That graphic adorns a whole series of our posts about articles by Casey Luskin, everyone’s favorite creationist among 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).
If you’re wondering how the series started, here’s some background information:
Back in February of 2009, Casey was speaking at some creationist revival meeting or something. During a heated exchange with Abbie Smith, which she later described here: Casey Luskin, Abbie flipped a bird at Casey, as we reported in this post.
Upon experiencing this “Darwinist” atrocity, Casey did the blogging equivalent of bursting into tears and collapsing on the fainting couch. He produced an amazing narrative which appeared on the Discoveroid blog: Civility of Darwinists Lacking at Academic Freedom on Evolution Event in Oklahoma. The picture which adorns this post has become our subtle commemoration of that event. (The picture isn’t Abbie, who is lovely; it’s one of your Curmudgeon’s cousins.)
That wasn’t the first time Casey let his kinder, gentler nature be known. Back in April of 2008 when we were first starting this blog, we posted Want a Creationist Physician? Casey had written about a friend was “studying hard to take the medical school entrance examination,” and who was offended and emotionally distracted by encountering some “evolution indoctrination” passages in his study materials which were “extremely emotionally charged.” We commended Casey for his empathic ability to share the distress of his friend.
Not only is Casey a sensitive lad, he seems to be the only Discoveroid who isn’t a “fellow,” so last year your Curmudgeon compassionately remedied that cruel insult (see: Casey Luskin Is Named a Curmudgeon Fellow).
Okay, now you know why we’re using that graphic. Today’s post by Casey is The Uncivil Style of Intelligent Design Critics, in which he again reveals his extreme sensitivity. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us and Casey’s links omitted:
I’m going to let ENV [the Discoveroid’s creationist “think tank”] readers in on a little secret: When many of us in the intelligent design (ID) movement read the arguments coming from our critics, we’re surprised at their low quality and style. We don’t rejoice at this — we’d much rather see a robust, civil, and fruitful scientific debate over the relevant questions. But the incivility, basic inaccuracy, and unserious tone characteristic of so many criticisms of ID all make you wonder: If the critics had stronger rebuttals to offer, wouldn’t we be hearing them?
What rebuttals are needed? The Discoveroids have no evidence for their magical, mystical designer. Their wedge strategy openly declares their intent to suppress science and replace it with mysticism. All they ever do is claim that Darwin’s theory is responsible for Marx, Hitler, and all the other evils in the world. They are the barbarians at the gates. To what courtesy are they entitled? Anyway, Casey continues:
[M]ost critiques of ID look more like attempts to dismiss ID’s arguments than to engage them. In particular, many critics try to dismiss ID by harping on alleged religious associations with ID, while ignoring ID’s scientific merits, accomplishments, and arguments.
“Ignoring ID’s scientific merits, accomplishments, and arguments”? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! What is there to ignore? We do consider the Discoveroids’ claims that such exist, and we analyze such claims — giving them all the respect that is appropriate. See Intelligent Designer or Zeus?
Casey then babbles on quite a bit, giving examples of uncivility. No doubt he has a large universe of material from which to select. After that he says:
This tendency of ID critics to replace sound scientific arguments with uncivil rhetoric goes back for years. It has even attracted the notice of academics, who aren’t pro-ID, and who study the rhetoric of science.
A few months back, I discovered a 2009 paper published in the Journal of Science Communication which evaluated the discourse adopted by evolution-defenders on blogs. It found that the frequency of uncivil attacks at the blog Pandas Thumb in particular “undermines the goals of rational debate and criticism.”
Then he quotes large portions of what his selected “scholars of scientific communication” have written — as if that meant anything about the merits of the Discoveroids’ “science.” After all that, he wraps it up like this:
Keeping [the communication scholars’] evaluation schema in mind, I’m going to post a few short articles here at ENV looking at some recent examples of ID critics who use “mockery,” “ridicule,” “emotional and insulting evaluations,” and “public scorn in displays of derision” in order to “demonstrate not only their rightness, but also to distinguish their group of reasonable and worthy individuals from others, who are wrong, unintelligent, and overall worthless” and “de-authorize publications that could be perceived as dangerous to the community.”
We can’t wait. Until then, however, we shall continue to use mockery, ridicule, sarcasm, and scorn when discussing the mystical “science” of the Discoveroids. It’s exactly what they deserve.
Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.