Discoveroids Furious with Associated Press

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.

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

13 responses to “Discoveroids Furious with Associated Press

  1. LOL at the DI calling things mindless.

  2. The abuse with which these suffering souls must contend!

    The very idea of anyone describing ID as anything but the “best explanation,” science, and today’s honest attempt to free research from the shackles of the evidence.

    Surely the blood of their martyrdom will rocket their science to the stars. At least it should if they’re right about God, evolution, and creation as depicted in the Gospel of John.

    According to science, not as likely. But science is just the devil’s playground anyway, isn’t it?

  3. This reminds me of Humpty Dumpty in “Through the Looking Glass.” Words mean whatever the arguer wants them to mean, and the arguer redefines terms until achieving victory.

  4. Based on the DI’s use of asterisks, I’d say that they were equally offended that no scare words such as “mindless” or “random” were attached to evolution.

  5. Yea, DI! ID isn’t a theory, it’s a POSITION.

    Like my position is that the best root beer is A&W, unlike the cheaper stuff you can buy at WalMart.

    Take that, Darwin!

  6. Greg Camp says: “Words mean whatever the arguer wants them to mean …”

    No problem. PT Barnum described his circus as “The Greatest Show on Earth.” No reason the Discoveroids can’t describe their circus as “The best explanation.”

  7. I don’t think they liked “created by an intelligent being”, which draws too much attention to the religious basis of ID.

  8. Ed says:

    I don’t think they liked “created by an intelligent being”, which draws too much attention to the religious basis of ID.

    As opposed to just “intelligence” in the Discoveroids’ preferred definition? Maybe that’s it. I didn’t think of it. But I like my take on it — they want the press to describe ID as “the best explanation.”

  9. I don’t think they liked “created by an intelligent being”, which draws too much attention to the religious basis of ID.

    As opposed to just “intelligence” in the Discoveroids’ preferred definition?

    I don’t know, they seem to be quite insistent upon the idea that intelligence is not “material” and has to belong to some living entity. A computer can’t create specified complexity, while humans can, that sort of gibberish (and actually, using GAs computers come up with things that humans can’t).

    I’ve always wondered why the “Designer” couldn’t be a computer/robot, aside from their prejudices. Why not? The grand computer makes life, then life makes computers. Not sure what the purpose would be, but it’s not clear what the point of ID is at all, aside from religion.

  10. Gabriel Hanna

    The grand computer makes life, then life makes computers.

    See Asimov, “The Last Question”.

  11. ID is to biology what Thor is to thunder and lightning.

  12. Gabriel Hanna said:

    See Asimov, “The Last Question”.

    Here’s a link in case anyone’s looking: http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

  13. The advocates of ID want to be very careful that they aren’t making a substantive statement, such as assigning the “design” to one “intelligent designer”. There may be more than one. Also note that their rewording omits the word “created”.