It’s maddening. Those gull-durned journalists at the Associated Press (AP) just can’t seem to understand the Intelligent Design (ID) “theory” of the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute‘s creationist public relations and lobbying operation, the Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids, a/k/a the cdesign proponentsists).
Why can’t AP get it right? It’s certainly not impossible to understand ID. Judge Jones proved that in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. We quoted him in Kitzmiller v. Dover: Is ID Science? Your humble Curmudgeon has also attempted to describe ID “theory” from time to time. For example, see Intelligent Design Redefined. If we can figure it out, why can’t AP?
Being primarily a propaganda and public relations operation, the Discoveroids are very concerned about how the press discusses their “theory.” They were recently angered by something they read so they’ve posted Associated Press Almost Gets Intelligent Design Right at their blog. It’s a very brief article — only two short paragraphs — so we’ll copy it all here, with bold font added by us for emphasis:
The writers for the Associated Press recently claimed that ID is a position that “contends life can be so complex it must have been created by an intelligent being, as opposed to evolving through natural selection.”
That’s what it is, isn’t it? Why are the Discoveroids complaining?
This is the AP story that offended the Discoveroids: Expert on evolution speaks at Citadel, C of C. It’s a short item about a speech to be given by Robert T. Pennock, who — this is what the Discoveroids really don’t like — was a witness for the winning side in the Kitzmiller case.
Here’s the rest of the Discoveroid blog article. We’ll break it into two parts:
This statement is ALMOST right. Unfortunately, it reflects the AP’s propensity to continually get things wrong when it comes to ID and then perpetuate the myth in a mindless Darwinian fashion.
Whoa! Strong words indeed. The Discoveroids accuse the AP of having a propensity for getting things wrong in a “mindless Darwinian fashion.”
Jeepers, what did AP do wrong? Their description of ID seems like it’s on the mark. This is the rest of the Discoveroids’ post, and now they tell us what they prefer as the “proper” description of ID:
It should say that intelligent design is a position that “contends that the complexity of life is best explained by intelligence, as opposed to evolving *mindlessly* through natural selection.”
Oh. So that’s what it is — the “best” explanation. Okay, now we know. Presumably the AP will be much more sensitive in the future. They’ll be sure to always mention that ID is “the best explanation.” It’s part of the definition.
Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.