IN the American Spectator we came across something they designate as a “Special Report” titled A Classic Evolution Policy Blunder.
The author is Bruce Chapman, founder and president of the Discovery Institute — a/k/a the Discoveroids. Chapman’s Seattle organization devotes about half of its resources to supporting and promoting the neo-theocrats at their Center for Science and Culture. Chapman’s position makes him Lord High Keeper of the Discoveroids’ Wedge strategy, and the ultimate leader of all cdesign proponentsists (described here: Missing link: “cdesign proponentsists”).
Now that you know what we’re dealing with, here are some excerpts from Chapman’s article, with bold added by us:
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed into law last year an act that sets parameters for teachers who introduce scientific supplements on Darwinian evolution, global warming, human cloning and other controversial subjects. The state’s Science Education Act encourages “open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied.” It specifically prohibits religious instruction or interpretations (or irreligious interpretations, for that matter). The law is simple, reasonable and avoids constitutional and scientific mistakes that afflicted earlier laws in Louisiana and elsewhere.
Right. “Simple, reasonable …” Just routine stuff. But that doesn’t quite explain the veritable orgy of celebration in Seattle when that shameful law was getting passed. See: Discovery Institute — Ecstasy Over Louisiana.
By the way, Chappy, your creationism law wasn’t signed by Jindal “last year,” it was in 2008. Let’s read on:
But in Livingston Parish, east of Baton Rouge, some enthusiasts for a literal Biblical account of creation decided that the new law gives them authority to teach creationism — the account from Genesis. That view clearly violates the law and also the U.S. Constitution as it long has been interpreted. Reported statements from Livingston school board member David Tate were so fallacious and confrontational that they could have been scripted by his supposed adversaries if they were looking for ways to make him look bad.
All observers of The Controversy have been following this. We wrote about it here: World-Class Idiocy. The National Center for Science Education did here: The latest from Livingston Parish; and Barbara Forrest did here Livingston Parish School Board Wants to Implement Discovery Institute’s “Academic Freedom” Law; and Lauri Lebo did here: “Taking a Stand for Jesus” in the Public Schools.
Hey, Chappy: Are you embarrassed by one of your Louisiana followers? What’s the problem? Ideas have consequences. You reap, you sow. Why does any of this surprise you?
Chapman’s article continues:
Tate’s fulminations are not characteristic of the educators and legislators who passed the new Louisiana law, but you can be sure that the Darwinist opponents of the law will try to make them sound representative. The same thing happened in Dover, Pennsylvania, in 2005 when school board members decided to grab onto the phrase (not the reality) of “intelligent design” to promote religious doctrine.
But Chappy, Tate’s “fulminations” are indeed a reflection of the law that you and your faithful followers got passed in Louisiana. The problem, Chappy, is that while you and your Discoveroid comrades in Seattle are clever enough to devise a stealth creationist campaign and to disguise it as the “science” of intelligent design, it’s not going to work.
Why won’t it work? The reason, Chappy, is that your obedient followers in the states that adopt your scheme are inevitably going to be among the dumbest people in the universe; they can’t stick to the script. They’re creationists — and that means they’re stupid. Got it? We explained the problem in detail here: Intelligent Design, the Great Incongruity.
Here’s more from Chapman:
Darwin’s theory of evolution, as its main advocates assert it, presumes that there can be no scientific evidence against a totally unguided and unintelligent course to evolution. Evidence to the contrary is ruled out ahead of time. This causes Darwinists to label practically anyone a “creationist” who refuses to take the standard line.
“Evidence to the contrary is ruled out.” Okay, Chappy. We’ve heard all this before. Moving along:
To clear the air of Darwinist cant and enter a debate on the actual evidence, no religious assertions are necessary or desirable.
True. But Chappy … you will need to bring some evidence to the debate. Let us know when you’ve got some. Bring along some of that stuff that’s been “ruled out.” We’ll look at it — if you’ve got it.
Here’s the end of Chapman’s article:
Science class — in public schools, at least — should leave religious implications at the school door. Even if one doesn’t agree with that policy, the federal courts are clear on the matter. Someone should explain the facts of life to the Livingston Parish school board.
As we interpret Chapman’s article, he’s sending this message to Livingston Parish:
You guys blew it! You’re on your own! (But unofficially, we Discoveroids will do what we can to help you out, because we’re all on the same side.)
It’s difficult to do what Chapman’s “think tank” is attempting to do. Trying to coach creationists to be clever is like trying to train toads to be ballerinas.
Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.