Discovery Institute: Deep in Denial Over Dover

THE SPIRIT of Kitzmas seems to have taken possession of the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids).

They’ve posted yet another article at their blog about the decision on 20 December 2005 by Judge John E. Jones III in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. This one, like the last we wrote about, is also written by John West — a Senior Fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute (the DI), where he is Associate Director of their Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids). That makes him one of the chief Keepers of their Wedge Strategy, and the guru of the cdesign proponentsists (a term described here: Missing link: “cdesign proponentsists”).

The evidence at the Dover trial totally demolished the Discoveroids’ flimsy cover story that their “theory” of Intelligent Design (ID) is some newfangled form of science. The ID lawyers and witnesses seemed to believe that by babbling scientific-sounding terms like “irreducible complexity” and “purposeful arrangement of parts” they were protected by some kind of cloaking device that would enable them to glide unseen through the First Amendment’s barrier to government institutions’ promotion of religion. Instead, the “theory” of ID was clearly exposed, unmasked, stripped naked, placed on display, and held up to ridicule as nothing more than the previously litigated doctrine of creationism. See: Kitzmiller v. Dover: Is ID Science?

The bitterness of this humiliating defeat permeates the Discoveroid “think tank,” and this is evident in West’s latest article: Judge Jones and His Groupies. Here are some excerpts:

Earlier this month, the peer-reviewed science journal PloS Genetics published its latest earth-shaking contribution to the field of genetics: a personal interview with none other than Judge John Jones of Kitzmiller v. Dover fame.

That link is in West’s article. You can click it and read Jones’ interview, in which the author says: “Jones excoriated intelligent design, waxed eloquent about the meaning and practice of science, and, for the skeptics, restored faith in the fairness of the judicial system.” Jones presents a very good history of litigation in the US about creationism, starting with the Scopes trial. In fact, that link is the best thing in West’s Discoveroid article — except for the amusement that West provides.

Here’s another link so you don’t miss it: An Interview with the Honorable Judge John E. Jones, III. This is Jones speaking, near the end of the interview:

When I take my last breath and they publish my obituary, the first line will say that I presided over the intelligent design trial. I can’t top this, I don’t think, and I’m fine with that, if this is what I’m remembered for. I’m proud of what I did. I thought I discharged my obligations and my duties well.

Continuing now with West’s article:

The non-scientist might be forgiven for thinking that a journal bearing a name like PLoS Genetics would restrict its articles to, well, genetics… or at least, to biology… or at the very least, to science. Not to worry! If the article extols Judge Jones, a lack of scientific content apparently is no detriment. Indeed, a lack of any substantive content apparently is no detriment.

West seems not only bitter over the Dover case, but he’s also jealous of the attention given to Judge Jones. We can imagine his indignation: A science journal is interviewing Jones, but they ignore me! The Discoveroids can’t stand it. It’s a conspiracy!

Frankly, after reading the Jones interview — which is fantastic! — we have little desire to persevere with the West article. It’s served its purpose by leading us to something really worth reading.

Oh, wait — we’ll give you West’s two last sentences:

As I’ve said many times before, it really is hard to lampoon the Darwinists. They do it so magnificently themselves.

We’re good at this, but we can’t think of a way to follow West’s act. So we’ll close by hoping that you had a festive Kitzmas.

Copyright © 2008. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

5 responses to “Discovery Institute: Deep in Denial Over Dover

  1. It must be a horrible life desperately grasping at straws as you fall without even realizing that is what you are doing.

    I could almost feel sorry for those idiots if I didn’t know they are wilful idiots.

  2. Sour grapes, indeed. Dr. West is either ignorant of – or being dishonest about – the fact that science journals regularly publish commentaries, letters to the editor, editorials, and other special features.

  3. “If the article extols Judge Jones, a lack of scientific content apparently is no detriment. Indeed, a lack of any substantive content apparently is no detriment.”
    That sounds like a tu quoque.

  4. “That sounds like a tu quoque.”

    They don’t care. Their fans don’t know the difference, and they ignore their critics.

  5. Hah! If they knew what a tu quoque was, they’d say that you just did one. Then they’d go off about how rude that Dawkins fellow is.