Censor of the Year: Wikipedia
Each February 12, the scientific community celebrates the anniversary of Charles Darwin's birthday as both Darwin Day and Academic Freedom Day. The Discovery Institute also celebrates by naming a "Censor of the Year," and on Monday they announced that "award" goes to none other than "the free encyclopedia," Wikipedia.
The site's editors have engaged in a shameless campaign against the scientific theory of Intelligent Design (ID) and its proponents, drawing censure even from Darwinists and one of the sites' co-founders.
"Everyone seeks their information online and everyone assumes, 'Wikipedia, they're objective!' and it's not objective at all," David Klinghoffer, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and editor of Evolution News and Views, told PJ Media. He noted that the very first entry in a Google search for "Intelligent Design" is the Wikipedia page, which has no fewer than three lies about ID in its very first sentence.
"Intelligent design (ID) is a religious argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as 'an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins', though it has been discredited as pseudoscience," the Wikipedia entry states.
First, ID is not a religious argument, but a scientific one. As Stephen C. Meyer pointed out in the new book Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design, "the theory of intelligent design, unlike creationism, is not based upon the Bible." Rather, it "is based on recent scientific discoveries and what we know about the cause-and-effect structure of the world — specifically, what we know about patterns of evidence that indicate intelligent causes."
Secondly, ID does not try to prove "the existence of God." Rather, Klinghoffer explained that it attempts to prove "design in cosmology and biology." The theory does not identify the designer, but only posits that design, rather than random chance, better explains the order behind life and the cosmos.
Finally, Klinghoffer insisted that ID has not been disproven, and especially not "discredited as pseudoscience." Is it pseudoscientific to point out that genetic code is remarkably complex, similar to computer code? The biologist Douglas Axe performed experiments revealing that the DNA for even one of the more basic functional proteins is extremely unlikely — only one sequence in 1077 would code for a functional protein.
If ID were "discredited as pseudoscience," why would atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel recommend Meyer's Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Design for 2009's book of the year? Nagel wrote, "Meyer is a Christian, but atheists, and theists who believe God never intervenes in the natural world, will be instructed by his careful presentation of this fiendishly difficult problem."
Even so, Wikipedia flatly dismisses ID, and Amazon's Alexa quotes this false definition verbatim.