Discovery Institute Faces Another Bad Year

THE year just ended was a nightmare for creationists — especially the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids). It was not only the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth, but also the 150th anniversary of the publication of Origin of Species. Celebrations of reason were everywhere, and all the while the Discoveroids sulked and snarled.

By the end of December you could see the Discoveroids literally writhing in agony. It was so hilarious that we posted twice about it. See: Waiting For Dark, and Tantrum at Year’s End.

The only thing that sustained the Discoveroids through 2009, aside from the salaries provided by their benefactors, was the hope that when that wretched year ended they’d have clear sailing for spreading their creationist dogma. But such is not to be.

We present to you, dear reader, some excerpts from The Royal Society: The establishment of science, which appears in The Economist, a most worthy publication edited in the City of Westminster, London. The bold font was added by us:

THE streets surrounding St James’s Palace in London are dotted with gentlemen’s clubs, many of which now also admit women. This year, one such establishment is marking its 350th anniversary. The club in question is not merely a meeting place for like-minded members, however: it is the society that founded modern science.

Science? How very un-creationist! Let’s read on:

The first fellows of the Royal Society, as it is now known, were followers of Sir Francis Bacon, a 17th-century statesman and philosopher who argued that knowledge could be gained by testing ideas through experiments.

Oh, how horrible! Creationists know that’s most definitely not where knowledge comes from. We continue:

[T]hey determined to meet every week to discuss scientific matters and to witness experiments conducted by different members of the group. In so doing, they invented the processes on which modern science rests, including scientific publishing and peer review, and made English the primary language of scientific discourse.

You can see, dear reader, that this is truly the origin of the creationists’ problem. Here’s more:

Sir Isaac Newton, who defined the laws of gravity, became president of the Royal Society in 1703. Its members (no more than 44 outstanding British scientists are elected to fellowship each year, along with up to eight foreign members) go on to win Nobel prizes; indeed, 74 of the society’s 1,300 living members are Nobel laureates.

We’re not certain of this, but we strongly suspect that not a single member is a creationist. Moving along:

Such is the excitement at the Royal Society’s anniversary that Britain’s state broadcaster, the BBC, has created a year of science-related programming to celebrate it.

Oh no! Yet another year of un-creationist celebrations. A deep depression is gripping the gang in Seattle.

This is the article’s end:

The British Museum is holding a series of lectures on science’s contribution to the objects that it holds. The Royal Society itself is organising a festival billed as “a huge and splendid celebration of the joy and vitality of science, its importance to society and culture, and its role in shaping who we are and who we will become”. A proud tradition, indeed.

The year now beginning looks like a good one for celebrating rational thought — and a bad one for the Discoveroids. Sorry, guys; you’re on the wrong side of history.

Copyright © 2010. 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

8 responses to “Discovery Institute Faces Another Bad Year

  1. Gabriel Hanna

    Since Isaac Newton is one of the “good guys” to the DI folks, I doubt they’re too broken up about the 350th anniversary of the Royal Society. I’m sure they’ll be saying that science lost its way sometime after that.

    Fun fact: Margaret Thatcher is a Fellow of the Royal Society; she was a chemist. I might have mentioned that before.

  2. Gabriel Hanna says: “Margaret Thatcher is a Fellow of the Royal Society …”

    Great lady.

  3. A ‘great lady’ possibly, but she was a terrible Prime Minister.

  4. Curmudgeon: “We’re not certain of this, but we strongly suspect that not a single member is a creationist.”

    If none are, they’ll whine about being “expelled.” If some (creationists or mere “dissenters”) are, they’ll crow about it incessantly.

  5. I wish I could be as optimistic as His Curmugeonlyness about the DI’s prospects of a dismal year. They, and the other creationists, are tireless in their efforts to drag our society back to the dark ages.
    We must soldier on to defend the Enlightenment.
    As a geoscientist working for private industry, my contribution this year will be volunteering to give talks to local schools. Science teachers love to bring in outside scientists to give talks and demonstrations.

  6. waldteufel says: “… my contribution this year will be volunteering to give talks to local schools …”

    Excellent. Most commendable.

  7. Before Luskin beats me to it, I’ll remind readers that the BBC is “Britain’s State broadcaster”.

    Rampant Librosocialfascism! Hardly surprising, seeing as they’re the ones that corrupted the youth of the world with handbag-wielding Tellytubbies.

    …. and [OT] loathsome as she was, Thatcher wasn’t much worse than most other British PMs in the 20th century, and was better than some. But dear God she had one of the most repellent personalities I have ever seen.

  8. We’ll probably just get endless “Such and so was a creationist” spiels, disregarding little things like they weren’t even alive when the idea of evolution was formulated. We can expect much goofiness, I think.