Discovery Institute’s “Peer Reviewed” Literature

The brilliantly written 139-page decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District drove a stake through the heart of the intelligent design (ID) movement. Besides tracing the shameful origin of ID back to its primitive ancestor, full-blown creationism, Judge Jones also detailed the numerous ways in which ID fails to qualify as science. We wrote about that and quoted Jones’ opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover: Is ID Science?, where the judge said:

As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.

But since that humiliation, which caused the Discoveroids to return to Seattle with their tails tucked between their legs, and carrying not only their heads but also their backsides, which had been handed to them in the courtroom, they haven’t been idle. No, they’ve taken the Kitzmiller opinion and attempted to use it as a road-map to the promised land of intellectual respectability. As we said in The Intelligent Designer’s Identity Crisis:

The obvious failure of the Discoveroids’ “theory” to qualify as science (it’s an untestable, unfalsifiable concept) has goaded them into erecting a Potemkin village that simulates the appearance of scientific activity, complete with their own captive “peer reviewed” journal (BIO-Complexity), and their own creation science lab (Biologic Institute), and their own “peer reviewed” vanity press operation (Discovery Institute Press). Their imitation of the accouterments of science has caused intelligent design to be described as a cargo cult.

We’ve posted before about their attempts to get their “theory” into the professional, peer-reviewed literature. For example, see Discovery Institute’s Long March to Respectability, and also Discovery Institute: Their Peer-Reviewed Papers. We described the Discoveroids’ desperate publishing campaign as “getting insignificant survey articles published in journals that are the scientific equivalent of Toilet Tissue Technology Today.”

With that background you can appreciate the latest article we found at the Discoveroids’ blog. It’s by Klinghoffer, and the title is Where’s the Beef? Here It Is. Klinghoffer claims he got this question from a reader:

I was listening to the Michael Medved show and the debate between Casey Luskin and Zack Kopplin, and Casey mentioned that there are hundreds of mainstream peer-reviewed science papers that show critiques of some mainstream ideas of evolution. I would be very interested in a list of all of these papers. Masatoshi Nei was one scientist mentioned and I am interested in learning about more scientists who also critique the common Darwinian views. It is very tough to find any critiques of evolution in the mainstream so this would be very helpful!

Here’s what Klinghoffer says, with bold font added by us:

We got some ruder responses as well. But he is politely asking, “Where’s the beef?”

Over the years we’ve been watching, it’s been obvious to us that there isn’t any beef. But who knows? Maybe they’ve really got something. Klinghoffer continues:

There is no complete bibliography available at present for one-stop shopping, though volunteers are encouraged to start working on the formidable task of assembling one right now.

The “formidable task”? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! This is great! Okay, here comes the beef:

Meanwhile, just for starters, see here. Check out our:

Bibliography of Supplementary Resources for Science Instruction

And our:

Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)

That first link takes you to a list of stuff compiled by Discoveroids Stephen Meyer and Jonathan Wells at the start of 2004. That was before the Kitzmiller case at the end of 2005, when it was established that they had no peer-reviewed publications, so we can ignore that 2004 collection. The second link is to a list compiled in February of 2012. The first item was published by Baylor University, and we’ve already discussed that paper in Discovery Institute: Their Peer-Reviewed Papers, where we said:

Specifically, it’s a survey of the evolution-creationism controversy. Even more specifically, it’s a survey of the alleged “weaknesses” of the theory of evolution, such as the origin of life, the so-called irreducible complexity of some cellular features, the artificial distinction between micro- and macro-evolution, the scarcity of transitional fossils, etc. It cites the writings of various creationist authors, such as Behe, Dembski, Meyer, etc. — footnote 36 even cites Casey Luskin! In other words, this peer-reviewed article of which the Discoveroids boast is just like a Discoveroid blog article.

The other items are mostly by Discoveroid authors. If there were any genuine research that had described verifiable evidence of intelligent design we would have heard about it, so we won’t spend any time going through this material. But if you, dear reader, want to delve into that trove of scientific lore, go ahead. If you find something, let us know.

Klinghoffer concludes with this:

To mix metaphors, that is the tip of the iceberg. [And then he gives a few more links that don’t interest us.]

Is that the tip of an iceberg, or the last glimpse of a sinking garbage scow as it slips beneath the waves? We’ll let you decide. It shouldn’t be difficult.

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

21 responses to “Discovery Institute’s “Peer Reviewed” Literature

  1. anevilmeme

    Pathetic, I’d almost feel sorry for them if they were random lunatics yelling on a street corner and not the Discovery Institute.

  2. docbill1351

    I used to think, well, Klinghitler, he has issues, nobody likes him, he’s an obnoxious, twerpy little sociopath but, hey, he graduated from Brown, he can’t be that stupid.

    Boy, was I ever wrong!

    Let’s start with politely asking, “Where’s the beef?” A quick stroll down memory lane will show that question was anything but polite!

    But all cockfloppery aside (to quote Bill in KB2), this nonsense about the DI not having a bibliography of dissent from darwinism is ASTOUNDING! Dissent from Darwinism, now, where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah, it’s the list of a jillion scientists who are Darwin skeptics and this list is maintained and produced by the Disco Tute. Hey, Klinghitler, are you sure you work there?

    Second, the DI keeps a detailed list of all their self-published, self-peer-reviewed papers and also papers from renown journals like the IEEE Electronic Doorbell Quarterly which are “ID friendly.” Wouldn’t anti-evolution articles be similarly cherished?

    Third, the Disco Tute is forever touting that there are “thousands” of scientists who are skeptical, reject, hate, spit on, laugh at, and so on, of evolution, so you’d think the Tooters would keep track of the legions of acolytes and their wares. What, Klinghitler, no love?

    Think about how astounding is Klinghitler’s comment!! The only thing the Disco Tute promotes is arguments against and weaknesses of the theory of evolution and Klinker would have us believe that the Disco Tute doesn’t even have an archive documenting them?

    Or do they?

    Maybe the Tute has an “archive” but it’s empty. That right, Klinker-binker, got no beef?

  3. What the Disco Tute really does.

    Thank you, gnome. Great link! The Disco Tute, a con-profit scam.

  4. Ceteris Paribus

    Doc Bill says: “Maybe the Tute has an “archive” but it’s empty.”

    That quite well conforms to something that I heard bible scholar Robert Price mention recently, in the context of the difference between the small but shared library of written scriptures, and the vast array of beliefs and rituals practiced by the many Christian sects who claim to share that common library.

    It turns out that the clerics long ago discovered that nearly no one in their congregations bother to read their scriptures. Instead the adherents base their beliefs on the various creeds, confessions, and other extra-biblical dogma being sold to them by their theological leaders.

    So it is no wonder that the Tute has not bothered to put anything in its “science” library. The consumers of what ID is actually selling can be counted on to not even bother with reading it.

    [Thanks also for that great link to CenLamar re Zack]

  5. Doc Bill said:

    and also papers from renown journals like the IEEE Electronic Doorbell Quarterly which are “ID friendly.”

    Oh, like HELL it’s “ID friendly”! That’s one of my favorite IEEE publications! I think you’ve mistaken the “ID” it constantly uses for what they mean it for, which is “idiom delinquent”. It’s a special term used only in the discussion of the circuitry for doorbells. Trust me on this.

  6. docbill1351

    Calm down, Gary, take a chill pill! (Incidentally, I have a great Canadian supplier of chill pills – cheap – if you’re interested.) I’ve subscribed to IEEEEDQ for decades, centuries, maybe, and they’ve always been Increasing Decibel friendly. Of course, the Disco Tute harbors in any port in a storm while I’ll drink any port in a bottle.

    Where were we?

  7. @Doc Bill: Sorry. You know me. I get all worked up. (Giving up the Mt Dew hasn’t helped, either. Frankly, its been murder…) As a proud member of the IEEE (Intellectually Engaged & Egotistical Egalitarians), I don’t want anything to besmirch their good name.

  8. The “list of ID-friendly publications” may not fool people in the know, but it’s enough to fool the general public. That’s what the IDiots have been doing all along – create an impression that ID is a genuine alternative to evolution.

  9. @Borny: There’s a term for that that fits perfectly — Potemkin village. (I think someone already pointed that out, but it bears repeating.)

  10. “Potemkin Village” is most definitely the right term for what the DI (and Hambo and the ICR, and Rives and his “ministry”, and…) have done. It’s a veneer, barely paper thin, but enough to not so much fool the general public, but to allow those who want to fool themselves to do so.

  11. Gary says:

    “Potemkin Village” is most definitely the right term for what the DI (and Hambo and the ICR, and Rives and his “ministry”, and…) have done.

    The term “Potemkin Village” originated to describe fake propaganda villages, staffed with temporary extras to put on a good show. They were no more real than a temporary Hollywood set. But the creationists are creating Potemkin Villages where the inhabitants themselves think it’s all real. Each of those is a potential Jonestown.

  12. Charles Deetz ;)

    Meanwhile they think evolutionists have their own Potemkin Village, with a fake ‘religion’, made-up science, and a lack of transitional fossils. Maybe what they are really doing is extending their Village, and trying to make us into part of it.

  13. docbill1351

    The money shot is this: The goals of the Disco Tute are to keep the Disco Tute funded.

    Like the guy said, keep that gravy train on the tracks!

    That’s it. Bottom line. So long as they can show a facade of “progress” to their donors and keep those donations coming in they can collect their paychecks for doing absolutely nothing.

    Take Klinghitler (please!). That moron pens about 800 words a week, if that and he gets paid. I write more than that in snarky Facebook comments every day – for free! It’s not fair, I tell you!

  14. Not only that, Doc, but you are a far, far superior writer! Your posts are fun to read — in stark contrast to Klinghoofer’s writings.

  15. Wikipedia has an interesting article on Potemkin villages:

  16. docbill1351

    RSG, you are so observant, brilliant and insightful. (check’s in the mail)

    I have observed that creationists are not funny as in “funny ha ha” although they do fit “funny peculiar” nicely. I could never envision Klinghitler doing stand-up comedy but I see him clearly walking around unaware of a “Kick Me” sign taped to his back.

    Klinghitler tries to be “funny” but only so in his snakes-for-brains mind. He’s never actually penned something that’s Mt. Dew spewingly funny. Creationists like Klinghitler would laugh at a kid whose dog was killed by a street sweeping machine.* Their “humor” is all about somebody else’s suffering. I don’t know which comes first, humorlessness or religious conviction but they seem to go hand in hand. That said, I find the Dalai Lama to be quite funny at times and Bishop Tutu would do well on the stand-up circuit, too. Former Pope Ratz I could see cracking a smile in response to a private giggle during a public execution, but that’s all.

    More’s the pity, though, they’re missing out on most of the mockery.

    *even I would chuckle if it was a bichon frise and the sweeper was manufactured by Volvo.

  17. In 2002 NCSE had a devastating article that exposed that “bibliography” as a scam. They contacted most of the authors that the DI alleged “challenged” evolution. Most of the ones contacted replied, and every one of then said in no uncertain terms that the DI misrepresented them.

    The links to that article appear to be broken, so I emailed NCSE to help me find it, or repost it if necessary. Interestingly, the DI’s article now has a date of 2004, but with no mention of the NCSE rebuttal. Tell me again which side practices censorship?

  18. I empathize with the person who wrote the notorious Mr. Klingenhasslehoffer the letter.

    You see, for years and years, I have been “interested in learning about more scientists who also critique the common Copernican views. It is very tough to find any critiques of heliocentrism in the mainstream so this would be very helpful!”

    And oh, what the heck, while I’m at it: I’ve also been “interested in learning about more scientists who also critique the common Magellanic views. It is very tough to find any critiques of oblate spheroidism in the mainstream so this would be very helpful!”

  19. Here’s NCSE’s critique of the DI’s bibliography. To me this is even more damning to the DI than the analysis of their bogus “dissent” statement. The one in the majority of biologist signatories, themselves representing less than 1% of biologists of the same or greater education and experience, admit common descent.

  20. Hat tip to NCSE’s Glenn Branch, who wrote the critique and forwarded me the link.

  21. Techreseller

    Peer review means reviewed by those of whom are your close intellectual equal yes? Well then the DI journals are definitely peer reviewed. The fact that they are written below an 8th grade level of knowledge and comprehension is not relevant.

    Nah, I cannot go on with this. DI is bonkers.