Posting Assignment #9 (due SATURDAY 12/18, 11:59 P.M.): Capstones--what did we find?

Last post -- real simple:

1)  GO to the Capstone page on the Moodle site. 

2)  Look down the list of projects, find some titles that catch your eye, and WATCH them.

3)  CHOOSE ONE PROJECT that, for some reason, you need to say something about.  It could be something that excited you, something that intrigued you, something that pissed you off -- but it should be something that matters to you personally, and something that you can engage critically / theoretically in a way that adds to the group's work and moves it forward.

And finally...

4)  SAY IT.  In a blog post.  Maybe 300 words long.  Don't bore your friends -- or yourself.

(No need to comment this week.  Happy Holidaze.)

Upon first glance of The discovery institute website, something immediately jumped out to me: "The Center for Science and Culture" this is undoubtedly just me, but the entire site seemed rather Culty.

I looked around a bit more and realized this was probably not the case.

That being said, Darwin appears quite a bit on this site. I admit that although I am familiar with Darwin and the very basic ideas and concepts that were taught to me in high school and in some college classes, I have not directly read "The Origin of Species" or other text's authored by Darwin, and therefor have a distorted set of ideas about his theories. With what we have learned about how we are taught certain topics in our journey of education (The American Pageant) I am skeptical to trust everything I have been taught about this topic. The center for science and culture seems to embrace this idea though, for on the about page it explains the various approaches/ mission statements that the center takes in order to be/seem less biased

• supports research by scientists and other scholars challenging various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory;
• supports research by scientists and other scholars developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design;
• supports research by scientists and scholars in the social sciences and humanities exploring the impact of scientific materialism on culture.
• encourages schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, including the theory's scientific weaknesses as well is its strengths.

All of these statements seem relatively noble. I think that a respected center for science research that takes into consideration that intelligent design could be an option to why every creature is the way that it is, is a testament to how open minded the center must be. And doesn't this alleged effort taken make the center seem more approachable from both a pro/anti evolution perspective, thus more culturally accessible?

yes.

"The Word 'Ethos' Can be Found in 'Darwin's Theory'"

In analyzing “Beyond the Realm of Reason,” it’s important to note that rhetoric, in regards to the environment, conducts two types of cultural work; “one which produces knowledge about the physical world, and one which produces the consciousness-the identities of those who produce that knowledge.” When rhetoric fulfills this dual-propose, it provides its users with a “norm,” or (as stated in “Beyond the Realm of Reason”) a socially recognized identity and a position from which to speak and act upon it. A very “socially known” discourse is Darwin’s “theory of evolution,” and it was interesting to see that the article "Why Darwin is False” challenges this theory, and its title seemingly “mocks” Jerry Coyne’s “Why Evolution is True.” Part of what makes evolution such a polarizing subject is the ideology of how we can prove or disprove it. The CSC is more concerned with making claims based on religion, whereas supporters of the evolution theory are more concerned with physical, material evidence of fossil records.
Our views as to which rhetoric is more “convincing” is greatly affected by our “linguistic habitus;” a set of cultural beliefs that we not only grew up with, but ones that we generally feel comfortable with and value. Since the author of “Why Darwin is False,” Jonathan Wells, lacks more empirical evidence than a Darwinian, he shapes his discourse (how he makes claims) as if they’re factual; for example, in rebutting “Why Evolution is True” Wells typically starts his argument by stating “if Darwinian theory were true,” then he’d end his claim by stating “so much for Coyne’s prediction.” Regardless of how much reasoning Wells provides while making these claims, he’s presenting them as facts, and instilling a notion to his audience that everything they thought they knew about evolution simply isn’t true. Personally speaking, I feel that the Discovery Institute’s credibility should be in question when considering their arguments, and that we shouldn’t fall for their misleading discourse. There are a multitude of issues our society does not have a concrete answer to, and when culture can’t present us with a recognizable “norm” or identity, we develop topics of high polarity and controversy. Robin states “we want to step back from our disagreement with the ultraconservative position of the John Birch Society-step back from our opposition to what seems bad policy, bad science, bad argument- and attempt to understand their rhetoric as a complex social exchange through which members of the John Birch Society assert the power and prestige of their language, beliefs, and, as we argue, their social identity and position. Just like in cultural studies, I would argue more importantly than being right or wrong is how you can back up your answer, what evidence can you use, and how you use it. This will determine what people will believe and what you may even convince them of.” When we deal with issues like evolution, it’s not only important to take the nature of the world into account, but also the identity, place, and upbringing of the individuals involved in the debate.

Different views=More power to you.

One of the main things that stood out to me in “Beyond the realm of reason”, in regards to forming opinion or our own “rhetoric” was the line that read, “Our rhetorics, in a sense, are interdependent. Our knowledge, and theirs, become powerful only in relation to each other.” When you think about that, it makes a lot of sense. Imagine if everyone was democrat and nobody was republican. Our views as Democrats wouldn’t be very powerful because there would be no one to challenge and question them so we would never have to defend them. Our ideas and opinions are, according to Bordieu, formed by our habitus, or our “durable dispositions”, the way we are naturally inclined to act. I believe what was trying to be put across in this article was that just because something has been completely and accurately proved by science with concrete evidence (in this case global warming), there will be those who are opposed to it for their own reasons, for instance, the John Birch Society. This article is more about how people form opinions rather them the opinions themselves. In this situation, the John Birch Society is the marginal group but using the power of the dominant press. They write there opinions in a way where the person reading them will feel like a “heroic rebel” because they know they are opposed to such “nonsense”. Who knows, those part of the John Birch Society may take much pride in being the “underdog”.

The Center for Science and Culture article I decided to look at was entitled “The Dark side of Darwinism”. I couldn’t wait to see what this was going to be like, since I am a strong believer of evolution and cannot stand when people believe it doesn’t exist. I am Catholic in my religion but my parents both work in a scientific field and I went to public school where evolution was taught, so I was raised to have a more rational, scientific mind, which is part of my own habitus. Back to the article, one of the lines that stood out to me the most, not in the best way, was “Evolutionary thinking inspired modern scientific racism.” When learning about evolution in school, a thought relating to racism or genocide never crossed my mind. It all goes back to the whole idea of it doesn’t matter how much concrete “truthful” evidence there is, people will always have their own “truths” about such things. And like I mentioned in the beginning, without our differing “truths”, we would maybe not have passion to stand up and fight for them.

Discovery Institute: Grain of Salt

One of the Discovery Institutes general stances supports the research challenging the findings of the neo-Darwinism theory and the opposition of mandates making educators teach intelligent design. Through digging around the Discovery Institute site there are certain rhetorical powers and efforts given by the staff that further develops their case. Through the reading, “Beyond the Realm of Reason” Brown and Herdnl evaluate the different rhetoric and “nonsense” given forth by the John Birch Society and how their cultural analysis of the writing of the Society affect both the American public and the rhetoric of the opposition of the John Birch Society.

“If we can understand what the John Brich Society is up to, rhetorically, in their writings on the environment, we may also understand what we are up to in the part of our own rhetoric that lies beyond the logic.” (p.217) Taking this passage and applying to the Discovery Institute we (meaning CSCL 1001) can start to analyze the meaning behind why and more importantly how culturally they are giving forth their ideals. Although we are not necessarily opposed to or in agreement with the Discovery Institute by being able to read how they present their findings we can further understand our own interpretation along with the actual opposition.

I want to move further in applying an example given in “Beyond the Realm of Reason” and match it with a finding on the Discovery Institute website. The finding for the discovery sight is an article written by Phillip E. Johnson on the discovery sight states, “What I hope readers of these two books will appreciate is that conflicting scientific claims can only be properly adjudicated by impartially investigating the evidence, and not by excluding an important claim because of an a priori philosophical bias, such as by incorporating the opposing claim into the definition of ‘science.’” Although this itself is an analysis of reading scientific findings it is inline with a point made in “Beyond the Realm of Reason” while examining the article “The Resilient Earth” specifically ‘The Fury of Mother Nature.’ In its analysis Brown and Herdnl state that ‘The Fury of Mother Nature’ exhibit scientific facts that are irrelevant to the point that it is making. This irrelevance is a rhetorical strategy that pushes common sense in order to influence and persuade an audience. Its connection with the Johnson article is important when realizing that both state that using discretion when reading scientific findings is important not only on a logical/educational level but also on a rhetoric level.

So by reading these two pieces a certain grain of salt must be taken with the Discovery Institute. They make no secret as to what their objectives are on their website and so it should be obvious to point out the rhetoric exhibited. Although it may be obvious for some people, it may not be obvious to others (like the American public discussed in “Beyond the Realm of Reason.”) Thus it is important to look out for rhetoric in text books, magazines, and of course the always accurate internet.

About CSC

After skimming a few articles that I found on the front page, I eventually noticed the 'About CSC' link. Right off the bat, I'd like to point out how interesting it is that the name of the website says nothing about the views represented by it. They call it 'The Center for Science and Culture' as if there is no agenda, as if they are purely unbiased in their 'scientific' findings.

I also noticed that the bullet points addressing CSC's various ambitions are riddled with an appeal to authority(underlined below): something that would be instantly recognized by one of those 'knowledgeable academics' that Robin mentions in his text.

Started in 1996, the Center for Science and Culture is a Discovery Institute program which:

• supports research by scientists and other scholars challenging various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory;
• supports research by scientists and other scholars developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design;
• supports research by scientists and scholars in the social sciences and humanities exploring the impact of scientific materialism on culture.
• encourages schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, including the theory's scientific weaknesses as well is its strengths.

Discovery's Center for Science and Culture has more than 40 Fellows, including biologists, biochemists, chemists, physicists, philosophers and historians of science, and public policy and legal experts, many of whom also have affiliations with colleges and universities.

Not one of these 'scientists,' 'scholars,' 'experts,' or other euphemistic titles offers a strand of significance in their opinion without a name and personal reputation attached to it. The author is clearly trying to argue to the reader that CSC is purely scientific in its views, regardless of the fact that intelligent design in its very essence requires a scientifically unsupported faith in a higher power. The author is trying to dazzle the audience by saying CSC's views are supported by intelligent people, without ever having to specify precisely which views are supported by whom and with what reason. This is beautiful because it gives the unsuspecting reader the impression that nothing on the site would be posted without the approval of one of CSC's many intelligent scientists. Suddenly CSC is infallible among those not observant enough to notice these cultural manipulations.

Darwin is Wrong

In my reading of articles from the Discovery Institute, I kept reading that Darwin and his idea of evolution were wrong. Especially in the article, "Why Darwinism is False," by Jonathan Wells. This article is about a book written by Jerry Coyne called "Why Evolution is True." In this book Coyne gives evidence to why he believes that evolution and Darwinism, is in fact true. Wells mostly uses quotes from Coyne's book and then gives his evidence to why it is false.

A 'truth' that the Discovery Institute is arguing is that evolution doesnt exist. I think that most of this truth is obvious in the language that they use. Wells quotes Coyne about DNA and how it plays a role in evolution. Wells then blatantly says "But Coyne is dead wrong." This, to me, is very telling. He just rejects Coyne and then goes on to explain that what he thinks about DNA is the actual truth. When there are two directly opposing views it is pretty hard to determine what is actually true or not. Thankfully, Wells backs up his arguments well and includes a good description of his thoughts. This definitely helps him out and solidifies the truth in his arguments.

Mr. Diety and The Science Advisor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Clm6nlWxzc

When i went to the website I dinked around and came across this video that someone posted in response to the article Finding Design in Nature. The video coincides with the point made from Robin's and Herndl's essay. They talk about how the rhetoric of such works from anti-environmentalists are set out to almost "fool" those that are debating because in reality, the rhetoric of such work is "seeking only to please and affirm the beliefs of a group already sure of its position." Writers such as those found in the Discovery Institute and the actors portrayed in Mr. Deity are not writing to change the minds of those who oppose them. They on the other hand are only there to get highly acclaimed professionals, and highly scholarly linguists to use such language and ideals to boast their skills all in the favor of the argued viewpoint. In doing so will only therefore let the "speaker build a social link to the disenfranchised because he recognizes and attributes values to their habitus." In the video I found, it right from the start enters the scene with Mr. Deity and a science expert where Mr. Deity is trying to pronounce a very complicated and complex scientific term, which ultimately puts the affect onto the audience that the "writers" have knowledge and are therefore reliable and "truthful." But the connection comes when in fact the presentation of the argument is never going to change the mind of the opposer. A spiritual leader and firm believer in God is not going to read the article on The Design in Nature or watch Mr. Deity and suddenly change all that he once thought about God and decide to now be an avid atheist and evolutionist. However, a newly acclaimed atheist, and anthropology major grad-student may watch this video and find it not only hilarious, but support his owns beliefs just in a comical way. So writings such as these are simply there to add to the effect of those who read them and agree. Nothing more. And everyone can agree with that, which ultimately makes them "truthful."

Darwinian fundamentalists are big meanies.

There was a line from “Beyond the Realm of Reason” that, I thought, encompasses a main aspect of their theory. “…we must treat all rhetorical production as a complex system, understandable only through analysis of multiple, interconnected relationships.” For example; the article refers to the resistance to the John Birch Society, and how on one hand it is negative because they want support, but on the other hand, because their view is extremist, their argument actually gains value from resistant reactions. There is a relationship between the rhetoric/presentation of “The Resilient Earth” and how the audience reacts; one does not affect the other; they both affect each other.

To apply this theory to Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, I’m also going to bring in “classical Aristotelian distinction of logos, ethos, and pathos.” The two most important arguments of the Center for Science and Culture is that they " supports research by scientists and other scholars challenging various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory” and “encourages schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, including the theory's scientific weaknesses as well is its strengths.” This website has strong ethos rhetoric. “Discovery's Center for Science and Culture has more than 40 Fellows, including biologists, biochemists, chemists, physicists, philosophers and historians of science, and public policy and legal experts, many of whom also have affiliations with colleges and universities.” In our culture, having a Ph.D. and/or being a chemist, philosopher, etc, results in a lot of respect and credibility for their view. I know, personally, when I read that statement I decided that this was a credible source.

Now the audience has established credibility; this will aid in the logos argument. The website states that “Scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution include unresolved debates amongst scientists over issues such as the peppered moth, the myth of human gill slits, Haeackel's embryos, and the Miller-Urey experiment. Scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution address problems for which adequate solutions have not been presented. “ It has provided logical reasons to challenge neo-Darwinian theory; unresolved debates and lack of adequate solutions. It also furthers its logos by giving specific examples of the unresolved debates. Although I have no idea what the debate about peppered moth is, the fact that there is a debate, being presented by a credible source, persuades me to also believe that it should be challenged.

I have established that this argument is coming from a credible source with legitimate arguments; all that is left is the pathos. How a person is emotionally affected can have an immense influence on how they feel about an issue. The ‘Academic Freedom’ page has strong pathos rhetoric. One pathos rhetoric technique is language use. “Across America, the freedom of scientists, teachers, and students to question Darwin is coming under increasing attack by what can only be called Darwinian fundamentalists. These self-appointed defenders of the theory of evolution are waging a malicious campaign to demonize and blacklist anyone who disagrees with them.” There are some strong, negative words being associated with ‘Darwinian fundamentalists’ to suggest they’re villains.

‘waging a malicious campaign”= their evil plot

“to demonize and blacklist”=conquer/hurt people

“anyone who disagrees with them”=blindly going on their evil rampage and will crush anyone in their way

Another pathos argument is having specific examples of teachers who have lost their job for questioning Darwin. This one affects me on two different levels, the first, is justice, it is unjust for those teachers to be fired for those reasons. The second is the fact that they are teachers, my mom is a teacher and although she is not a science teacher and it doesn’t directly relate, the fact that my mother is a teacher enables me to be more strongly influenced by the outrage they are persuading me to feel.

The "Common Sense" Approach and More

Question: What is intelligent design?

Answer: “The theory of intelligent design holds 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.” (www.intelligentdesign.org)

The Discovery Institute is an organization who’s main goal is to advance the idea of intelligent design through scientific research and education. On the website, under frequently asked questions, one of the questions is “what is intelligent design?” The answer, provided above, is a no-nonsense answer that sounds “scientifically” correct. (“scientifically” in quotes because it really isn’t based on true science). The Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture claims that their goal is to advance science and the scientific and mathematical theories that back up the claims of intelligent design and disprove Darwin’s theory of seemingly random evolution. They claim they have no religious ties as clearly stated in several other FAQ’s on the website:

Is Discovery Institute a religious organization?
“Discovery Institute is a secular think tank..”

Is intelligent design based on the Bible?

“No. The idea that human beings can observe signs of intelligent design in nature reaches back to the foundations of both science and civilization.”

Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?
“No.”

These answers make the idea of intelligent design appear to be completely non-affiliated with religion, but as you read into different articles and posts on the website, it is clear that there are religious undertones hidden under the scientific façade that the Discovery Institute presents the information as. But the religious connections to the idea of intelligent design are clear, as seen through use of words such as “Yahweh,” “His dignity” and “Creator.” Notice the capital letters in these few examples from “scientific” texts found on the website. These titles imply religious undertones that show that whether the Discovery Institute and intelligent design followers are willing to admit it or not, intelligent design is at least partly based on religious beliefs, if not COMPLETELY based on religion.

While these claims seem so far-fetched that it would be hard for anyone believe, (some of these claims include that Darwin is responsible for the Holocaust (The Dark Side of Darwinism http://www.discovery.org/a/14921) to claiming that the whole idea of evolution is just too great of a chance process to result in human life) the Discovery Institute and Center for Science and Culture present a persuasive argument for the idea of intelligent design that can argue both well-educated intellectuals and people with just plain common sense into believing some of the ideas about intelligent design or at the very least it makes them question evolution as we currently understand it. Some of the effective ways the Discovery Institute is able to do this is through making the claims seem to be backed by scientific information. The articles presented on the website use a lot of science lingo that mask the religious undertones of intelligent design. I believe the more effective approach that is also used is by using the “common sense” method. The “scientific lingo” method often just goes over the heads of many people, and while these big words may convince common-folk that these ideas are truths, it also makes it hard for people to even understand what the idea of intelligent design is about. Therefore, the “common sense” approach seems to work well on the majority of people. One example of this common-sense method is found in the article linked on the DI website called “Molecular Machines.” It talks about the complexity of design and how it is quite illogical to believe that all of life as we know it occurred completely by random chance. It talks about the cilium, a feature found on many simple organisms that allow for motion. Cilium are vastly complex and are structured much like any mechanical machines we know today. This connection between something that is hard for humans to grasp, like the cilium, to something that is tangible such as any machine made by parts, makes a common sense connection between the two that is hard to deny. If our man-made machines are very similar in design to the design of the simplest (yet still very complex) organisms, then obviously a designer must have had a hand in creating the design of the organism.

Through these two main ways of the “common sense” approach and the “scientific lingo” the Discovery Institute is able to make a fairly convincing argument for a subject that really is based on no “truth” or scientific findings. These same types of approaches can be found in many other cultural objects we have studied. The “common sense” approach is seen in Avatar as it makes it the destruction of the planet of the Navi tangible and makes viewers directly experience the damaging effects humans can have on the environment. It makes it a “common sense” issue and argues people into having an environmentalist mind-set.

The Truth Will Set You Free...

I began scanning a few articles here and there on the science and culture site, trying to find an article and one interesting thing to write my blog post on. I found an article titled "Rat=Pig=Dog=Boy=Moral Nonsense" and was instantly obliged to delve deeper. The article itself is brief and to-the-point, but it still stuck out to me. The author, Jay Richards, is simply arguing against the animal rights movement. But what really interests me is this statement; "but to ascribe rights to animals is to strike at a core truth on which Western civilization is built: human exceptionalism." Here it is drawn out simply; he was even kind enough to actually include the word truth. Truth is defined by webster as conformity to fact or reality. So, Here is a concept much of the world has accepted or "conformed" to; animals are inferior to humans. Simple enough. These people are arguing that we cannot treat animals as equal to us and they do not have the same rights, nor is it possible for them to obtain these rights.

Human exceptionalism is the belief that humans have a "special status" in nature. This could possibly stem from religious ideologies. The verse 1:26 in the Book of Genesis from the christian bible reads: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." In something like the Center for Science and Culture I feel as though this "truth" would most likely stem from studies showing differences in the brains and genetic makeup of humans versus every other living being on the planet.

Wherever and however this belief was formed, the condescending attack on the animal rights movement from this man remains the same. While it may be common sense that a cat cannot figure out how to use pythagorean theorem to solve a right triangle, this man and others in his community have taken it upon themselves to claim animal's inferiority to be "true" and definite. Hmm, interesting.

The Culture of Death

I went to the science website and couldn’t find anything that really interested me, so I went to the search area and typed in medicine. A lot of very controversial topics were brought up, mostly regarding doctors and their disrespect for human life. The article I chose to read was called Culture of Death: The Assault of Medical Ethics in America. This article is written in a very professional matter, it even quotes researchers and professionals of bioethics. Because of their professional titles people who aren’t as educated look up to them and view their beliefs as facts.

 The author of this article compares doctors in the United States to the Nazi’s from Germany. They compare doctors who approve of physician assisted suicide to end their patients suffering  to the Nazi’s that would kill the old, weak, ill or handicapped because they were “useless eaters.” They say that the doctors in the United States become doctors solely to pick out the weaker humans and kill them; which would further generate natural selection and Social Darwinism. They bring up the fact that only 14% of doctors have taken the Hippocratic Oath to “do no harm,” and then foreshadow that we may not like the future of medicine in the United States because of how our present practices are evolving into much worse things (they do not state any practices specifically).

I think that is article would be very convincing to someone who wasn’t very educated in the study of medicine or healthcare. Yes, there are medical procedures with low survival rates, but the goal of doctors is to help those that are sick, and the medical procedures with low survival rates will increase with continued practice and changing of the procedures. This article makes it seem like all doctors are only doctors so that they can speed up the process of Social Darwinism and weed out the sick and weak when really their primary goal is to try and better the well-being of their patients.

Falsifiable Intelligent Design

"Nu-Uh! Your wrong!"

"Oh Yea? Prove It!!"

"Aha! You are indeed falsifiable!"

Discovery Institute tries to convince its subjects through the subtle use of a variety of methods. The main way is by using words like "Of course there's no way to..." and "honest commentators" playing to our conventions of "common sense" making information easily accessible. To most, "common sense" signifies being part of a bigger being (or being "one of the people"). Many are more likely to accept a fact as true if "all the cool kids are doing it". Also, the language used is of a conventionally accepted "higher-educated" vocabulary, giving the text more agency, while boosting its author high above me as the subject on the intellectual hierarchy. Being brought up in today's culture, where tolerance of beliefs and the promotion of scientific reasoning and logic are high priority, the idea of an intelligent design has seemed far off. My church has given us the generalized version leaving out all of these conditions and specifics that are presented in this article, giving us a more finer detail, thus promoting the acceptance of its authors argument.

Discovery Institute: Hatin' Off Darwinism

The Discovery Institute Center for Science & Culture's website is definitely arguing against Darwinism as an explanation for why humans are the way they are. The writers behind this website seem to be doing all that they can to prove to us that science and molecular machines and mutations are the only logical explanations for human appearance and behavior and lifestyles and development (the basis of life), and I can see this in the numerous amount of evidence that the writers provide with each piece posted to the website.

I did not have to read very far into "Beyond the Realm of Reason", by Robert L. Brown (and Carl G. Herndl), to see what this reading had in common with the Discovery Institute's website. The reading begins with a story about the environment from the John Birch Society, then Brown starts to analyze the rhetoric of the story and the things they say. It seems as if Brown could analyze the pieces published on the Discovery Institute's website and point out a lot of the same things. I noticed that one sentence could be changed a little bit and explain the Discovery Institute's website.
Brown: "This essay analyzes the environment as constructed by a group that seems alien to us: the John Birch Society, which we take as emblematic for much of the American political right."
Discovery: "This blog post analyzes the website that analyzes evolution as constructed by a group that seems alien to us: the Discovery Institute Center for Science & Culture, which we take as emblematic for much of the American cultural right."
For this assignment, I am required to use the method that Brown used and explain how it works culturally with one of the Discovery Institute's website's truths.

The truth I am using that the Discovery Institute's website presents is that Darwinism is false. The piece, titled "Why Darwinism is False", talks about "Why Evolution is True" which is a book written by Jerry A. Coyne, a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago. The book explains Coyne's idea that “all the evidence—both old and new—leads ineluctably to the conclusion that evolution is true"- with the evidence old and new being a variety of species undergoing changes over time. This piece serves as a good summary of what the Discovery Institute Center of Science & Culture has to say about Darwinism especially because of the fact that the Discovery Institute's website's writer who wrote this article took someone elses ideas and attempted to explain why what they said was wrong. These writers are constantly doing this on their website with other peoples' ideas to help better support their theory of Darwinism being false and science being the true basis of life. The Discovery Institute refutes this claim made by Coyne by saying, "Of course, “evolution” is undeniably true if it means simply that existing species can change in minor ways over time, or that many species living today did not exist in the past. But Darwin’s claim that all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor, and Coyne’s claim that DNA mutations and natural selection have produced those modifications, are not so undeniably true." This whole article seems to only consist of the writer of the Discovery Institute's website taking all of Coyne's ideas and giving evidence from other sources to prove what Coyne has said to be wrong. Why can't the Discovery Institute use their own knowledge or quotations or ideas or experiments or studies to prove Coyne wrong if they really want to embarrass Coyne? I have noticed this pattern in most of the articles on the Discovery Institute's website.

In "Beyond the Realm of Reason", Brown says (but referring to articles written by the John Birch Society about the environment), "It's important, we think, to examine one of these articles in order to gain a sense of the way arguments are constructed. One article will suffice, since the rhetoric of the entire edition is remarkably consistent." This quote matches what the Discovery Institute's website's writers have done exactly. The articles are written in the same way- just copying and pasting quotes from outside sources and mixing the order of quotes from Coyne (or any of the writers that the Discovery Institute attempts to embarrass) and inserting clever comments here and there to help better their argument for Darwinism being false (or whatever the article may be arguing for). For the truth presented about Coyne's book by the Discovery Institute, it was unnecessary for the writer to include THAT many sources to prove Coyne wrong. We got the point of the article right in the beginning. The Discovery Institute tends to over-do it, which is the same thing that Brown notices in the John Birch Society's articles in "The Resilient Earth". The Discovery Institute Center for Science & Culture may think that their arguments are strong and plentiful...but Brown would point out many fallacies. The bar graph, on the left, points out that there are Discovery Institute haters out there. I thought this was an interesting thing to find when googling "Discovery Institute" images.

Superstitions are Everywhere!

The article I chose was titled "Which Secular Superstition do You Believer" where Logan Paul Gage tries to prove that both science and religion have superstitious beliefs.

He proves that both groups believe in superstitions. These superstitions eventually bring about discoveries of the unknown. One of the main truths that Gage is trying to present is that both religion and science are dependent on each other. He argues that science and religion always try to argue when in fact they depend on each other.

To back up his argument Gage uses data from a Baylor Religion Survey and explains its significance. The data shows that non-religious people believe in superstitions more than religious people.

He then says “Ignoring available data such as these, prominent atheists continue to claim that religion breeds gullibility and superstition while letting go of God hastens enlightenment.”

He then explains how religious superstitions perpetuated the discoveries of science.

As I look into the truth which Gage was trying to present it is possible to see that his belief was influenced by culture and is culturally shaped. First off Gage’s view is based on his own opinion and the opinion of the culture he is in. By using the survey, which was taken from a certain cultural perspective, Gage take a position. The information which he uses in his article is information to which he was exposed to which is quite limited. This information was also created by a certain culture. The examples of ideas and superstitions which he uses are also limited and are only the ones Gage is aware of. These are just a few things which Gage uses to form his argument.

Therefore, because he uses everything from his own perspective and the culture to which he was exposed, his truth is culturally based. The limited knowledge which he has obtained is used to lead him to a conclusion and then present HIS truth. I think another thing which he did was write his argument in a format which he thinks will best fit the society. He brings out data, quotes, and other sources to back up his argument. I think that this usage of his personal knowledge and his usage of language backs up the idea which Bourdieu and “Beyond the Realm of Reason” present which states “our rhetoric is always shaped by our habitus and our sense of linguistic marketplace.”(224)

By looking at the Discovery Institute for science and cultures website, it comes to conclusion as to why humans are the way that they are. It argues against Darwinism. The reasoning behind this website is to show that all explanations about humans come from scientific reasoning and evidence.

In beyond the Realm of Reason, Robin and Carl take an in-depth look at the John Birch society. Through Birch’s society it targets the information at people with less knowledge about environmental studies; therefore they can convince people by transforming their words, making them believe the environment is in a steady state. Trying to persuade that anything humans do, could never affect the earth. While this argument results false, an argument based solely off of facts when looking at rhetoric and how it may influence a person in society perceives it with respect to another society. These different societies rely on each other.

After looking around on the Discovery Institute website and reading a few articles I came across and article called Why Darwinism is False, by Johnathan Wells. This article only argues Wells argument by trying to bring into disrepute the reliability of Jerry Coyne’s paper Why Evolution is true. Although it’s pretty clear that Well’s is manipulating Coyne’s title. Well’s seems to use quotes and more complex rhetoric rather than scientific facts to establish proof to Darwin’s theory, which the theory of evolution states “all species being related to one ancestral species and changed over time through natural selection and random mutation.”

As in our culture today, many things are accepted as the ‘Truth’. But what we understand as truth usually comes from scientific reasoning and/or the government. The truth differs from faith because ‘the truth’ has clear reasoning why we believe what we do, where as faith is believed without any external proof of truth. It is basically your own understanding and beliefs. But for each faith, the people who relate with that faith translate their beliefs into the truth. So for them their religion and beliefs are the truth. Although many scientific phenomenon’s have been study to find out how or why, in which that’s what ends up being the truth after many years of researching to prove themselves correct. This later then produces what goes into books and what people later learn and begin to understand.

Is Nothing Still Something?

Skimming through a few of the articles on the Discovery Institute website, I found that each of the articles I read portrayed truths for both sides of the argument in context. One article in particular entitled “Did Physics Kill God?” by Jay W. Richards was displayed with an analysis that could initially veer in opposite directions depending on the reader.

The title of this article indeed summarizes the basics of the claim that Richards, a scientist debates. He claims that physics can prove the creation of the world that was made from nothing by natural force and therefore there is no higher power, God, that created the universe. Readers that have a strong religious background may immediately jump to the conclusion that this man, Richards, is crazy and the opposing atheist side may read on for further information about a feasible statement due to their differing cultural backgrounds. However, after reading the analysis on the article both audiences are brought to a confusing intersection of ideas. The analysis leaves audiences hanging with the controversy that either side of the statement could be the truth. The earlier question primarily stemming from if God is real or not that was so easy to answer for most readers becomes a more difficult and abstract question when both sides are compared to each other. This idea is similar to Robin and Carl Herndl’s article stating, “our knowledge, and theirs [opposing viewpoint], become powerful only in relation to each other.” By comparing the possibilities of God versus Physics both sides seem like they could be relatively true.

The biggest question posed in the article is the definition of nothing. As previously stated, Richards states that physics proves the world was made from nothing. However, what is defined as nothing? Skeptics state that nothing could be an entire realm of criteria that can be interpreted in many ways. Richard claims he has mathematical evidence to back up his claim and how something can start from nothing. However, analysts provide the helpful information that an average reader attempting to comprehend this extreme level of math would fail miserably in their attempt. This proof relates again to Robin and Carl Herndl’s article by posing the statement that, “power exists only when it is used in relation to others who don’t, we assume, share that knowledge-power” (214). Richard inherits this “power” by seeming to be extremely “knowledgeable” with mathematics and his ability to compute the actual logistics of creation. This may persuade audiences towards his claim that physics started our world because he appears to be intelligent and therefore must know what he’s talking about. One the flip side, readers may think he’s lacking credibility because he is in a sense too knowledgeable that one cannot fathom the possibilities of mathematics being able to defy creation. I could not find yet another more perfect quote than that of “our language creates our identity and positions us in relation to the rest of the world.” Richard has definitely seemed to represent his positions and display his identity through his claims that are highly controversial in the simplest context of science vs. religion.