Discovery Institute: “Don’t Call Us Creationists!”

WE DELIGHT in reading the blog articles of Casey Luskin, our favorite of all the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids). Casey never fails to impress us with his lack of scientific knowledge, coupled with an apparently sincere belief that his colleagues are really at the cutting edge of a genuine scientific breakthrough.

He’s just done it again. In this blog article: Brokaw Misconstrues Independent Voter Trends on Teaching Evolution Casey reveals his frustration that people continue to “mistakenly” confuse creationism with Intelligent Design (“ID”). Casey’s article originally had a much clumsier title: Tom Brokaw & “Meet the Press” Confuse Independent Voter Trends, Conflate Intelligent Design With Creationism. Maybe someone has been assigned the task of checking Casey’s work. Good luck!

Anyway, in Casey’s re-titled blog article he’s foot-stamping furious that Tom Brokaw, while interviewing Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, kept referring to the issue as “creationism vs. evolution,” notwithstanding that Pawlenty (who outed himself as an ID goofball) tried to “correct” Brokaw by claiming that ID is different from creationism.

Poor Casey. He truly doesn’t understand that he’s working for a creationist outfit. Perhaps we should direct him to Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, wherein Michael Behe — the “best” of the Discoveroid proponents of ID — was a witness. Behe failed to persuade anyone of anything, except that ID is creationism dressed up with scientific-sounding jargon.

We’ve excerpted the relevant portions of that decision in order to make things easy for Casey. Hey Casey, check this out: Kitzmiller v. Dover: Is ID Science? Read this too: Kitzmiller v. Dover: Michael Behe’s Testimony.

Well, that was a waste. We suspect that Casey won’t read Kitzmiller, or any part of it. Even if he does, he’ll somehow manage to avoid understanding it.

Back to Casey’s article: After fuming with indignation over Brokaw’s “error,” Casey then hauls out what he imagines is a great argument in ID’s defense — public opinion! He writes:

In fact, polls have shown that large percentages of Independent voters — and even strong majorities of Democrats — support both teaching ID alongside evolution …

Hey Casey, check this out: Roper Poll on UFOs and Alien Abductions. It must be true, Casey, because it polls well. Better be careful or the aliens might probe you.

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

3 responses to “Discovery Institute: “Don’t Call Us Creationists!”

  1. Well, SC, as much pain as I feel in doing this, we have to give Luskin a break here, he wasn’t using that poll to show that ID is true, he was answering a comment that implied the independent voters would not be happy with the belief expressed by Palin that Creationism should be taught along side Evilution. That poll did purport to show that independents would not be upset.

    What I find annoying (aside from Luskin) is that the poll was commissioned by the DI and posed questions that are far too fuzzy to make any conclusions.

    Table 1.
    Statement B: Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.
    Statement A: Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.
    Neither/Not Sure

    You do have to give them credit for cleverness and a fair appraisal of the intended victims with these questions. No mention is made of either creationism, as Brokaw was mentioning or ID as Pawlenty mentioned, but they do couch the question in terms of ‘scientific’ evidence. Most people, at least those unaware of why it is better to limit information to positive only in the lower academic levels, would agree that all ‘scientific’ information should be presented.

    These questions are reminiscent of the question signed by those confused scientists doubting Darwin- misleading and dishonest.

    “6. Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the
    following statement: “When Darwin’s theory of evolution is taught in school, students should also be able to learn about scientific evidence that points to an intelligent design of life.”

    Again with the ‘scientific’ qualifier that the DI has yet to successfully apply to ID. I’m sure that someone in the DI helped with those questions.

  2. Well, SC, as much pain as I feel in doing this, we have to give Luskin a break here, he wasn’t using that poll to show that ID is true, he was answering a comment that implied the independent voters would not be happy with the belief expressed by Palin that Creationism should be taught along side Evilution.

    You may be right, tundra boy. But there’s another possibility. I mentioned that the title of Casey’s article changed. When I started drafting that article I used the original title in the link. When I was finished writing, I discovered Casey’s new title, because I was checking my links before publishing the final draft.

    It’s possible (but I’ll never know now) that more was changed besides Casey’s title. My article was criticism of what I read (or thought I read) in Casey’s original article. I agree that it now seems odd. Maybe I was too hasty in my writing, but I’ll leave it.

  3. I wouldn’t worry, I’m sure that if you leave it someday Luskin will validate it.

    If he didn’t say I’m sure in his little illogical mind he was thinking it.

    Personally I’m getting a little sick of their manipulative framing of questions. I can’t see how even the blindest follower does not recognize the dishonesty.