Another Conservative Group Goes Creationist

According to their “about” page, Cybercast News Service “was launched on June 16, 1998 as a news source for individuals, news organizations and broadcasters who put a higher premium on balance than spin …”

CNS News, as it’s called, is part of the Media Research Center, founded by L. Brent Bozell III. It’s not terribly relevant to our topic, but we’ll mention that Bozell is the nephew of the late William F. Buckley.

Why are we mentioning Cybercast News Service? It’s because their website is carrying this story: Darwin’s Dilemma: Evolutionary Elite Choose Censorship Over Scientific Debate. It’s by Casey Luskin, everyone’s favorite creationist.

What’s Casey writing about? It’s the same screeching and wailing you can find at the blog of the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids). If you’ve seen this earlier Discoveroid blog article, then you already know what Casey’s crying about on the CNS website: Did the Smithsonian Bully the California Science Center to Expel Intelligent Design Film?

We won’t bother discussing the creationist film that Casey and now Bozell are championing, or the reasons the Smithsonian canceled its showing. Our only purpose here is to note that Cybercast News Service, and presumably Media Research Center, and perhaps everything associated with L. Brent Bozell III may be solidly in the camp of the creationists.

This is the latest in a sad series of publications and institutions that have succumbed to the creeping rot of creationism. In this earlier post about the creationist mess at Bloggingheads.tv we listed several others. For example: Forbes Magazine Promotes Creationism, and “U.S.News & World Report” Touts Creationism, and “Weekly Standard” Going Creationist?

We shouldn’t leave out Heritage Foundation: Going Creationist? There’s also Casey on Fox & Friends, and don’t overlook: Creation Museum Commercials on Fox News.

We’re not including WorldNetDaily among the conservative news organs, because they’re so far over the edge of the flat earth that they’re in a category all their own. See: Buffoon Award Winner — WorldNetDaily. And we’re keeping a watchful eye on the Wall Street Journal, but we’re not all that worried about them at the moment. See: Wall Street Journal: Are They Creationists? Still, the Journal needs to be more careful about the company they keep.

It appears that the creationists are making progress after all. Not in science, of course, but in politics, journalism, and some think tanks. So there you are.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

12 responses to “Another Conservative Group Goes Creationist

  1. comradebillyboy

    Creationists are very adept at political science.

  2. Benjamin Franklin

    This should come as no surprise, as Bozell is an influential member of the Council for National Policy. The CNP describes itself as “a counterweight against liberal domination of the American agenda.”

    Other current and former members include;
    Tim LeHaye, Henry Morris, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, D. James Kennedy, Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin, Holland and Jeffrey Coors, Don Wildmon, John Ashcroft, Bob Jones III, Russas Rushdooney, Phyliss Schafly, Oliver North, Chuck Colson, Richard DeVos (Amway), Howard Ahmanson, Tom DeLay and others making up a veritable who’s who of theocrats, and the hare religious right.

    Several of the above, particular Ahmanson, are greatly responsible for the establishment of, and continuing funding of the Discovery Institute.

  3. Casey Luskin is a sad, sad little man.

  4. retiredsciguy

    To Casey Luskin and all other creationists :

    What is it about the Scientific Method that you are seemingly incapable of grasping? All of science is based on observable evidence. Holy scripture does not count as “observable evidence”.

    The term “Creation Science” is a perfect example of an oxymoron. Even though you tout “Intelligent Design”, we all know it is just creationism by another name, and until you have at least a shred of evidence supporting your case, don’t even THINK of calling it science. To do so denigrates all the work done by all the true scientists, past and present.

  5. Benjamin Franklin says: “This should come as no surprise, as Bozell is an influential member of the Council for National Policy.”

    Interesting. Here’s a Wikipedia entry on them: Council for National Policy. No mention there of Ahmanson (“Ah, Manson”), but that guy’s relationship to the Discoveroids is well known.

  6. And I thought the only thing Bozell did was complain about what’s on TV and in the movies. His column was always so dreadfully repetative and I always wondered if he hated these things so much, why bother to go and see them? And why does he think that we can’t make our own choices about what’s appropriate to watch? Oh, of course. We’re godless darwinists that are going to the latest Saw movie to get ideas of what we’re going to do to true believers when our revolution comes…

  7. There’s an interesting difference between the CNS site and the Discovery Institute’s “News & Views” site: the CNS site allows comments.

    Just sayin’ . . .

  8. Benjamin Franklin

    Take a look at the cached wiki entry on Ahmanson

    http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:xDefgDOQajUJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Ahmanson,_Jr.+ahmanson+council+for+national+policy&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

    Ahmanson was a member of the Council for National Policy in 1984–85, 1988 and sat on its Board of Governors in 1996 and 1998.

  9. Benjamin Franklin says: “Take a look at the cached wiki entry on Ahmanson”

    Good work!

  10. Cheryl Shepherd-Adams says: “… the CNS site allows comments.”

    Go ahead, tell Casey what you think of his theory.

  11. Cheryl Shepherd-Adams: “There’s an interesting difference between the CNS site and the Discovery Institute’s ‘News & Views’ site: the CNS site allows comments.”

    That’s a start, but is it enough? I would think the least they could do is grant “equal time” to another story tearing the article to shreds. After all it’s demonstrably a lie that “evolutionary elite” censor anything.

    In my experience, “comments” on both pro- and anti-evolution columns usually degenerate into clueless creationists throwing out parroted feel-good sound bites, and clueless opponents attacking religion instead of calmly explaining how creationists misunderstand/misrepresent science.

  12. Frank J says:

    In my experience, “comments” on both pro- and anti-evolution columns usually degenerate into clueless creationists throwing out parroted feel-good sound bites, and clueless opponents attacking religion instead of calmly explaining how creationists misunderstand/misrepresent science.

    Agreed. Other than finding new material to write about on a daily basis, the most difficult part of running a blog is dealing with clueless comments. Some blogs encourage food fights, and I certainly understand the fun involved; but it soon gets repetitive. Still, it’s a successful blog formula. I took a different path. I think that accounts for the quality of the comments we get.