Maxwell Institute vs Discovery Institute

[_DarkHelmet]

Is the Discovery institute responsible for this program?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI9ImScQGAo

[_lostindc]

Look! Buffalo's boyfriend has arrived.

Ooooo... zinger. How shall I ever recover? I'm sure you're just bristling with pride after that massive blow, huh?

I suppose I should tell you; implying that someone's gay works better on religiously motivated homophobes like yourself. I don't see anything wrong with being gay. But ya know... effective insults take skill. Keep at it and maybe someday you'll actually piss someone off. Good luck!

I was informed Buffalo was a girl, just saying. I stand corrected, Buffalo is not a girl. I will correct any other posts suggesting otherwise.

[_stemelbow]

For my Isalmic Philosophy course, one of the books I had to get was a translation of Averroes Decisive Treatise & Epistle Dedicatory by Charles Butterworth (DCP wrote the Forward), for some kind of Project called "Islamic Translation Series: Philosophy, Theology, and Mysticism". I imagine this project falls under the Maxwell Institute, and if so, qualfies as good work.

That said, I'm not sure D.I. ever produces anything of that calibar.

That's interesting. Thanks.

[_Hoops]

Do you have anything in particular on the DI site that has you so exorcized? Or is this just another example of your bluster and blather lacking in any real specificity.

[_Tarski]

The MI does its best to counter legitimate Egyptology, New World archeology, and studies of Native American population genetics. The DI fights primarily against evolutionary biology. Neither have any academic/scientific credibility, but the DI, due to its more visible presence, has seen a lot more scholarly criticism.

I don't think MI usually tries to directly counter egyptology or new world archeology if they can help it. They employ a variety of strategies to open up intellectual space for what Joseph Smith layed in their laps. More than openly oppose, they alternately (1)dance around and (2) misuse those subjects.

Of course, there are similarities in a general sense. Both places are engaged in misguided opposition to or misuse of scientific ideas in the service of protecting religious notions.
Both places employ intelligent educated people who are unfortunately engaged in a misguided project and sometimes behave badly or disingenuously.
Both places generally fail to actually contribute to science or mainstream scholarship (though the same people sometimes do just that in other contexts since they are academics).

I hate to respond to my own post but, the more I think about it, the more I think I had better make the following concessions/admissions

1) I haven't done a real survey of the output of the MI.

2) I suspect, that MI puts out real scholarship that not is directly apologetic (like that Stak mentioned). One might guess that they hope this will give more prestige to the apologetics.

Despite the concessions, what I have seen leads me to say that the scientific part of the apologetic efforts (with regard to egyptology, Book of Mormon archeology) is both minimal and unimpressive in terms of apologetic effectiveness.

So, apologists, what is the best example that will prove me wrong on this last point? I am open (seriously).

[_Buffalo]

Do you have anything in particular on the DI site that has you so exorcized? Or is this just another example of your bluster and blather lacking in any real specificity.

Do you ever blush when you throw out these sorts of accusations, Hoops?

I suppose we could discuss the deliberate plot to disguise creationism as intelligent design in order to sneak it into classrooms. But intelligent design itself is sufficiently damning.

[_Hoops]

Do you ever blush when you throw out these sorts of accusations, Hoops?

I suppose we could discuss the deliberate plot to disguise creationism as intelligent design in order to sneak it into classrooms. But intelligent design itself is sufficiently damning.

Up to you.

[_Buffalo]

http://ncse.com/book/export/html/109

For years, "intelligent design" (ID) proponents denied that ID is just a new label for creationism. However, it is now well-known that the first intelligent design "textbook," Of Pandas and People, is just a revised version of a classic "two-model' creationism vs. evolution book named Creation Biology. As Barbara Forrest showed during her testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover, Pandas was remade into an intelligent design textbook in 1987, in a few months after the Supreme Court ruling against creation science in Edwards v. Aguillard came down.

The most striking example of the transition was discovered by Dr. Forrest as she compared the drafts of Creation Biology and Of Pandas and People. Not only had "creationism" and "creationist" literally been replaced, apparently via a word processor, with "intelligent design" and "design proponent" in passages that were otherwise unchanged, but she even found a transitional form between the two labels!

Scanned images of this passage, in its various versions, are shown below.

Creation Biology (1983), p. 3-34:


Biology and Creation (1986), p. 3-33:


Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40:


Of Pandas and People (1987, “intelligent design” version), p. 3-41:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

The document sets forth the short-term and long-term goals with milestones for the intelligent design movement, with its governing goals stated in the opening paragraph:

* "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"
* "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

Looks like Mormons aren't the only ones lying for the Lord.

[_Milesius]

Is the Discovery institute responsible for this program?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI9ImScQGAo

No. That would be the pseudo-intellectual (not unlike Buffalo) named Seth McFarlane.

[_Buffalo]

Is the Discovery institute responsible for this program?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI9ImScQGAo

No. That would be the pseudo-intellectual (not unlike Buffalo) named Seth McFarlane.

I like this thread - I got the mopologists and flat earth Christians riled up all at one go!