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.re%2Ddiscovery.org/).

RBH

[judanne]

Ah, yes. I'd forgotten about the rDI! What's more, this document (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=349) was posted in another E/C thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=133032). Now I'm really worried that I may have some tinfoil in my hair :rolleyes:

[MarcoPolo]

Hmm... I've never been to that site but my brother (christian) recently sent me two of the videos they are offering for free. The Privileged Plant, and Unlocking the Mysteries of Life.

The Privileged Plant is basically an hour of telling us how unique our planet is and, while they never come right out and say it, want you to conclude that it had to have been designed. They say from the location of our solar system in the universe, to the size of the planet, to the size and location of the moon, all incredibly coincidental or designed.

I haven't seen the other one yet but plan on watching it soon.

[Toto]

Huxley added, "People at Discovery Institute claim they have always opposed the idea of theocracy and have publicly argued against it. They even say the idea is 'ridiculous.' Well, that's all just for public consumption! The fact is that we are able to trace the influence of J. Pat Rushdowny through the grants that once upon a time were given to Rushdoner by one of the same foundations that in recent years gave large grants to Discovery. How much evidence do you need? Not since the 1960s when the anti-communist John Birch Society exposed the so-called 'coincidence' that the Council on Foreign Relations headquarters in New York was right across the street from the Soviet Mission to the United Nations has there been such solid proof of conspiracy."


Here they mock the well known fact that right wing $$ from Richard Mellon Scaife and others have funded their efforts, as if that is totally irrelevant to their particular biases.

Investigators say that some of the dumpster material has not yet yielded its mystery. "We noted," says Huxley, "that one piece of paper stuck to the pile appears to be a Starbucks receipt for a 'white Frappucino, extra whip.' But we are working on a theory that this is actually Discovery Code for an albino Opus Dei monk who was seen skulking about the Discovery headquarters recently. With the new fundamentalist pope now in office, there has to be a tie there," Huxley declared.


Bringing in the Da Vinci Code for some completely unknown reason - except that it is an anti-Christian conspiracy!

"When you add up all these facts," said Huxley, "it just proves once again that Darwin's theory is scientifically correct in each and every detail and cannot be questioned."

:rolleyes:

[RawData]

Another hurl of URL from the Seattle Post Intelligencer opinion page (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/235729_idesign09.html)
Enjoy!
RD

[Worldtraveller]

How do these DI folks get to constantly write "guest columns" for newspapers?

The NCSE needs to get onthe ball, I think, and start doing the same thing.

First: Correct the overused 'Intelligent Design Theory" and properly correct it to "Intelligent Design Hypothesis". (I'm being generous here.)

Second: Show that the IDH has no tests that make it falsifiable. If it's based on empirical evidence, as claimed, then let's see the proposed test to determine whether something is ID or evolved.

From there it will get fun...:D

ETA: I sent an email to the SPI editor asking for guidelines on how to get a rebuttal article published.

Cheers,
Lane

[JamesKrieger]

Here is my letter to the editor to the Seattle PI:


In the essay “Intelligent Design is Sorely Misunderstood�, John West shows that he sorely misunderstands science.

Design theory is NOT a scientific inference, nor is it a theory. A theory is a model used to explain observations in the world around us. A set of testable predictions are generated from that theory. Those predictions are confirmed or refuted.

“Intelligent Design� does not fit this. It doesn’t generate any testable predictions. How would one design an experiment to test the hypothesis of a creator? You can’t. You can look at anything and simply claim it’s designed. That’s not science.

West says intelligent design is supported by a growing number of scientific journals. This is false. There isn’t a single reputable scientific journal that has published articles supporting intelligent design.

West also says that we should teach the “weaknesses� of Darwinian evolution. However, there are no weaknesses! Every prediction that has ever been made by evolutionary theory has been confirmed! West is advocating teaching a strawman caricature of evolutionary theory, which is dishonest.

Finally, to claim something is “intelligently designed� is to claim it was created. “Intelligent design� is simply a fancy buzzword to sneak creationism into a science class where it doesn’t belong.

[judanne]

How do these DI folks get to constantly write "guest columns" for newspapers?
They have friends in low places.

The NCSE needs to get onthe ball, I think, and start doing the same thing.
Like...yesterday.

First: Correct the overused 'Intelligent Design Theory" and properly correct it to "Intelligent Design Hypothesis". (I'm being generous here.)
There seems to be quite a debate going on in E/C on this thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=131302). I haven't decided one way or another. Both positions are convincing. Maybe I'm just confused :confused: It may not be the best approach. I think it's an important discussion though.

Second: Show that the IDH has no tests that make it falsifiable. If it's based on empirical evidence, as claimed, then let's see the proposed test to determine whether something is ID or evolved.
Hell, let's see the evidence their proposition and test will be based on!