Report on the Discoveroids’ Oklahoma Revival

We recently told you that the Discoveroids Were Planning Another Oklahoma Revival. Well, the great event was held last night, and our intrepid operative, code-named “OO,” has submitted his report. We also have some information obtained by the use of InterStall™ — our top secret bathroom listening device.

As you know, this creationist revival was conducted 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).

The centerpiece of the show was their new creationist “documentary” about butterflies, about which we’ve previously written (see Butterflies Prove Creationism). The film was made by Illustra Media, which works with the Discoveroids to produce such things. David Coppedge is (or was) on their board of directors.

Okay, you know all that. So what happened? Our clandestine operative reports, with bold font added by us:

The DI [Discoveroids] must be very disappointed. The attendance was less than 200; the museum staff member counted only 129, most of these were students, faculty, and other citizens supportive of evolution.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Our operative’s report continues:

[T]here was not a single [moment of] applause at Okla. U. [the venue of the revival] when the film ended. Indeed, there was loud applause after every question in the Q&A [following the film]. All questions were pro evolution, detailed, and insistent on getting an answer to the questions. The answers were mostly rambling … .

The Discoveroids usually conduct these affairs at churches where they have a receptive audience. Why do they sometimes schedule revivals at universities? It must be a martyrdom thing so they can complain about persecution. The Flat Earth Society would be similarly “persecuted,” but they have the good sense to avoid universities. Let’s read on:

The DI speakers announced at the beginning that they would stay as long as there were questions, but cut it off after about ten, perhaps they saw that they had no support.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! One last excerpt:

Thus, the DI must have been very discouraged by the Oklahoma presentation. They did not offer the film CD for sale as promised and tried to high-tail it out, but kept getting surrounded by folks … arguing with them.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! In addition to that fine report, our InterStall™ bathroom listening device picked up this conversation, but we can’t vouch for its accuracy:

Voice one: This is horrible! They think we’re a bunch of idiots!

Voice two: Don’t worry about it. We’ll put something up at our blog claiming it was a great victory for our side, marred only by a few out-of-control Darwinist disruptors. It’ll be okay.

So there you are. Oh, wouldja believe it — the Discoveroids are planning another revival! See this at their website: Butterflies Set to “Mess with Texas” Tonight at Southern Methodist U.

That should be fun. They had a genuine disaster at that campus last year (see More Fallout after Creationist Revival at SMU). If we learn anything more, we’ll let you know.

Addendum: The Discoveroids have posted their own report: Packed House and Intense Q&A at Sam Noble Museum for Metamorphosis. One excerpt:

When the building security pushes you out, keys in hand, and there are still five people standing at the microphone waiting to ask their questions, you know it’s been a good evening.

Yeah, a good evening. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

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

19 responses to “Report on the Discoveroids’ Oklahoma Revival

  1. That’s priceless! Great report.

    Oddly, the announcement for the SMU showing appears to be posted today – for tonight. Is that right? Also, it is supposedly sponsored by “PULSE” at SMU, but it does not appear on their upcoming events or calendar or anywhere on their website. Is this a last minute thing, perhaps in reaction to the Oklahoma debacle, or are they hoping to avoid a prepared audience when they get to SMU by slipping the notice under the radar? A normal organization would have announced the SMU event when they announced the Oklahoma event – and even posted a complete schedule of showings. Something is definitely afoot.

  2. Ed – maybe what’s afoot is that a private group is renting SMU space and doesn’t have permission to advertise it on SMU media (web sites, etc.). Just throwing that thought out there, I really have no idea, and it could very well be that they limited earlier advertising to places that would be sympathetic to them (churches, etc..).

  3. Why do they sometimes schedule revivals at universities? It must be a martyrdom thing so they can complain about persecution.

    So they can say it was presented at a university and therefore counts as serious science.

  4. Gabriel Hanna says:

    So they can say it was presented at a university and therefore counts as serious science.

    Interesting strategy. If an institution has a policy of excluding junk, the creationists threaten to sue because of “viewpoint discrimination.” So the institution caves and allows their facilities to be used for junk, and then the creationists claim that they’ve been accepted.

    I like my earlier suggestion. These institutions (museums, universities, etc.) that have theaters for rent should schedule “junk week” from time to time and allow creationists and others to rent the place and exhibit their material at those times.

  5. I forget… how are butterflies supposed to be indicative of intelligent design? Complex life cycle? Well, a lot of insects have that, and there are parasites that have even more complicated paths to follow on their lives’ journey. Sheer esthetic beauty that only a Creator could create for His own satisfaction? Okay, the wings can be pretty, but there’s still an icky bug between them. I’d go with the butterflies that have large eye-like patterns on their wings, so when the wings are outspread, a potential predator presumably thinks it’s looking at the face of a much larger animal and so breaks off the attack. The spooky thing about the “eyes” on some of them is that there are white spots exactly where a reflective highlight of a moist eyeball would be. How many generations of evolutionary fine-tuning did it take for that to be perfected? That’s what I’d say about butterflies if I were a Creationist or a Discoveroid, which I’m not.

  6. We’ll add this as an addendum. The Discoveroids have posted their report: Packed House and Intense Q&A at Sam Noble Museum for Metamorphosis. One excerpt: “When the building security pushes you out, keys in hand, and there are still five people standing at the microphone waiting to ask their questions, you know it’s been a good evening.”

  7. Re your addendum:
    That’s some pretty artful dodging on the Discoveroids’ part with their report.
    They call it a “packed house” without ever saying how many folks there actually were; and “still five people standing at the microphone waiting to ask their questions” avoids the question of just why they were left standing with unanswered questions, though the inference they want to be drawn is “so many questions with great answers, so little time.” Or that they were expelled.

  8. The Oklahoma Daily, student newspaper at OU, has a very nice op-ed on the DI and the film by a junior journalism student:

    Also a good comment is posted on the web site.

    The claim that the house was packed is a lie. There were many empty seats; I counted 15 empty seats to my front and I was in the sixth row. I think that the Museum count of 129 was likely accurate. It was clear that most of the audience did not support ID and the ‘intensity’ was all negative toward ID and the DI. No victory here for the Seattle screwballs. They did not learn from their previous appearances at OU that they can not expect a friendly reception – not a nasty one, just a thorough logical rejection of their views with scientific facts.

  9. woops – “god” should be “good “in above post.

  10. vhutchison says:

    “god” should be “good “in above post.

    Well of course!

  11. My favorite DI visit to OU was when Dembski got his hat handed to him by art students and after that got lectured to by a biologist who actually understood flagellar evolution.

  12. The above link to Zac Smith’s op-ed in the Oklahoma Daily answered my question about what the DIscoveroid droids are trying to prove with butterflies. Fine bit of writing, by the way — if Zac is around these parts, I’d like to compliment him for his intelligent and well-written piece.

  13. Two Panda Thumbs Up for Zack Smith’s review in the OU Daily, link above.

    Very well researched using words from the DI’s own website. The consistent use of “intelligent design creationism” was an especially nice touch.

  14. I’m surprised that the DI is using the butterfly as an example of “intelligent” design creationism since the life-cycle of that insect is well studied and as Zac Smith pointed out in his article, it’s evolutionary history can be understood with a few minutes on Google; along with scores of other insects with similar or even more complex life-cycles.

    The DI’s spin on the evening is entirely keeping with their dishonest reporting. “We lie, you deride” should be their motto.

    However, it reminds me of an old joke involving the former Soviet Union and the USA in a car race. In the American press the race was described like this: The USA outperformed the Soviet Union and won the race handily.

    Pravda reported: In the auto race the Soviet Union came in second while the United States was next to last.

  15. @Doc Bill: Yet another example of the old adage, “There is no pravda in Izvestia. There is no izvestia in Pravda.”

  16. Существует нет вод в водке. Ой, подождите …

  17. This letter to the editor of the OU student paper signed by several faculty members is very similar to the handout given to everyone attending the DI film:

    We urge others that have to endure DI presenations to use some of the strategies we used that seem to work well.

  18. Great letter, Victor. I assume it’s too late to pass that stuff around in time for the SMU revival tonight. That’s okay. They’ve been through this before.

  19. “…obviously disagreeing with them as to the interpretation of the evidence.”

    Same things the YECs always say when they cannot ignore, discredit, or otherwise dismiss the evidence. It’s simply a difference of *opinion* about interpreting the evidence.