Discovery Institute: Hey Casey! (Number 6)

ape-finger

Imagine a Senator who is surreptitiously videotaped taking a cash bribe from the agent of a foreign power with which we are at war. Then imagine that, upon being confronted with the tape, the Senator becomes indignantly irate and shouts: “Are you questioning my patriotism?”

This is the defense tactic (petulant denial of the obvious) that we often see being used by 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).

But with the Discoveroids, the accusation isn’t treason — it’s creationism. And their anguished denials are a constant source of amusement, because nothing could be more certain in this world than that the Discoveroids are creationists. We recently described them as a creationist ministry which should be known as the Church of the Intelligent Designer.

But whenever anyone says what is flamingly obvious to all the world — that the Discoveroids’ “theory” of intelligent design (ID) is creationism — they become furious and fly into denial mode. We’ve documented many instances of this. See, for example: Discovery Institute: Cornered and Panicked, in which we observe Casey’s attempt to say that the Discoveroids aren’t religiously motivated; rather it’s the scientists who reject ID who do so for religious reasons. And let’s not forget The Wedge Document, So What? — the ultimate denial of the Discoveroids’ fundamental declaration of purpose. There was also Casey’s reaction when James Carville Calls Them Creationists. But that’s old stuff; you’ve seen it all before.

Today the Discoveroid blog has another example. To our delight, it’s by Casey Luskin, everyone’s favorite creationist: NCSE’s Steve Newton and the “Creationism” Gambit. Nifty title — the creationism gambit! Here it comes, with bold font added by us:

Casey begins by reminding us of something he wrote earlier, claiming that:

Darwin lobbyists abuse the first amendment by relabeling scientific critique of evolution as “creationism”:

[…]

Those who love the First Amendment should be outraged. In essence, the Darwin lobby is taking the separation of church and state – a good thing – and abusing it to promote censorship.

We interrupt here to point out that all kinds of ghastly ideologies employ the First Amendment to spread their nonsense. Creationists too, and no one stops them. But teaching science in a government-run school doesn’t give teachers the freedom to promote religion in the guise of science — not on the government payroll. That pesky First Amendment (and most states have something similar in their own constitutions) not only guarantees freedom of speech, it also guarantees freedom of conscience by preventing government from establishing religion. Creationists are free to promote their creed — at their own expense without the artificial aid of government coercion — and they do. But freedom of speech doesn’t override the establishment clause. Okay, end of interruption. Let’s read on in Casey’s article:

One Darwin lobbyist who (especially of late) makes strong use of this tactic is Steve Newton of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). Newton isn’t shy about tossing out the “creationist” label over and over and over again in hopes it will stick.

Newton hopes the creationist label will stick? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We continue:

Let’s look at just a few examples of Mr. Newton’s use of the creationism gambit. [Examples omitted.] Despite the utter falsity of his claim, I will show civility in response to Mr. Newton. Discovery Institute does not support teaching creationism in public schools. In fact, we don’t even support pushing intelligent design into public schools, which is different than creationism. Rather, we think public schools should simply teach the scientific evidence for and against neo-Darwinian evolution.

Again we say: BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The “scientific evidence” against evolution exists only in the imagination of creationists. When evidence — actual evidence — is produced, it’ll be in the textbooks. No legislation or public relations activities will be necessary. See Where Are The Anachronistic Fossils? Here’s more from Casey:

Why is Newton so focused on labeling people, specifically those he brands “creationists”? As we’ve already discussed, it’s a convenient argument to ban views you disagree with from public education.

It’s a bit more than banning “views you disagree with,” Casey. The earth isn’t flat, and the Ptolemaic system of astronomy was wrong. Fire, air, water and earth aren’t the basic elements. Phlogiston theory was misguided and it isn’t coming back. The same is true for the luminiferous aether. Alchemy, astrology, and numerology are utterly without scientific merit. And so is creationism. Even if evolution gets revised from time to time or perhaps replaced some day, it won’t be creationism that emerges triumphant.

Okay, back to Casey’s article. Get this:

Mr. Newton is fully welcome to believe in scientism if that’s what he wishes. But perhaps what he fears most is someone who would suggest that forces outside of nature may have influenced the natural world.

Suggesting is easy; that’s all the Discoveroids ever do. Producing evidence isn’t; and they never do it. That’s why ID isn’t science. This is Casey’s final paragraph:

While Darwin lobbyists like Newton constantly charge that “creationism” has been relabeled as “academic freedom,” the only party who is doing any relabeling is the Darwin lobby itself, which constantly claims — wrongly — that academic freedom to scientifically critique evolution is the equivalent of teaching “creationism.”

What do you make of it, dear reader? From the pic which adorns this post, you already know what your humble Curmudgeon thinks. For background on that pic, see Discovery Institute: Hey Casey! (Number 5).

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

11 responses to “Discovery Institute: Hey Casey! (Number 6)

  1. Creationist Casey creates a controversy where it doesn’t exist, supports misleading bills created by the creationists at the creationist Discovery Institute to allow ID/creationism in the classroom, so that teachers can creatively imply ID/creationism is the alternative to science, and then Creationist Casey creatively lies about it.

  2. Oh, by the way, here are a few definitions, my emphasis, from a quick Google search:

    Merriam-Webster

    Definition of INTELLIGENT DESIGN
    : the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence

    Dictionary.Com

    Intelligent design 
    –noun
    the theory that the universe and living things were designed and created by the purposeful action of an intelligent agent.

    Wikipedia states that “It is neo-creationism, a form of creationism restated in non-religious terms.”

    McMillan dictionary defines it as: “the theory that the universe was created by an intelligent force or being. It is opposed to the theory of evolution.

    I think Creationist Casey has more problems with the definition of ID that just what they NCSE might state.

  3. Mr ‘Mudge, just an fyi–Murphy, over at the Alvin paper has printed another meandering column of drivel.

    Exerpt: Charles Darwin has theorized that an unknown, unidentified source of energy struck some primordial ooze, the origin of which is also unknown and unidentified, and voila! Everything just – “happened”.

    Somehow I’m not convinced that’s what Darwin theorized…silly of me, but there it is.

  4. Casey says ” Rather, we think public schools should simply teach the scientific evidence for and against neo-Darwinian evolution.”

    Good! Cause there is no SCIENTIFIC evidence against Darwinian evolution, just LOTS and LOTS of good, solid, repeatable evidence FOR it.

    (PS. Casey and all other Creationists, the Bible is NOT a scientific document and nothing is says will ever be able to pass as solid, scientific evidence against evolution. If that’s all you got, you should probably just STFU.)

  5. JeffW says:

    Murphy, over at the Alvin paper has printed another meandering column of drivel.

    Ah, you’re right! But it’s only partly about Darwin. I’ll give ol’ Murph a pass this time.

  6. In the Gospels’ telling of the crucifixion, Peter supposedly curses and splutters when he’s accused of being a disciple, but when the rooster crows, he remembers that Jesus told him that he would do this.

    Casey, why are you denying the Lord? Be true to your convictions, and tell us what you believe.

  7. “with the Discoveroids, the accusation isn’t treason — it’s creationism. ”

    I have suggested more than once in comments various places online that pushing creationism in public school science classrooms IS treason, and any politician who does should be so charged. It is obvious to me if not to them that those politicians are actively sabotaging the education of American schoolchildren, thus lessening our future competitiveness in the global market. I would love to see such a trial but know it is highly unlikely to happen anytime soon.

  8. Gabriel Hanna

    @Bicycling Guitarist:

    I have suggested more than once in comments various places online that pushing creationism in public school science classrooms IS treason, and any politician who does should be so charged.

    Treason is a serious charge with severe penalties, and it was heavily abused by the British government to prosecute religious dissenters, which is why the Constitution says:

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

    As morally repugnant as you and I find the teaching of creationism in state-run schools to be, it’s not treason and there’s really no need for that sort of hyperbole.

  9. @Gabriel Hanna:
    I get carried away sometimes and stand corrected. Even if what they do isn’t treason by strict definition, it still aids our future enemies by dumbing down our children. I grant that many perhaps most of those arguing against evolution do so because they have been LIED to about it by sources they trust. They do what they do more from ignorance than malice.

  10. Darn the image didn’t got through, so you’ll just have to click the link to see it.