Replies

The downplaying happened later in response to criticism--it was not part of the package delivered to the Ohio Board--and is patently insincere. The "puzzles" do not even undermine evolution, much less support ID, althought that is the implied significance. Those authors who responded to the questionaire at all tended to show outrage at the misappropriation of their work.

The only point of similarity of the publications in the Questions of Pattern section appears to be that there are passages in them that, if taken out of context or otherwise misrepresented, seem to express doubt about phylogeny in general. But for the Discovery Institute to insinuate that scientific debates about how to determine which organisms are related to which are debates about whether organisms are related is misleading. As Peter J. Lockhart (coauthor of [13]) carefully explains, in responding to the Discovery Institute's summary of his work:
I don't think it is a good representation of our work — our work does not present 'a classic challenge to evolutionary analysis'. In our paper we point out that technically it is a hard problem to reconstruct the phylogeny of corbiculate bees regardless of whether you use morphological or molecular data (the reason for this concerns the pattern of radiation — four different lineages diverged in a short period of time a long time ago — given this pattern it is not surprising that different data types might suggest different phylogenies). In our article we do not say that interpretation of the molecular data is right and that interpretation of the morphological data is wrong (or vice versa). Instead we make some suggestions which we believe will help resolve why the different data types suggest different conclusions — we suggest that the bee morphologists relook at the interpretation of some of their data and we also encourage the molecular biologists to determine some additional data which would help test their hypotheses — we suggest that if these things are done then there should be a resolution to the controversy over which phylogeny is correct. We do not doubt that there is a phylogeny — in contrast, the statement by the Discovery Institute suggests that the bee controversy is evidence for absence of phylogeny. No scientist involved in the corbiculate bee debate has ever suggested this to my knowledge.

There's no dressing this up with your own inability to read and comprehend. Playing dumb does not give you the right to lie for the Lord. I get pretty disgusted with what He seems to be telling some people to do. I caught Meyer mischaracterizing the entire state of the evidence and debate on the Cambrian in one paper, also produced under the aegis of the Discovery Institute. This "bibliography" is a similar exercise, covering an even larger area.

Such tissues of lies have no place in the classroom.