"Kremlinology"? Discovery Institute's Glass House


#1

David Klinghoffer just posted an article today at Evolution News and Views, in which he wrote,

“We have our Kremlinologists who observe the BioLogos website for indications of what ideas, and which people, are up or down in the world of TE.”

Kremlinologists? Really? It’s come to that? In that case, I suggest a little investigating of ENV is in order. For example, while Dr. Ann Gauger has no reticence in mentioning here at BioLogos that she thinks Adam and Eve may have existed over a million years ago, and may have been members of Homo erectus, I’m pretty sure she’s never made mention of that at ENV. A need to hide things from their YEC audience?

Likewise, you will often find attacks against the idea of common descent at ENV. But as far as I know, not once has it been mentioned there that Prof. Michael Behe argues for common descent in his book, The Edge of Evolution. Why? Again, could it be because of their YEC audience?

So, yes, BioLogos isn’t completely open about everything going on in their back room (despite Jim Stump’s claims to the contrary). But then, neither is the Discovery Institute. And whereas at least BioLogos has a forum where people can post topics of their choosing (usually), ENV has no such place.


(Christy Hemphill) #2

At least in this analogy BioLogos is the evil Soviets instead of the evil Nazis. It’s good to have a variety of ways to throw shade.


(Phil) #3

An obvious invoking of Cole’s Law.


#4

From that article:

" One BioLogos Fellow, biologist Dennis Venema, denied the possibility of such a pair, . . ."

ENV keeps trotting out this claim, but it simply isn’t true. Dennis has consistently stated that it is highly improbable, not impossible. Leave it to ENV to misrepresent someone on a blog that doesn’t allow comments.


(Curtis Henderson) #5

Never let the truth get in the way of a good narrative.


#7

How do you know what is going on in their back room? Do you have somebody on the inside?


#8

I don’t know, BL. But from their post about Swamidass they made it clear there was one, and they didn’t want anyone talking about it.


(Brad Kramer) #9

Wait…you mean there’s an organization which doesn’t publicly reveal every detail of their internal politics? Shocking!


#10

I wasn’t criticizing BioLogos. I was merely making an observation.


(Jonathan) #11

@Christy
@AMWolfe

I knew that that “Punctuation Marx” comment was going to come back to bite! ;)[quote=“Christy, post:2, topic:37120, full:true”]
At least in this analogy BioLogos is the evil Soviets instead of the evil Nazis. It’s good to have a variety of ways to throw shade.
[/quote]


(Larry Bunce) #12

As befitting our Kremlin status, and from the mention of Marx, I had to get a copy of the postage stamp issued by the former USSR state of Abkhazia after the break-up.
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/91cSu74Qx9L.SX463.jpg


#13

That’s a great logo. :joy:


(Christy Hemphill) #14

I like how Klinghoffer notes that the “TE style” of writing on BioLogos blog posts is not like the style of writing you would find in the journal Nature. Ya think? Now there’s a noteworthy observation. I’d like to point out that the “ID style” of writing that you find on ENV is not the style of writing you find in Nature either. More like US Weekly.


(David Heddle) #15

Why this is just completely silly, even by ENV standards. The childishness of “We have our Kremlinologists who observe the BioLogos website for indications of what ideas, and which people, are up or down in the world of TE” makes the mind reel. I haven’t seen any tactic so effective since the “wedge strategy.” But where was that keen attention to detail and unrelenting lidless-eye focus when “cdesign proponentsists” slipped through the cracks?


(Steve Schaffner) #16

The idea that BioLogos represents “the world of TE” is kind of sill to start with.


(Steve Schaffner) #17

Which group do you suppose has actually published more papers in Nature?


(Andrew M. Wolfe) #18

This is great.

Of course, the immense irony in all this Kremlinologist talk is that the most currently active ID-related post here on the Forum was introduced by someone with an Eastern European last name! =)

(And I have to think he would appreciate the humor here, given that one of the top Google hits on his name is a paper on Humor Theory:slight_smile: )


#19

Jon Garvey found things to like and dislike about my post and spells it out in great detail at his own blog. I tried responding there, but had trouble when I copied the new password down sloppily, so I wasn’t able to enter it correctly.

Jon, when Dr. Gauger posts something at ENV letting people know she suspects Adam and Eve were members of Homo Erectus, living anywhere from 450,000 to over a million years ago, let me know.

And when ENV points out that Behe not only accepts common descent but actually argues for it in his book, based on shared pseudogenes between chimpanzees and humans, let me know that, too.

I don’t consider myself to be part of the BioLogos crowd, since I’m persuaded that there is something to ID. So I think I am coming at this issue from a somewhat neutral position.

I do like that BioLogos allows people to post their own topics. I didn’t realize they do that. I might have visited more frequently if I had known.


(Curtis Henderson) #20

I don’t mind admitting that I also believe “there is something to ID”, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there are others here that would agree. It just confounds me why, when so many claim to at least admit the possibility of common ancestry, that they spend virtually all of their time and energy trying to refute it.


(Jon Garvey) #21

Bilbo - not me, I’m afraid. The column in question is by Eddie Robinson , so you need to direct remarks to him! But the site will certianly give you anothetr password on request, so by all means speak to him direct there.