Discovery Institute loses one

I'm a little confused here and I may be wrong, but something doesn't smell right. The article implies that Davidson was a member of DI and then realized it was not the type of organization he wanted to be involved with.From the article:

quote:

---

"When I joined I didn't think they were about bashing evolution. It's pseudo-science, at best ... What they're doing is instigating a conflict between science and religion." I'm kind of embarrassed that I ever got involved with this,"

---

As far as I can tell, membership will get you a few free CD's and that's about it. The fees are mainly for supporting it as a non-profit organization. All of the published articles are freely available on line. I went to their site and searched their database using keywords "Intelligent Design" and 102 articles came up. There seems to be an abundance of free information available with which to form an opinion as to what sort of organization DI is as it relates to ID.In the article, Davidson goes on to say:

quote:

---

"It's laughable: There have been millions of experiments over more than a century that support evolution," he says. "There's always questions being asked about parts of the theory, as there are with any theory, but there's no real scientific controversy about it."

---

Then why did he join?The various mission statements on the site are quite clear to what the focus of the organization is. I didn't need to join the organization to view any of the 102 articles on ID. Davidson surly could have determined the nature of the organization by reviewing these articles and mission statements. As a scientist, doctor, and 28 years as a nephrology professor at the University of Washington medical school, I don't think Davidson "suddenly" formed his opinion about evolution. He must have held long standing views on the matter.If it is patently obvious to posters here at EvC that DI is nothing more than a propoganda organization, how could such a highly educated scientist been duped regarding the "real" agenda of the DI?Its seems to me that at best, he might have been curious about ID and its proponents, (DI). But if that is the case, then he could have gotten all the info necessary to determine what type of organization they are without becoming a member and thereby save himself some embarrassment. At worst, he joined with the expressed intention of smearing the organization.This message has been edited by Monk, Sat, 09-17-2005 11:45 AM

Nothing of the sort. I just find it...suspicious. Don't you?This message has been edited by Monk, Fri, 08-26-2005 03:31 PM

If they scoured their membership list for scientists and then used their names without permission to further their cause, that's wrong. But I get the impression Davidson was interested in more than a few CD's when he joined.

Yes, but he is no illiterate dummy. He could have taken 10 minutes, skim some of their articles as I did, find out who they are, then save himself some embarassment. Instead he joined. Perhaps he joined without thinking about it just to get a few CD's as Arach has suggested. Or perhaps he joined an organization he knew nothing about with the intention of learning about it latter. I don't buy it.

But we don't know from the article in the OP when Davidson joined. How do you know it is a given that Davidson joined several years ago? The changing banners are interesting, but how does that tie into Davidson?You posted a statement signed that does not endorse ID. Is that what Davidson signed? My impression is that he didn't sign anything, just that his name appeared on a list as one of 400 scientist.

Well that's what I'm asking. How do you know? Link?

Damn, too slow. I found the list also that had Davidson on it. And no, I generally don't take anyones word for it without some evidence, that's the creo method isn't it?

Sounds interesting, might even get some media attention with the results.

In this Article they mention adding people recently.

I'm not sure what "representations" were or were not made. As I posted, with the information currently available on the web site, one can easily form an opinion about the org. If you add to that someone with the credentials Davidson has, then he should have had a good idea about what he was getting into beforehand and should not have become "surprised". Most people are more critical of an organization if they send membership dues.Sure, there are legions of willfully blind donors who support the likes of Benny Hinn. They send in money month after month without question. But I wouldn't put Davidson in that category.Still, there could be scenarios where Davidson joined in good faith only to discover later that his perception of DI was not correct. For example:

1. The ID articles at the time Davidson joined were not so blatant towards pushing ID as a controversy between science and religion.
   ​
2. Davidson was never asked whether he agreed to have his name posted on the 400 list.
   ​
3. As a member, Davidson could have been exposed to material not on the website that could have settled his initial concerns.

These questions are why I think our little project would be interesting.This message has been edited by Monk, Sat, 09-17-2005 11:49 AM

Agreed, when the list is used as an endorsement of ID as science, that's wrong.But the first half of the statement:

quote:

---

WE ARE SKEPTICAL OF CLAIMS FOR THE ABILITY OF RANDOM MUTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION TO ACCOUNT FOR THE COMPLEXITY OF LIFE?

---

Begs the question.What to do about this skepticism? It seems to me that ID may be an avenue to explore that skepticism.This message has been edited by Monk, Sat, 09-17-2005 11:50 AM

Well, I prefer to keep the door open on the possibility that a brilliant mind may come along to upturn the whole subject and put something forward that scientists can get their teeth into. It's happened before. Consider the long history of changing scientific viewpoints as a result of new discoveries.If our "Truth in ID" project shows that the 400 list is accurate and these scientist do hold skepticism regarding the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Then ID is the avenue to explore it. Frankly, I'm very interested in their comments.The "teach the controversy" tactic was ill conceived and is beginning to do more harm to the cause than good. I suspect it probably does not represent an acceptable approach by the majority of scientific members. Again, our project may shed insights on this if it is included as a question in the e-mail.This message has been edited by Monk, Sat, 09-17-2005 11:52 AM

Hi Brad Yes, and I doubt that "origin" was solely religious. You know how science abhors leaving questions unanswered. Its an itch that one must attempt to scratch.

Sure, that suggestion is valid. ID as possible is not exclusive. Do you find the phrasing seductive? I don't. It seems straight forward to me. I don't see any "phunny business" in the statement by itself. Its use, on the other hand, is a different story.

I said:

quote:

---

... and these scientist do hold skepticism regarding the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Then ID is the avenue to explore it.

---

To which you responded: Well that's what I want to find out with the project. If the majority of these scientist answered the statement with an eye towards other naturally occuring phenomenon specifically exclusive of ID, then DI misled them by not stating its subsequent use to promote ID. If OTOH, they answered as part of a general discussion of ID, then that gives more credence towards further examination of ID as opposed to uncle bob or IPU's or whatever.When I say credence I'm not saying ID is valid or scientific, just that a portion of the scientific community is intrigued by it and may be willing to see it examined further rather than dismissed out of hand.