Discovery Institute: Too much, Too Soon

Missouri has two creationism bills pending in the legislature, and we’ve written about them both. The first one (see Missouri Creationism: New Bill for 2013) is the usual anti-science, anti-evolution, pro-creationism Academic Freedom Act promoted by the Discoveroids — described in the Cast of Characters section of our Intro page.

We’ve already critiqued their model bill here: Curmudgeon’s Guide to “Academic Freedom” Laws.

The second bill in Missouri is spectacularly, flamboyantly stupid. That’s House Bill 291, about which we wrote Missouri Creationism: Another Bill for 2013. After that we wrote again about its sponsor — Meet Rick Brattin.

We didn’t think it possible, but the Discoveroids are embarrassed by Brattin’s bill. The task of protesting it — and throwing Brattin under the bus — is undertaken by none other than Casey Luskin, our favorite creationist. Casey’s post is titled Why Discovery Institute Opposes the Missouri “Equal Treatment” Intelligent Design Bill. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

The news media are reporting on a bill in the Missouri State Legislature that would require “equal treatment for evolution and intelligent design.” As we’ve mentioned many times before here on ENV [the Discoveroids’ creationist blog], Discovery Institute opposes legislation like this, as it contradicts our longstanding policy to oppose pushing intelligent design in public schools.

The Discoveroids are desperately trying not to appear too extremist — or rather, too straightforwardly honest — about their creationist goals. They know that approach has failed in the past. Like every other clever radical movement, they attempt to conceal their true motives. They’re trying to boil the frog gradually so it won’t suspect anything and jump out of the pot until it’s too late. Casey continues:

So why does Discovery Institute — the main organization supporting research into ID — oppose pushing ID into public schools? It’s simple. Our priority with ID is to see it develop as a scientific theory and not to politicize it by pushing the theory into public schools.

They’re just a bunch of moderate guys, patiently promoting the idea of their magic designer as a scientific theory. They don’t want to politicize it — oh no! — that’s the very last thing they want. That’s why they never promote litigation and legislation — oh, wait. Well, never mind. Let’s read on:

If not intelligent design, what should be taught in public school biology classes? We think these schools should teach the evidence for and against Darwinian evolution, without getting into alternative theories like ID.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! As Shakespeare would say it: Casey doth protest too much, methinks.

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

10 responses to “Discovery Institute: Too much, Too Soon

  1. The Tooters think they’re smart and sneaky but their first mistake was trying to think.

    First, all creationists lie.
    Second, all creationists lie.
    Third, it’s turtles all the way down.

    Imagine a bill that favors or allows for the possibility of teaching ID in the classroom. The DI will howl that they are opposed to requiring and opposed to mandating the teaching of ID. They merely want a fair and balanced presentation of all sides of evolution.

    See the difference? The DI can support these “freedom” bills while standing proudly against mandating ID. Well, nobody talked about requiring or mandating; those are the Tooters words.

    It’s sad the way the Tooters project their inability to read on the rest of us.

    Remember, you don’t need legislation to teach evolution. You need legislation to teach creationism.

  2. I wonder if the DI opposes a mandate because they realize that teachers who get ID forced on them will gleefully expound on its weaknesses.

  3. BTW, see Wikipedia about the boiling frog legend

  4. Luskin: We think these schools should teach the evidence for and against Darwinian evolution, without getting into alternative theories like ID.

    This is exactly what responsible public schools are doing today — 1) they show the evidence supporting evolution; 2) they show all the evidence against evolution (there isn’t any); and 3) they don’t “get into” alternative “theories” at all.

    So, Casey, what’s your beef? Since public schools are already doing all the things you say you are working for, why is the DI so active in lobbying state legislatures to pass laws recognizing ID??


  5. Discovery Institute opposes legislation like this, as it contradicts our longstanding policy to oppose pushing intelligent design in public schools

    So they’ve abandoned the Wedge Strategy? When did this happen?

  6. Charles Deetz ;)

    Their real job is just to disprove evolution (or at least create doubt), so what he said makes total sense.

  7. Our priority with ID is to see it develop as a scientific theory and not to politicize it by pushing the theory into public schools.

    Casey apparently is willing to admit that ID has not yet developed as a scientific theory, although his claim that it is a priority of the DI to see it do so is clearly a lie. Based on the overwhelming volume of their writing, and the wedge document, their priority is to undermine science, period, not to develop some new science.

  8. @Ed, Just thinking, “Develop a new science”, something about that doesn’t seem right. Does anyone actually develop a new science, or do new sciences emerge as we discover new things? It’s not like someone said, Hey, I’m going to invent aerodynamics!

  9. This is a wolf in a sheep’s clothing. This is Plan B. They have failed miserably in advancing ID as a scientific theory, so they know they can’t take the front door into the science classroom. Thus their next best bet is to get in through the back door by instilling doubts about evolution in the minds of teachers & the next generation of scientists. Not pushing ID directly would also weaken the opposition to their bills. But such academic freedom legislations should be fought with the same vigor as the previous creationist strategies. This is equally damaging, if not worse.

  10. @ Paul S: I hear all you need is a junkyard and a really big wind-machine.