Discoveroids Beg for Support

As they did in December of last year (see A Cry for Help), they’re desperately begging for money again.

Who? You know, it’s 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).

This year’s tearful attempt to get you to open your wallet is We Need You! Support Evolution News & Views! Everyone enjoys watching people and causes we consider especially unworthy having to beg for funds, so we know you’ll like this one. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

Even Darwinist critics of intelligent design recognize it: If you want to know what’s going on in the world of ID, if you want the latest news on science — evolution, cosmology, paleontology, every biological field and specialty — unfiltered by the materialist blinders that the rest of the media keep firmly in place, you need to follow what we do here at ENV. There’s no substitute — no book, journal or other website provides the service we do.

Even your Curmudgeon recognizes it. If we want to know the spew being vomited out by the propagandists of ID — unfiltered by any concern for science or reality — the only place to go is the Seattle Side Show. It’s true, no one else does what they do; and they do it so enthusiastically. The begging continues:

At the end of this month our writers at ENV will have filed about 600 articles in 2011. That’s a lot of information and reporting and we plan to top ourselves next year.

Thanks for the “information,” guys. The scientific world couldn’t have survived without it. Let’s read on:

But obviously it all doesn’t come free. Well, it comes free to you, every day throughout the rest of the year, valued reader. That’s why we ask you now, as the year winds down, to think about how you’ve benefited from the news and views you find here and here alone, and then donate generously. Support the Center for Science & Culture by clicking on the friendly, helpful button.

Actually, your Curmudgeon has benefited from the Discoveroids’ blog. They provide a significant portion of the material that we ridicule for your amusement. Where would our humble blog be without the Discoveroids? As for their “friendly” Donate button which sits in the middle of their article, we shall not comment on its color. That would be crude, and it would violate the high standards you’ve come to expect around here. We continue:

We, for our part, will go back to flogging Casey and Jonathan, our tireless and brilliant news gatherers and analysts, and all the top ID scientists who share their thoughts here — Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Ann Gauger, Paul Nelson.

What a trilling prospect! Our Curmudgeonly heart is pounding in anticipation! And here’s the article’s end:

We will demand greater and greater feats of productivity. More! More! We didn’t give you permission to leave your computer. Write! Report! Analyze! Repeat!

Yowie! Even more productivity from Casey. And from Klinghoffer. Verily, our cup runneth over. No — that’s not our cup! Egad, we’ll have to call the plumber. Why do our bathroom fixtures all seem to go into convulsions when we write about the Discoveroids?

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

29 responses to “Discoveroids Beg for Support

  1. That’s a lot of information and reporting and we plan to top ourselves next year.

    I’m sure it will be complex, specified information too… as only the intelligent designers at the DI can render.

    What these turkeys do not do is reporting. They take reports from actual news sources and twist them out of all relationship with anything the reporter actually said. They opine, spin, propagandize, lie, make stuff up, engage in gratuitous rants, demean people who do not agree with them, posthumously baptize dead scientists into ID believers, and otherwise pollute the internet with their unique form of intellectual sewage.

    So they want donations to continue? They should send Casey out front on the sidewalk with a tin cup and sunglasses wearing a sandwich board with the message “Will lie for money”.

  2. If they would drop their inept doctrine, and start teaching the truth of Genesis, perhaps they would be more successful.


  3. By “the truth of Genesis,” I take it you mean the fact that Genesis recounts two variants in succession of one of the hundreds of creation myths our species has created. Unlikely to garner donations, IMHO.

  4. What these turkeys do not do is reporting. They take reports from actual news sources and twist them out of all relationship with anything the reporter actually said.

    For example:

    Even Darwinist critics of intelligent design recognize it: If you want to know what’s going on in the world of ID, if you want the latest news on science — evolution, cosmology, paleontology, every biological field and specialty — unfiltered by the materialist blinders that the rest of the media keep firmly in place, you need to follow what we do here at ENV.

    They’re quote-mining Homologous Legs, as Jack Scanlan predicted they would do.

    Evolution News & Views is arguably the best source for the views of the top-tier ID proponents. Whenever a favorable, new book on the topic is released – such as Signature in the Cell or The Myth of Junk DNA – Casey Luskin and the other writers vociferously regale their readership with the essence of the arguments contained within. A similar thing happens when such a book is critiqued or reviewed unfavourably by a prominent member of the anti-ID or scientific communities, with EN&V contributors defending the books themselves.

    With this in mind, I’ve been reading EN&V rather closely for over two years, and I’ve seen many, many arguments repeated, over and over again. This includes Behe’s argument from irreducible complexity, William Dembski’s arguments from complex specified information and his “explanatory filter”, and – most recently – Stephen C. Meyer’s argument from abductive reasoning to the best explanation. These four arguments are the ones that ID proponents most often cite as being the cornerstones of intelligent design, and they have all been adequately explained on EN&V, in a good amount of detail – as well as in published critiques of these arguments: see Shanks and Joplin (1999)2 and Wilkins and Elsberry (2001)3 for Behe and Dembski respectively. Do I need to read Behe, Dembski and Meyer’s books in order to comment on these arguments? Has the Discovery Institute’s official online mouthpiece been severely misrepresenting their views?

  5. To Retired Prof:

    You are not an expert on Genesis. Both the worlds of Creationism and Theology don’t even understand the Genesis text, so don’t put your foot in your mouth, until you first learn the facts. Genesis doesn’t have any “creation accounts”. It is describing two different time periods.


  6. Tomato Addict

    I have a spare set of materialist blinders that I would be happy to donate. ‘Tis the season, and all …

    They’re quote-mining Homologous Legs, as Jack Scanlan predicted they would do.

    He predicted it and it came true – It’s a Christmas miracle!

    … and …

    … Both the worlds of Creationism and Theology don’t even understand the Genesis text, …

    If you say so, Herman, then it must be true. Maybe you should try making a series of large donation to the Discovery Institute? Line their pockets with enough cash, and eventually they will have to come around to your way of thinking.

  7. Do you know? Do the Koch’s fund them at all? David Koch gives generously to NCSE. Is he funding both sides?

  8. Herman
    So, according to genesis, was Eve created from the dust of the ground or from Adam’s rib? Or was she created twice, according to the two different time-scales?

  9. Ed Darrell asks: “Do the Koch’s fund them at all?”

    Wikipedia has a section on the Discoveroids’ funding, here, but they’re not mentioned. An old post of mine from three years ago indicates that the Koch brothers aren’t sympathetic to the Discoveroids. See Discovery Institute: Whining Again About “Censorship”.

  10. @Ed Darrell: The Kochs fund a lot of things, including the ACLU and cancer research.

  11. To Adrian, and other skeptics:

    Hi. It you were not so intent of being a skeptic, and would try to learn the facts from someone who knows, you would learn that Genesis is true.

    Adam was made about 7200 BC. Eve was made from Adam’s rib about 7000 BC. Between them, the modern animals were made. That is Genesis chapter two, which is the origin of modern mankind.

    However, in Genesis chapter one, Moses is being shown six different time periods in the history of Earth. So the “male & female” that you read of in chapter one is not Adam & Eve, but an earlier advent of mankind, corresponding to about 64 Million BC. That is why the sequence of events are different.


  12. If the ToE is an old obsolete 19th century theory that has obviously outlived its best days, if its support is significantly and rapidly eroding, if ID is the bold new theory of the future, and if scientists are increasingly jumping on the ID bandwagon in significant numbers, why does the DI, the premier promoter of ID and ID “research”, need to beg for money?

    Are they lying about how well their “theory” is doing and how poorly the ToE is doing? Are they delusional? Are they scammers looking to make money fleecing gullible sheep? All of the above?

  13. Herman, I’m not the least bit skeptical — I have no doubt that religion is an invention of man, the purpose of which is to control the thoughts and actions of others.

    Now, I don’t have a problem with that. Controlling the undesirable actions of others is not a bad thing. It helps promote civilized behavior. What I do have a problem with is the denial of science by certain religionists because they think that is the only way to maintain their religion. This course of action is doomed to fail, since more and more people will use their power of reason to discern reality, and will realize that those religionists have been, shall we say, “fudging”.

  14. Herman Cummings

    To “Retired”:

    Yes, all religions are inventions of man, execept two specific faiths, which were begun by God. But that is not the topic of this discussion. The “religionists” you speak of get the press, but teach false and foolish doctrines (Creationism & Salvation), and are ignorant of the truth of the Bible. Al creationist organizations are invalid, and people should stop giving them money. They don’t want to teach the truth of scripture, but would rather teach the falsehoods of their “made up” doctrines.

    That is why Creationism fails to reveal our true origins.

    Having said that,

  15. I’ll confess ambivalence over this. Part of me would like to see the DI and the IDers pack up their tents and go on down the road, never to be heard from again. But another part of me recognizes that they’re comedy gold, and constitute a goodly portion of Curmy’s fodder. What to do, what to do…

  16. Regulars at this site know exactly what I’m going to say, but the benefit of new readers, I urge you all to leave messages at the DI site asking plenty of deteiled questions regarding what their “theory” accommodates (or rules out) in terms of “what happened when” in biological history. Start with Behe’s position of “~4 billion years of common descent.” The DI will know that you’re just troublemakers, not intending to give a penny, and will likely delete your posts quickly or not publish them to begin with. But that will just be more ammunition you will have to show that the DI is unwilling to back up any bogus claim that it is being treated less fairly (aka “expelled”) than anyone else who claims to have an independently verifiable explanation.

    If they do post your questions, even briefly, their less hopeless fans will eventually get the message that the DI wants the compensation without doing the work. What we conservatives call “handouts.”

  17. Herman,buddy, which parts of Genesis are true and which parts are false, or is there a sliding scale of truthiness we can use for evaluation? And what happened to the first man and woman started (probably kick start rather than rope start) 64 million years ago? Even our oldest ancestor’s bones don’t go that far back.

  18. Humoring Don Quixote when he tilts at the windmill, especially when you work for him, is one thing. But actively encouraging him is not kind. Verb sap.

  19. Herman Cummings

    To b_sharp:

    All of Genesis is true. It’s the false interpretations of Creationism that are wrong.

    Genesis does not speak of the first of mankind, made during Creation Week, over 4 billion years ago. The first of mankind that was formed “in our (God’s) image” was 64 million years ago, which you read about in Genesis chapter one.

    As I’ve said before, without viewing the “Observations of Moses” presentation, you are going to ask “not applicable” questions. All advents of mankind were removed from (the surface of) the Earth before the next dispatch was created. However, I’m not sure about Cro-Magnon & Neanderthals. They made have had some overlap.


  20. My state may be paunchy, but I’m no Sancho Paunchy.

  21. Herman, did this come to you in a dream?

  22. B Sharp
    A dream induced by what substances?

  23. Herman
    Can you give day and month for your claim of 64million years, please.

  24. Herman, I assume you believe the god of Genesis is almighty, as others who believe in that book do. If so, how come he is unable to prepare a text so free of ambiguity–and creatures with such unerring discernment–that everyone who reads it understands it the same way?

    I have never encountered your particular interpretation of the text before. But, then, as you so perceptively note, I am no expert on Genesis.

  25. Adrian & b_sharp want to crack jokes. So much for them.

    A (The) Supreme Alien Intelligence conveyed to Moses seven days, in 1598 BC, which would not be understood until 1993 AD. Go figure.

    Not all at once, but the correct rendition of Genesis was revealed to me, for some God-given reason. Maybe it’s because I don’t have the “gift of gab”, and am a person that is easily and often ignored.

    I set out to help a lady that wanted to teach her teenagers about Adam & Eve, but could not compete with the evolution theory. Her pastor was of no help at all. So I decided to prove the Bible to be in error, or to be correct (but I didn’t see how it could be correct).

    But God created wisdom, and is full of it. What confounds mankind is “easy as cake” to those that are given Divine revelation.

    Lastly, the media censors my articles. Christianity Today, and all other religious publications, reject my submissions, using one excuse after another. Nearly 8,000 of the Clergy across the nation have refused to host my seminar, but will open their doors to those that teach foolishness (young Earth) and false doctrines (old Earth). How many of them actually start by explaining each verse in Genesis chapter one? Yes, they will debate, but none other opens the understanding of the people about the Genesis text.


  26. Herman
    It seems that, to quote you, both you and your god “are full of it”. If the only reason you believe this rubbish is “divine revelation” why should we think that you have the only truth and not any of the other “prophets” who have a direct line to this (unproven) god . Apart from your idea that Gen 1 and 2 refer to two different time periods, what proof have you that the bible is anything other than a set of myths and fairytales?

    I have read the letters to newspapers you have written and I see no censorship there. Perhaps your delusion is so far off the wall that reasonable people will have nothing to do with it. I think there is a condition that leads people to believe that the whole world is against them. Perhaps you should seek help.

  27. A (The) Supreme Alien Intelligence….

    Herman, look up Ted Holden. You two may have a lot to talk about.

  28. To Jack Hogan:

    So, you seem to be another clown that puts his foot in their mouth. What do you think God is? A terrestrial? He is an Extra-Celestial.

    Don’t try to compare me with anyone. I’m the only terrestrial expert there is.


  29. Calm down, Herman. Tthe burden of your special knowledge sometimes unhinges your ability to communicate with your fellow humans. I think you should take a few days off.