OUR CUP runneth over. Casey Luskin, our favorite among the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids), has just given us another blog article: Stanford Dean’s Newsletter and Koch Foundation Redefine Freedom to Support Censorship of Intelligent Design.
This one is only a single paragraph long, but it’s so strange that we’re going to break it up into its separate sentences, and add our Curmudgeonly commentary as we go along. The bold font is in the original Discoveroid post.
The recent Dean’s Newsletter from Philip A. Pizzo, Dean of the Stanford University School of Medicine, announces a statement from the “Scientific Advisory Board” of the Koch Foundation that recommends creating a brave new world of censorship.
We have come to expect that when a Discoveroid speaks of “censorship” he means keeping religious doctrines and pseudo-science out of science classes where such material doesn’t belong. Let’s continue:
According to Dean Pizzo’s newsletter, when giving an award recently to a biology researcher, the Koch Foundation’s “Scientific Advisory Board” stated: “Research must remain free and therefore has to be protected from non-scientific influences such as ‘Creationism,’ ‘Fundamentalism,’ ‘Intelligent Design,’ or other non-scientific ideas or religious convictions.”
Sounds perfectly reasonable to us. Why should “non-scientific influences” be allowed to pollute scientific research? Casey continues:
Ignoring their inappropriate lumping of intelligent design with “creationism,” “fundamentalism,” “non-scientific ideas” and “religious convictions,” it seems that in the Koch Foundation’s vision of the future, being “free” means that ID cannot have any influence upon research.
Poor Casey. He seriously believes that Intelligent Design, the fantasy to which he’s so devoted, is really a cutting-edge scientific theory. It bothers him when the rational world labels ID what it really is — creationism. We’ve written about Casey’s frustration before: Discovery Institute: “Don’t Call Us Creationists!”
As for Casey’s other point — “being ‘free’ means that ID cannot have any influence upon research” — no one is stopping them from doing ID research, but somehow they never do any. What they claim is ID research amounts to standing around like sidewalk superintendents watching a construction project, and complaining that the skilled people actually doing the work won’t pay any attention to their advice.
I guess that “free” must be their newspeak word for censorship of ideas they don’t like.
Gotta love it — a Discoveroid creationist invoking Orwellian terminology to criticize the rational world!
Hey Casey: It’s not censorship to ignore people who have nothing of value to contribute. He goes on:
I suppose if you don’t like the conclusion that life was designed, it’s much easier to just ban such ideas and “influences” from the scientific research community.
Hey Casey: The notion that “life was designed” isn’t a conclusion. It’s your faith-based premise. Maybe one day you’ll learn the difference.
At last, we’ve come to the end of the Discoveroid “article,” and Casey gives us a strong closing:
Such censorship and suppression has been done before, and if the Koch Foundation — cheered on by the Dean of Stanford’s Medical School — has its way, it will be done again.
We didn’t copy Casey’s link, but at the original article, “done before” links to something about “Expelled,” Ben Stein’s trashy “documentary.” With that final, powerful flourish, Casey imagines his case is made.
Copyright © 2008. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.