Biologic Institute

Last updated

The Biologic Institute [lower-alpha 1] was a section of the Discovery Institute created to give the organization a facade of conducting biological research with the aim of producing experimental evidence of intelligent design creationism, funded by the Discovery Institute. It claimed offices in Redmond, Washington and laboratories in the Fremont neighborhood of Seattle, Washington. Instead Biologic Institute consisted solely of a rented office space in Redmond which is no longer in use for several years (since at least 2015) although the web domain is still renewed. The 'research' listed for the group consists mainly of random and often irrelevant works by Intelligent Design supporters going back to their graduate school years. Several are notably articles, books or internally published content from Discovery's 'BioComplexity' journal which is not a legitimate scientific journal. [1]

Contents

Origin and goals

The original Discovery Institute plan laid out in the Wedge Document, leaked in 1999, called for Douglas Axe, the current Biologic Institute director, senior researcher and spokesman, to head up a research effort in support of intelligent design. However, the Discovery Institute did not begin executing this part of the Wedge Strategy plan until 2005. [2]

The Biologic Institute was announced in mid-2005, and incorporated in Washington in October 2005 as a charitable organization working on research on birth defects and genetic diseases. [3] [4] [5] Axe told New Scientist magazine that the purpose of the Biologic Institute "is to show that the design perspective can lead to better science", and stated that the Biologic Institute will "contribute substantially to the scientific case for intelligent design". [2] In spite of the Discovery Institute funding, Axe and Discovery spokesperson Rob Crowther are adamant that the Biologic Institute is a "separate entity". [2]

Staff

Axe received a PhD in Chemical Engineering from the California Institute of Technology in 1990. [6] [7] In addition, the Biologic Institute has at least two other researchers. Ann Gauger is a zoologist with a BS in biology from MIT and a 1989 PhD from the University of Washington. As a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard she cloned and characterized the Drosophila kinesin light chain. Her research has been published in Nature, Development, and the Journal of Biological Chemistry. Brendan Dixon is a software developer and worked for Microsoft previously. [8]

Axe, Gauger and Dixon were not among those who signed the original version of the Discovery Institute petition, " A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism ", in 2001. [9] [10] However, Gauger appears on the March 2004 and January 2005 versions of the list. [11] [12] The August 25, 2007 version of the "Darwin Dissent" petition includes the names of both Axe and Gauger. Gauger's affiliation on the August 25, 2007 version of the petition is not the Biologic Institute, but Gauger's alma mater , the University of Washington. [7]

Dixon is the president and sole employee of the Lifeworks Foundation, which in 2006 made $700,000 in donations to the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, and of $30,000 to Baylor University for one of its engineering professors, Robert J. Marks II, to employ intelligent design proponent William Dembski as a postdoctoral researcher within the Evolutionary Informatics Lab he was forming. [13] [14] Thereafter, Baylor shut the lab down, deleted its website and returned the grant, in an incident that the Discovery Institute is publicising as one of their campaigns claiming discrimination.

New Scientist investigation

New Scientist magazine sent a reporter to the Biologic Institute facilities in late 2006 to investigate. The reporter, Celeste Biever, was given a fairly chilly reception and found few willing to speak to her about their research. [2] Although the New Scientist article was somewhat negative, the Discovery Institute touted it as unequivocal evidence that the Biologic Institute is engaging in scientific research. [15]

The only one of the four Biologic Institute directors willing to speak to New Scientist reporter Biever was George Weber, a retired member of the business faculty at Whitworth University, a private Christian college associated with the Presbyterian Church (USA) in Spokane, Washington. Weber belongs to the Spokane chapter of Reasons To Believe, an evangelical Christian old-earth creationist organization. [16] Weber stated that, "We are the first ones doing what we might call lab science in intelligent design" and "The objective is to challenge the scientific community on naturalism." [2] After speaking to New Scientist, Weber left the board of the Biologic Institute. Axe explained in an email to Biever that this was because Weber "was found to have seriously misunderstood the purpose of Biologic and to have misrepresented it." [2]

The Discovery Institute stated in October 2006 that intelligent design research is being conducted by the institute in secret to avoid the scrutiny of the scientific community. [17] [18] Nevertheless, Biever was able to discover that The Biologic Institute is working on "examining the origin of metabolic pathways in bacteria, the evolution of gene order in bacteria, and the evolution of protein folds" and computational biology. [2]

New Scientist also wrote an editorial in the same issue as its 2006 report of the Biologic Institute activities, titled "It's still all about religion". The editorial expressed concern about the interpretations and spin that might be given to any research results that might come out of research funded by the Discovery Institute, and suggested that the research efforts will not benefit science. [1] Axe, Dixon and Gauger responded to the New Scientist article and editorial in a letter published January 13, 2007. [19]

Reception

Scientists, intelligent design supporters, other creationists and the religious community have received news of the Biologic Institute with a variety of comments. Several have pointed out that the development of a Discovery Institute research laboratory and research program is somewhat belated. It has also been noted that other creationist organizations like the Institute for Creation Research, Creation Research Society and the Geoscience Research Institute (part of the Seventh-day Adventist Loma Linda University) have had research programs for a long time. [4] [20] [21]

University of Warwick sociologist Steve Fuller, who testified in support of intelligent design at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, opines that research at the Biologic Institute will reduce tensions between scientists and the religious community. Fuller states that "Regardless of whether the science cuts any ice against evolution, one of the virtues is that it could provide a kind of model for how religiously motivated people can go into the lab." [2] Robin Collins, a philosopher at Messiah College in Grantham, Pennsylvania, applauds the efforts of the Biologic Institute to find patterns in nature that cannot be explained by neo-Darwinian evolution. Collins claims that the progress made by physics over the last few centuries results from assuming that the universe and physical laws are intelligently designed. [22]

The scientific community remains skeptical and commentators note that no publications containing results which support intelligent design have yet appeared. [4] [23] [24] Reason magazine compared the research efforts at the Biologic Institute to those of "Big Tobacco" [25] and the 2006 New Scientist editorial noted that this sort of research is similar to the agenda-driven research of the tobacco and oil industries. [1] University of Minnesota biology professor PZ Myers likens the Biologic Institute's research program to cargo cults, with "Intelligent Design creationists pretend[ing] that they're doing science." [26]

Gauger reported on her work at the Wistar Retrospective Symposium held from June 3 through June 7, 2007 in Boston, Massachusetts. As reported by Daniel Brooks, "...she discussed "leaky growth," in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner said, "So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab?" at which point the moderator halted questioning." [27] Gauger herself has reported a different take on this meeting, saying that the point was not whether there was a beneficial mutation (which Gauger agrees there was) but whether or not the organism had manufactured a new way to make biotin, which it had not (it had merely been able to better scavenge it from the environment). Additionally, Brooks implied that the questioning was cut short because of the question, while Gauger holds that this was simply an amusing question at the end of the session. [28]

Laboratory photograph controversy

On December 18, 2012, the science and technology blog Ars Technica ran an exposé featuring a photograph of Gauger on the Biologic Institute's website. The image appeared to show her standing in a laboratory in the Biologic Institute. Ars Technica revealed that it was actually a composite photograph of her face superimposed over a stock photograph sourced from the stock photo agency Shutterstock. [29] After the story spread throughout the internet, the Biologic Institute removed the image from their website. [30]

Notes

  1. ↑ Occasionally, the word for "biological" in foreign languages is mis-translated into English as "biologic", leading to other instances of "Biologic Institutes" erroneously appearing in the literature. For example, a "Biological Institute" at University of Oslo, the Carlsberg Foundation, in Brazil or in Mexico is therefore sometimes mistakenly described as a "Biologic Institute".

Related Research Articles

Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins". Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science. The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States.

The Discovery Institute (DI) is a politically conservative think tank that advocates the pseudoscientific concept of intelligent design (ID). It was founded in 1991 in Seattle as a non-profit offshoot of the Hudson Institute.

<i>Icons of Evolution</i> Book by Jonathan Wells

Icons of Evolution is a book by Jonathan Wells, an advocate of the pseudoscientific intelligent design argument for the existence of God and fellow of the Discovery Institute, in which Wells criticizes the paradigm of evolution by attacking how it is taught. The book includes a 2002 video companion. In 2000, Wells summarized the book's contents in an article in the American Spectator. Several of the scientists whose work is sourced in the book have written rebuttals to Wells, stating that they were quoted out of context, that their work has been misrepresented, or that it does not imply Wells's conclusions.

John Corrigan "Jonathan" Wells is an American theologian and advocate of the pseudoscientific argument of intelligent design. Wells joined the Unification Church in 1974, and subsequently wrote that the teachings of its founder Sun Myung Moon, his own studies at the Unification Theological Seminary and his prayers convinced him to devote his life to "destroying Darwinism." The term Darwinism is often used by intelligent design proponents and other creationists to refer to the scientific consensus on evolution. He gained a PhD in religious studies at Yale University in 1986, then became Director of the Unification Church's inter-religious outreach organization in New York City. In 1989, he studied at the University of California, Berkeley, where he earned a PhD in molecular and cellular biology in 1994. He became a member of several scientific associations and has published in academic journals.

Project Steve is a list of scientists with the given name Stephen or Steven or a variation thereof who "support evolution". It was originally created by the National Center for Science Education and comedian Stephen Colbert as a "tongue-in-cheek parody" of creationist attempts to collect a list of scientists who "doubt evolution", such as the Answers in Genesis's list of scientists who accept the biblical account of the Genesis creation narrative or the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. The list pokes fun at such endeavors while making it clear that, "We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!" It also honors Stephen Jay Gould. The level of support for evolution among scientists is very high. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time."

The intelligent design movement is a neo-creationist religious campaign for broad social, academic and political change to promote and support the pseudoscientific idea of intelligent design (ID), which asserts that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Its chief activities are a campaign to promote public awareness of this concept, the lobbying of policymakers to include its teaching in high school science classes, and legal action, either to defend such teaching or to remove barriers otherwise preventing it. The movement arose out of the creation science movement in the United States, and is driven by a small group of proponents. The Encyclopædia Britannica explains that ID cannot be empirically tested and that it fails to solve the problem of evil; thus, it is neither sound science nor sound theology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stephen C. Meyer</span> American author, educator and advocate of intelligent design creationism

Stephen C. Meyer is an American author and former educator. He is an advocate of intelligent design, a pseudoscientific creationist argument for the existence of God. and helped found the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) of the Discovery Institute (DI), which is the main organization behind the intelligent design movement. Before joining the DI, Meyer was a professor at Whitworth College. Meyer is a senior fellow of the DI and director of the CSC.

The "teach the controversy" campaign of the Discovery Institute seeks to promote the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design as part of its attempts to discredit the teaching of evolution in United States public high school science courses. Scientific organizations point out that the institute claims that there is a scientific controversy where in fact none exists.

The Kansas evolution hearings were a series of hearings held in Topeka, Kansas, United States from May 5 to 12, 2005 by the Kansas State Board of Education and its State Board Science Hearing Committee to change how evolution and the origin of life would be taught in the state's public high school science classes. The hearings were arranged by the Board of Education with the intent of introducing intelligent design into science classes via the Teach the Controversy method.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Neo-creationism</span> Pseudoscientific creationism

Neo-creationism is a pseudoscientific movement which aims to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, by policy makers, by educators and by the scientific community. It aims to re-frame the debate over the origins of life in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture. This comes in response to the 1987 ruling by the United States Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard that creationism is an inherently religious concept and that advocating it as correct or accurate in public-school curricula violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The Sternberg peer review controversy concerns the conflict arising from the publication of an article supporting pseudoscientific intelligent design creationism in a scientific journal, and the subsequent questions of whether proper editorial procedures had been followed and whether it was properly peer reviewed.

Paul A. Nelson is an American philosopher, noted for his advocacy of the pseudosciences of young earth creationism and intelligent design.

Guillermo Gonzalez is an astronomer, a proponent of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design, and a research scientist at the University of Alabama-Huntsville. He is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, considered the hub of the intelligent design movement, and a fellow with the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design, which also promotes intelligent design.

A Scientific Support for Darwinism was a four-day, word-of-mouth petition of scientists in support of evolution. Inspired by Project Steve, it was initiated in 2005 by archaeologist R. Joe Brandon to produce a public response to the Discovery Institute's 2001 petition A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.

"A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" was a statement issued in 2001 by the Discovery Institute, a Christian, conservative think tank based in Seattle, Washington, U.S., best known for its promotion of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design. As part of the Discovery Institute's Teach the Controversy campaign, the statement expresses skepticism about the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life, and encourages careful examination of the evidence for "Darwinism", a term intelligent design proponents use to refer to evolution.

<i>Uncommon Dissent</i> 2004 anthology edited by William A. Dembski

Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing is a 2004 anthology edited by William A. Dembski in which fifteen intellectuals, eight of whom are leading intelligent design proponents associated with the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC) and the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), criticise "Darwinism" and make a case for intelligent design. It is published by the publishing wing of the paleoconservative Intercollegiate Studies Institute. The foreword is by John Wilson, editor of the evangelical Christian magazine Christianity Today. The title is a pun on the principle of biology known as common descent. The Discovery Institute is the engine behind the intelligent design movement.

Truth in Science is a United Kingdom-based creationist organisation which promotes the Discovery Institute's "Teach the Controversy" campaign, which it uses to try to get the pseudoscientific concept of intelligent design creationism taught alongside evolution in school science lessons. The organisation claims that there is scientific controversy about the validity of Darwinian evolution, a view rejected by the United Kingdom's Royal Society and over 50 Academies of Science around the world. The group is affiliated with the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement, following its strategy and circulating the Institute's promotional materials.

The level of support for evolution among scientists, the public, and other groups is a topic that frequently arises in the creation–evolution controversy, and touches on educational, religious, philosophical, scientific, and political issues. The subject is especially contentious in countries where significant levels of non-acceptance of evolution by the general population exists, but evolution is taught at public schools and universities.

The Discovery Institute has conducted a series of related public relations campaigns which seek to promote intelligent design while attempting to discredit evolutionary biology, which the Institute terms "Darwinism". The Discovery Institute promotes the pseudoscientific intelligent design movement and is represented by Creative Response Concepts, a public relations firm.

<i>Explore Evolution</i>

Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism is a controversial biology textbook written by a group of intelligent design supporters and published in 2007. Its promoters describe it as aimed at helping educators and students to discuss "the controversial aspects of evolutionary theory that are discussed openly in scientific books and journals but which are not widely reported in textbooks." As one of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns to "teach the controversy" its evident purpose is to provide a "lawsuit-proof" way of attacking evolution and promoting pseudoscientific creationism without being explicit.

References

  1. 1 2 3 New Scientist visits the "God Lab", NCSE Resource, National Center for Science Education website, December 15, 2006.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Intelligent design: The God Lab, Celeste Biever, New Scientist, issue 2482, page 8-11, 15 December 2006.
  3. ↑ In Explaining Life's Complexity, Darwinists and Doubters Clash, Kenneth Chang, The New York Times , August 22, 2005.
  4. 1 2 3 Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals Archived May 19, 2011, at the Wayback Machine , Barbara Forrest, A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry Office of Public Policy, May 2007.
  5. ↑ Redmond, WA 98052 Tax Exempt/NonProfit Organizations, Tax Exempt World, retrieved August 25, 2007.
  6. ↑ Kinetics of RNA polymerase [gamma] subunit synthesis and acid end product transport in Escherichia coli
  7. 1 2 current edition of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" petition
  8. ↑ Brendan Dixon, Computational Biology Researcher, Biologic Institute, speaker biographies, Telecosm2006 (jointly hosted by George Gilder and Steve Forbes).
  9. ↑ 100 Scientists, National Poll Challenge Darwinism, Discovery Institute's Critique of PBS's Evolution, Monday, September 24, 2001 (original press release)
  10. ↑ Original "100 Scientists" advertisement Archived September 30, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
  11. ↑ "March 2004 version of Dissent petition". Archived from the original on 2007-09-29. Retrieved 2007-08-27.
  12. ↑ "January 2005 version of Dissent petition". Archived from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 27 August 2007.
  13. ↑ Follow the money: more Dembski/Baylor-related mischief? Archived 2007-09-10 at the Wayback Machine , Andrea Bottaro, The Panda's Thumb
  14. ↑ Lifeworks Foundation 990 form for the year 2006 Archived July 24, 2015, at the Wayback Machine
  15. ↑ Intelligent Design Research Lab Highlighted in New Scientist Archived August 26, 2007, at the Wayback Machine , John West, Evolution News and Views, Discovery Institute, December 19, 2006.
  16. ↑ According to the Spokane Chapter of Reasons To Believe Archived September 26, 2007, at the Wayback Machine , George Weber is only a member of Reasons To Believe, and is not and never was the head of this organization, contrary to a statement in Biever's article in New Scientist (Biever, 2006).
  17. ↑ The State of Scientific Research on Intelligent Design Archived August 27, 2007, at the Wayback Machine , Bruce Chapman. Evolution News and Views, Discovery Institute, October 2, 2006.
  18. ↑ From A Senior Scientist Observing the ID Debate Archived August 5, 2006, at the Wayback Machine , Paul Nelson, Intelligent Design the Future, Discovery Institute, August 3, 2006.
  19. ↑ Good Science Will Come, Douglas Axe, Brendan Dixon, Ann Gauger, Letters, New Scientist, Issue 2586, page 18, January 13, 2007.
  20. ↑ New Scientist Investigates the Biologic Institute Archived 2007-09-30 at the Wayback Machine , Reed A. Cartwright, Panda's Thumb, Entry 2766, December 14, 2006.
  21. ↑ The next step of Intelligent Design theory, Massimo Pigliucci and Phil Pollack, Rationally Speaking, December 19, 2006.
  22. ↑ Intelligent Design not Science But Metascience, Robin Collins, Commentary, Research News in Science and Theology, February 2006.
  23. ↑ The DI's Genuine Imitation Leather Research Lab Archived December 1, 2008, at the Wayback Machine , Ed Brayton, Dispatches from the Culture Wars, Scienceblogs, December 15, 2006.
  24. ↑ Creationism and reason, Letters, New Scientist, 13 January 2007.
  25. ↑ Biologic Institute = Tobacco Institute, Ronald Bailey, Hit & Run, Reason online, December 19, 2006.
  26. ↑ Happy Intelligent Design Day! Archived October 18, 2009, at the Wayback Machine , PZ Myers, Pharyngula, Scienceblogs, February 15, 2007.
  27. ↑ ID: Intelligent Design as Imitatio Dei (report on the 2007 'Wistar Retrospective Symposium'), report on Wistar Retrospective Symposium, Boston, MA, June 3–6, 2007, Daniel R. Brooks, The Panda's Thumb weblog, February 6, 2008.
  28. ↑ "What Really Happened at Wistar II", Ann Gauger, Biologic Perspectives (blog of The Biologic Institute), July 26, 2017.
  29. ↑ "Biological Science Laboratory at Night Stock Photo 862039 : Shutterstock". Archived from the original on 2012-12-31. Retrieved 2012-12-21.
  30. ↑ Johnston, Casey (December 18, 2012). "Intelligent design think tank's "institute" is a Shutterstock image". Ars Technica. Retrieved 9 August 2020.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.