The Discovery Institute “Forgot” About Kitzmas

As you recall, we recently posted about this year’s Kitzmas — the sixth anniversary of the decision on 20 December 2005 by Judge John E. Jones III in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. In that post we said:

To increase our merriment, every year around this time the Discoveroids post an exceedingly bitter diatribe blasting the Kitzmiller decision, Judge Jones, and the witnesses on the winning side. Such posts are usually written by either Casey or Westie, and we always look forward to them.

But 20 December came and went, without the customary tirade from 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).

Well, that little deficiency has just been remedied. At the Discoveroids’ creationist blog they’ve just posted How Bright is the Future of Intelligent Design? It’s by Casey Luskin, our favorite creationist, who says, with bold font added by us:

In past years, on the December 20 anniversary of the publication of Judge Jones’s ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover, we’ve often posted something about the decision. Inevitably, some critic says that after all this time we’re still “obsessed” with the Dover case.

Indeed. Let’s read on:

The charge is ironic. It’s the Evolution Lobby, not Discovery Institute, that talks about Dover incessantly, reliving a pyrrhic [sic] victory that struck down a version of “intelligent design” that was little more than the invention of ID’s critics.

Yeah, the Kitzmiller case was a Pyrrhic victory. Casey continues:

Anyway, some of us who write for ENV [the Discoveroids’ creationist blog] got a laugh this past Wednesday morning when we arrived at the office and someone pointed out that it was the sixth anniversary of the Dover ruling — the previous day. As Maxwell Smart might say, we had missed it by that much. Nobody at Discovery had even noticed. So I do humbly apologize for the delayed post commemorating Dover.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That’s as believable as the the Discoveroids’ “theory” about their magic designer. Here’s more:

Why did we forget about Dover? Because it hardly matters. Contrary to the hopes and expectations of the Darwin lobby, the post-Dover years have seen ID’s scientific and cultural footprint grow only more prominent and impressive.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Hey Casey, look at this history of Google searches on intelligent design: Google trends. We suspect that most of the few searches these days are by bloggers like your humble Curmudgeon. It’s not the Kitzmiller case that’s been forgotten, it’s your “theory.” Moving along:

Critics of ID who fume on the Internet, preach in university classrooms, and feign knowledge and authority in the media love to proclaim that the ID movement is dead. As their story goes, in 2005 a federal judge ruled in the Kitzmiller v. Dover lawsuit that ID is religion and thus unconstitutional to teach in public schools. This supposedly dealt a “deathblow” to the ID movement, which according to critics, has since lost momentum and all but dissipated.

Although Judge Jones’ decision was never appealed, it was so superbly written that the ID movement is legally dead. Nevertheless, the Discoveroids will continue churning out their propaganda and suing over “viewpoint discrimination,” as long as their generous patrons and nuisance settlements keep supporting them. Another excerpt:

Despite what you hear — or don’t hear — from critics (especially those in the media), the past 5 to 10 years have been a boom period for pro-ID scientific research and peer-reviewed scientific publications.

Casey then goes on at great length mentioning the writings of various Discoveroids, which he describes as “multiple peer-reviewed articles in technical science and engineering journals.” We’ll spare you his catalog of nothingness, but you can click over there to see what he’s talking about. He concludes with this:

Alas, the kind of folks who are still waving the banner of Kitzmiller over their heads probably will never admit to ID’s progress. Like Rick in Casablanca, they’ll always have Dover.

That was much better than we had hoped for. Thanks for the chuckle, Casey. You never disappoint.

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 “The Discovery Institute “Forgot” About Kitzmas

  1. Ho Ho Ho…

    …reliving a pyrrhic victory that struck down a version of “intelligent design” that was little more than the invention of ID’s critics. We’ll have more to say on that in a future article.

    Who’s obsessing? Another article in the future from the Discoveroids?

    Now, in 2011, the ID movement has reached another landmark with the publication of its 50th peer-reviewed pro-ID scientific paper. We’ll have more to say on that soon.

    Oh boy, TWO more papers in the future. Let’s remember, no obsessing, you almost forgot the anniversary, you know, and you should stick to your story…

    Oh, and the long list of supposed research activities – by the short list of Discoveroids and friends. It’s sad, really. Especially the closing line: Collectively, this body of research is converging upon a consensus: complex biological features cannot arise by Darwinian mechanisms, but require an intelligent cause. Really, Casey? A group of creationists, striving to bring down materialist science, and you can characterize their work as a “body of research…converging upon a consensus”? Ya think they weren’t in consensus before they began whatever it is they call research? They are really “converging”?

    Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho

    Santa has been generous this year.

  2. The probably forgot because they were busy begging and scrambling for funding.

  3. There’s a good reason that the Discoveroids let Kitzmas slip by this year, and we’re partly to blame. “Kitzmas” is too close (in spelling and timing) to “Christmas” for comfort. The Discoveroids are not only not all Christians, the Jewish subset, particulary David Klinghoffer, has been more prominent in recent years. So to avoid offending anyone, this year they’re celebrating Festivus. Thus the “airing of grievances,” which of course is all that Discoveroid “science” ever had to offer.

  4. Ed: “A group of creationists, striving to bring down materialist science, and you can characterize their work as a ‘body of research…converging upon a consensus’?”

    Warning: Turn off your irony meters before reading further.

    If that’s their phrase, it may break another record for megadembskis of chutzpah. First, they stole the “convergence” concept from Pope John Paul II, who remarked at the “convergence, neither sought nor fabricated” of evidence for evolution (emphasis mine). If that’s not outragious enough, they and their rabid fans routinely play bait-and-switch with two definition of “consensus,” deliberately misleading the public to think that science votes on what to accept, while pretending that the “expelled” underdogs merely “follow the evidence where it leads.”

  5. “…that struck down a version of ‘intelligent design’ that was little more than the invention of ID’s critics.”

    Wow, you learn something new every day. I never knew that MIchael Behe (leading ID creationist and author of a leading ID creationist book *Darwin’s Black Box*), and Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon (authors of *Of Pandas and People*, the creationist textbook used by ID creationists) were critics of ID, since that’s the version of intelligent design that was struck down.

    Of course, I’ve never known Casey Luskin to be more than egregiously dishonest either.

  6. Casey Luskin lies on Christmas Eve thinking that Santa has put away his Naughty List for 2011. Sorry, Gerbil, but it’s coal for you again this year.

    Luskin, thinking he’s a Large Hadron Collider when, in fact, he’s only a Little Has-been Creationist, goes back in time writing this. Bear in mind that the Kitzmiller decision was handed down on December 20, 2006. Time? We don’t need no stinkin’ time!

    A few examples of discrimination that came up in the wake of the Dover lawsuit include:

    In 2004, after Smithsonian research biologist Richard Sternberg allowed a peer-reviewed, pro-ID paper to be published in a scientific journal, his superiors investigated his religious and political affiliations in violation of the First Amendment.

    Curse that Darwinist lobby and their infernal time machine! They persecuted Sternberg two years before the “wake of the Dover lawsuit.”

    A-maze-ing!

  7. They forgot about Dover the way that Napoleon forgot about Waterloo.

  8. Wow, 50 peer-reviewed pro-ID scientific papers. That’s quite impressive. I have my name on at least 30 peer-reviewed scientific papers*, that mean *I* am nearly as scientifically famous and well-known as the entire ID community!

    * That’s by a quick count on PubMed, I don’t keep close count, but there’s got to be more out there. I’m in a position where I get my name on a lot of papers.

  9. @Tomato Addict: So they have “50 peer-reviewed papers”, as compared to how many papers by real scientists?

  10. Sorry. Trying to do this on my phone since my laptop is not available. I was going to add… “as compared to how many papers by real scientists? And not just Tomato Addicts? I’m guessing a miniscule portion of a tiny fraction of a percent.”

  11. Tomato Addict: “I have my name on at least 30 peer-reviewed scientific papers*, that mean *I* am nearly as scientifically famous and well-known as the entire ID community!”

    Yeah, but are your papers either (1) mere arguments of incredulity against the established theory that don’t begin to support an alternate theory, or (2) reports of results that actually support the established theory, but touted as “challenges”?

    If not, ID has it all over you. 😉

  12. Isn’t it cute how our little Luskin Gerbil refers to papers as “ID-friendly” or “pro-ID?” We see that all the time in the real scientific literature. Why just the other day I saw a paper titled, “Darwin-friendly Evolution of Enzymatic Pathways.”

    Be sure to check out the creationist on-line “journal” BIO-Complexity. In two years they’ve managed to churn out five (5), yes, folks, you can count them on one hand, pdf’s, three of them by Dougie Axe. “Peer reviewed” no doubt by their crack editorial board of creationists.

    In contrast, back in my day in grad school our little group of eight published about 5 papers per year in ACS journals and had about 15 papers in review at any given time. That’s from one major professor and about 8 grad students.

    Note that Luskin in his article is referring to ALL of ID “research” in the entire world, not just the DI’s lab. Everything. All of it. Every ID “researcher” in every ID “lab” in the entire known Universe in two full years squeaked out 5 pdf’s describing computer simulations, including one paper that compared the shadows of protein structures to Chinese characters! I must say, I am impressed.

  13. @Frank J: I must concede my inferiority in that regard.