IT’S CASEY LUSKIN again, our favorite among the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids). Previously we reported on his foot-stamping rant which we titled “Don’t Call Us Creationists!”, in which Casey was furious that TV newsman Tom Brokaw correctly lumped Discoveroids and creationists together.
Now, Casey is upset about something else. This time it’s because someone has dared to lump American creationists (including Discoveroids) together with their Islamic comrades — especially Adnan Oktar, who writes as “Harun Yahya,” the notorious Turkish promoter of creationism. Here’s Casey’s latest outburst of indignation, Sacking Little Green Footballs’ Outrageous Claim That “Discovery Institute Is in League With Islamist Creationists”, in which Casey denies an Islamic connection by pointing out an article that quotes Harun Yaha as saying:
I find this concept of Intelligent Design somewhat dishonest. One should straightforwardly believe in the existence of Allah, one should stand up for Religion, whether for Islam or Christianity. The concept of Intelligent Design claims that things were somehow created but not by whom. One should clearly say: It was Allah.
Leaping upon that, Casey attempts to distinguish the Discoveroids from Harun Yaha and other creationists by saying:
Yet Yahya is not the only creationist to oppose intelligent design. Old earth Christian creationist Hugh Ross has criticized ID [the so-called “theory” of Intelligent Design] saying, “Winning the argument for design without identifying the designer yields, at best, a sketchy origins model.” Young earth creationist leader Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research wrote that intelligent design, “even if well-meaning and effectively articulated, will not work … because it is not the Biblical method.” And Carl Wieland of Answers in Genesis (“AiG”) says that “AiG’s major ‘strategy’ is to boldly, but humbly, call the church back to its Biblical foundations” and therefore AiG does not “count ourselves a part of this movement nor campaign against it.”
In other words, Casey asserts that the other creationists, whether Christian or Muslim, are open and honest about basing their anti-science teachings on their religion. But the Discoveroids, on the other hand — well, let Casey tell you himself:
These creationists are absolutely right that ID does not try to address religious questions about the identity of the designer and does not use biblical or religious methodologies in making its case for design in nature.
Right. Discoveroids don’t address the identity of the designer. They know that if they did, the game would be over, and they’d have no chance whatsoever of getting their creationism into state-run schools in the US. Thus, the sad charade. The Discoveroids imagine that if they restrain themselves from saying what they truly believe, then no one will be able to figure it out. Casey continues:
Of course, creationist groups can employ a religious methodology if that is what they desire to do, but intelligent design is different: ID takes a strictly scientific approach to studying origins. While some people may see that as a weakness, I have always seen that as a strength of ID.
Less of a “strength” than a hope, we think — the hope that some idiot judge somewhere will fall for the fiction that ID is science and not religion. It’s a slim hope, based on ID’s litigation history. Check this out: Kitzmiller v. Dover: Is ID Science?
Continuing with Casey’s article:
And while some creationists seem to appreciate ID’s scientific methodology and understand why ID does not try to address religious questions about the identity of the designer, others like Yahya apparently do not grasp ID’s approach …
Actually, we think that they all understand what the Discoveroids are doing. But Harun Yaha is willing to be honest about it. Here’s one more excerpt from Casey’s blog article:
In contrast to the claims of Yahya, ID’s non-identification of the designer has nothing to do with being “dishonest.” Yet many ID proponents (including me) have been extremely open about our personal views on the identity of the designer, but we have made it clear that these are our personal religious views and not the conclusions of intelligent design.
Strange, is it not, that all the ID proponents have the same “personal views on the identity of the designer.” That, and a manure-wagon full of pseudo-scientific linguistic foolishness, is the entirety of ID — and everyone knows it. Well, everyone but Casey.