Food Fight: Discovery Institute and Barbara Forrest

FOR PURE ENTERTAINMENT, you can’t beat following the blog of the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids). This time, creationist blogger Casey Luskin has once more outdone himself.

In How to Rebut Barbara Forrest Explained in Two Words, Casey returns again to a topic we’ve covered before in this Curmudgeonly article from a week ago: Discovery Institute — Freedom is Slavery (and other Big Brother-isms). Casey just can’t stay away from Barbara Forrest, for the reasons we’ve explained. She utterly demolished the cdesign proponentsists when she was a witness at the trial of Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al.

In his latest offering, Casey attacks Dr. Forrest again. Excerpts (emphasis supplied):

Nearly every argument that Barbara Forrest makes in the evolution debate, when applied fairly, can be turned against her. Keep this point in mind if you ever have to debate Dr. Forrest, because in my experience, this rule holds true under nearly all circumstances.

This should be fun …

Forrest makes hay out of the fact that some supporters of the academic freedom bill are religious or are affiliated with religion. What she hypocritically neglects to mention is that she’s on the Board of Directors of the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association and has many ties to secular humanism and atheism. Many leading Darwinists have similar connections.

That’s right, Casey. Some scientists are atheists. So what? We know this really upsets you folks at the Discovery Institute, but atheism isn’t yet a crime in the US. The point that Dr. Forrest makes, however, is that all of the cdesign proponentsists are religiously motivated. That’s fine with us, but it’s a problem when you folks want to teach your dogma in state-run schools. You see, Casey, we have this thing in the US — it’s called the Constitution — that prevents government from establishing religion. That’s the way the Founders of this country wanted it. Deal with it, Casey. That’s the whole issue with teaching Intelligent Design (or ID) — it’s not science, so the states can’t promote it. Moving along:

During her testimony before the Louisiana House Education Committee, Forrest ominously warned the Louisiana State Legislature to beware because supposedly “Discovery Institute is watching your every move.” Her behavior is not only paranoid, it’s hypocritical: Forrest’s entire book, Creationism’s Trojan Horse, is filled with tracking the affiliations, beliefs, and backgrounds of ID proponents, always trying to tie them to religious groups (while largely ignoring their scientific affiliations).

Same point about religion, Casey. Dr. Forrest’s research devastatingly proved to the court that what you call the “science” of Intelligent Design is hopelessly ensnared in its creationist roots. Deny it all you like, Casey. Dr. Forrest has the evidence, and it was overwhelming in the Kitzmiller case. You still can’t accept that, can you?

One more excerpt from Casey’s article:

Of course Barbara Forrest is entitled to track the every move of ID proponents if that is how she wishes to devote her time and her career. But she shouldn’t project her behavior onto ID proponents, because, well, we don’t really care about tracking the “every move” of Darwinists. Rather, we devote ourselves to more important activities, such as supporting legislation …

Right, Casey. We’ve seen how you Discoveroids spend your time on those “more important activities” — like creating a controversy that you insist should be taught in schools; and we also know that your “think tank” — or should we call it an un-think tank — does no scientific research at all on ID. That’s because — as every rational observer knows — there’s absolutely nothing to research.

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

Comments are closed.