When we wrote that the UK Government Won’t Fund Creationist Schools a few days ago, we concluded by saying:
We expect the usual creationist websites to be squealing about “viewpoint discrimination,” but the simple fact is that some viewpoints are flat-out absurd — and that’s especially true in science.
The inevitable reaction didn’t take long. Look what we found at the blog of the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute‘s creationist public relations and lobbying operation, the Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids, a/k/a the cdesign proponentsists).
Their latest is British Free Schools that Teach Intelligent Design as Science Will Lose Funding. They describe the news from the UK (in their own way) and then they say, with bold font added by us and their links omitted:
Richard Dawkins and David Attenborough are celebrating this news as a victory over the “creationists” (by which they mean anyone who dissents from evolutionary naturalism). The British Humanist Association similarly trumpet this development as a triumph for their cause. But are such claims of victory really justified?
As you can see, the Discoveroids are still maintaining the fiction that they’re somehow not creationists, when all the world knows otherwise. Let’s read on:
One of the common misconceptions surrounding situations like this holds that questions pertinent to philosophy and/or the natural sciences are appropriately settled in the courtroom or by governmental fiat.
That “common misconception” drives the totality of the Discoveroids’ activities. Why else would they support the litigation they do, and why do they promote their Academic Freedom Law in various state legislatures? Where are the results of their non-existent research into the designer’s activities? We continue:
This pervasive error is perhaps most evident when, instead of discussing the scientific merits of an argument for ID, critics appeal to the ruling of Judge Jones at the infamous Dover trial — as if a judge at any level could ever be the final authority on such a matter.
But a judge can certainly decide if the Discoveroids’ “theory” is thinly-disguised religion, and its promotion is therefore unconstitutional in government-run schools. If there were a genuine scientific theory of intelligent design supported by verifiable evidence, no litigation or legislation would be necessary for it to be taught in science classes. Here’s more:
When one side of a controversy abuses its power to silence dissenting opinion, students legitimately question why it is considered so dangerous for them to be exposed to alternative viewpoints. In this instance, the public’s confidence in Darwinism is inevitably undermined rather than strengthened.
Yes, just as the public’s confidence in the solar system is undermined, because the geocentric side of the “controversy” isn’t allowed in public school science classes. Moving along:
It has long been Discovery Institute’s education policy that the teaching of ID should not be mandated in school science curricula (though critical examination of the strengths and weaknesses of controversial theories such as evolution should be encouraged). However, teachers who wish to explore these ideas with their students should not be disciplined for doing so. The UK’s Centre for Intelligent Design has similarly stated that it is not aiming its efforts at schools.
The Discoveroids’ promotion of laws requiring or allowing the non-existent “weaknesses” of evolution to be presented in science class is nothing less than state-conducted religious indoctrination. Another excerpt:
When one side of a debate is insecure enough to need to stifle dissenting viewpoints from being expressed, this legitimately raises doubts about the scientific robustness of the view being shielded from criticism.
Right. Biologists are “insecure” about the validity of their work. Here’s the end of the article:
Whether Richard Dawkins and his ilk at the BCSE (British equivalent of the National Center for Science Education) and BHA choose to acknowledge it or not, there is a growing contingent of scientists who recognize a mounting body of evidence that militates against neo-Darwinian evolution. It can’t be ignored forever.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Okay, Discoveroids, show us your evidence.
Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
SC: “Okay, Discoveroids, show us your evidence.”
Indeed. It shouldn’t be too hard for them to find. After all, it is a “mounting body”. Which is an indication of what it will do to education if allowed in classrooms.
Whenever Discoveroids and IDers blather and bluster about the Dover trial and Judge Jones ruling that ID is not science they conveniently forget, overlook, or ignore the testimony of one of their own, a founding father of DI branded ID, Behe — in which he states under oath that ID is not science as we have known it for hundreds of years and that the definition of science would have to be changed for ID to qualify as science. They ignore the fact the Judge Jones agreed with Behe in ruling that ID is not science.
The true masters of spin. Sometimes it’s just breathtaking to see them perform.
Then one realizes that spinning is simply a slick form of lying.
It must be awkward to be writer like “Jonathan M”, who might be asked at a cocktail party what work he does, and would have to reply, “Oh, I get paid to tell lies.” On the other hand, I suppose he wouldn’t be honest about that either…
They ignore the fact the Judge Jones agreed with Behe in ruling that ID is not science.
They also ignore the fact that they, the ID-defending TMLC and Dover SBOE, were the ones to ask the Judge to rule on the question of whether ID is science. Plaintiffs didn’t ask for that; defense did. They are literally whining that he did what they asked him to do.
Here is PZ Myers taking out Jonathan M at the Skeptics Meeting in Glasgow last year. It’s only 6 minutes during the Q&A when PZ shows us how to deal with creationists in a civil and respectful way.
And this clip is quite a bit longer at about an hour which is PZ’s entire talk which, coincidentally, begins with the very questions Jonathan M proposed. It’s a decisive smackdown of Jonathan M which he denies happened subsequently.
Hard to discuss what doesn’t exist. “Hey, let’s sit around and talk about… nothing at all!” Besides, the DI, AiG, or CSC won’t discuss the true scientific merits. Why should we?
Probably why ID has failed. Students want to know “Gee, why won’t IDers actually give me any real information on why ID is a better explanation for where we are? Why are they always just trying to tear down the theory of evolution?”
Wait, they have a policy that says that? Where? I’d like to see it. If they can’t produce, I call BS! I find it extremely difficult to believe that they would explicitly state, in writing, “We will not push an agenda to mandate the teaching of ID.”
We in the UK are of course flattered that the DI is so concerned about us — but also a little puzzled that so much of their piece is more whining about Dover, which of course has no relevence to British legislation.
Interesting that the Discoveroids make reference to “[t]he UK’s Centre for Intelligent Design has similarly stated that it is not aiming its efforts at schools”. A quick check of their website, at http://www.c4id.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=166&Itemid=26 , finds their claim that they are “an independent organisation which has been set up by a network of volunteers across the UK who have professional interests in education, science, medicine, business and the law. It is funded by contributions from individuals and organisations who support its aims.” Could perchance one of these funding organisations in fact be the DI itself, and might that not go some way to explain why they “similarly stated” the same nonsense as the Creationists Sages of Seattle? The same page of C4ID carries a promotion and link to “a most revealing debate on Premier Radio between Stephen Meyer, a leading proponent of Intelligent Design who directs the Centre for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, and Keith Fox, Professor of Biochemistry at Southampton University, who also chairs the UK Christians in Science network. This programme was broadcast when Dr Meyer was in London recently for the Inaugural Lecture of the Centre for Intelligent Design, UK.”
In the case of the DI, I can only say, “Wanquis, go home!”
show us your evidence
I think that some creationists would respond to this by saying that they have the same evidence that the “darwinists” have.
So it might be a better question to ask for their alternative: What happened and when, where, how, etc. (and what are the differences from those things that did not come about by ID).
SC says:
“Yes, just as the public’s confidence in the solar system is undermined, because the geocentric side of the “controversy” isn’t allowed in public school science classes.”
I brought up just this point in a dinner discussion the other night with my wife (who is Christian, but, fortunately for us, the non-proselytizing type). She wanted to know why “competing theories” shouldn’t be taught in science class, and, after pointing out first that it wasn’t science (which she agreed was the only proper subject in a science class), I asked her how she felt about teaching geocentrism as a “competing theory.” I think she got my point. My own theory (competition is welcome) about why evolution is so controversial (socio-politically), while heliocentrism is not, generally speaking, a subject of debate for fundamentalists, is this- that, while the levels of evidence for each are about the same, the implications of each for fundies is not. Man’s physical location in the universe can be displaced from the center, and this can be accommodated or ignored as unimportant. But any suggestion that man himself (or a man, actually- it’s really all about themselves) is not the cynosure of all creation, is just another evolved animal different only in intelligence from others, is not so easily fitted into a fundie’s worldview, which is essentially their inflated view of themselves rather than the world. It’s their way of making themselves into mountains, and denying their actual mole-hill status.
Tom S: “…(and what are the differences from those things that did not come about by ID).
Exactly. Shouldn’t a theory account as much for the evidence that doesn’t support it as much as the evidence that does? I have a friend who’s heavily into numerology, and doesn’t understand the question “how are the data points you’ve selected to establish the relationships you see distinguished from the data points that don’t?”
You ask a valid question. Although the sub-caption of ‘theGuardian’ piece as well as Jonathan’s title states the ID is off the table, this has not been stated by the UK’s D of E, at least not yet. Creationism is the key word, and ‘teach’ the disallowed predicate.
In fact, nowhere in the BHA piece does it state that. I would even go as far as agreeing with some of their thoughts on science education; to wit: Creationism will never enter the science classroom.
Your responses to Jonathan’s statements resonate well with mainstream Darwinist thought, and I have no problem with that, but take serious issue with:
Several points:
• First, it’s not a ‘theory’, but an adjunctive hypothesis within evolutionary theory.
• Secondly, although some ID’sts are religious, many are agnostic. The motive’s of some do not impinge upon the validity of a hypothesis.
• Correction: “If ‘evolutionary theory’ as currently stated was in fact irrefutable, no litigation or legislation would be necessary to protect it.
• Lastly, no judicial authority can decide the validity of scientific points of contention, based solely on a testimonial presentation of data. Period. That constitutes the worst example of ‘peer review’ imaginable.
Which begs a question seldom asked: If Judge Jones had decided otherwise, IOW stated in essence,
Would you and the science community at large take the same position, ergo that “A judge can certainly decide if [a] theory [adjunct hypothesis] … is thinly-disguised religion.”? I think not. Instead, we have an activist Judge who flapped his wings on high, made contrived and fatuous statements, and has had the hens crowing over him ever since.
From a PLoS interview after the trial:
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1000297
“ … although I consider myself reasonably well-read, I could not remember hearing about ID before, so I really didn’t know what it was. “
@ Doc Bill
Here’s two more:
Folks, Please DNFTT …
“I am an ID proponent who accepts evolutionary processes, but for 1) adaptation, and 2) biological diversity within species. I disagree with microevolutionary alterations accumulating over time to produce complexity and novelty.” (Lee Bowman, 2008)
Let me guess, Lee: You became so tired of being beat down by Gary Hurd you decided to come here?
Sorry, Rubble. You’re right.
Rubble says: “Folks, Please DNFTT …”
Which means: “Do Not Feed The Troll.” That’s good advice. I’ll leave his comments, but if we get more and it starts to get spammy, then I’ll deploy my benevolent discretion to preserve the ambiance we’ve all come to expect around here.