Charles Colson, Discoveroid: R.I.P.

You probably know of the recent death of Charles Colson at the age of 80. Wikipedia reminds us that Colson was: “a former Special Counsel to President Richard Nixon from 1969 to 1973 and later a noted Evangelical Christian leader and cultural commentator.” They also say:

Once known as President Nixon’s “hatchet man,” Colson gained notoriety at the height of the Watergate affair for being named as one of the Watergate Seven, and pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice… and the following year served seven months in the federal Maxwell Prison in Alabama as the first member of the Nixon administration to be incarcerated for Watergate-related charges.

Watergate is far beyond the concerns of this humble blog, but because Colson went on to other things and became a creationist, we’ve written about him a few times. In this post, Two More Reviews for “Signature in the Cell”, we discussed his favorable review of Signature in the Cell by Stephen C. Meyer. Meyer is a vice president of the Discovery Institute. And we discussed something really strange Colson wrote in this post: Chuck Colson, Darwin, Dickens, & Watergate.

We thought we knew all we needed to know about Colson, but until today we didn’t realize how close he was to 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).

At the Discoveroids’ blog there’s a post by Bruce Chapman, whom we affectionately call “Chappy.” He’s the founder and president of the Discovery Institute. Chappy’s position makes him Lord High Keeper of the Discoveroids’ Wedge strategy, and the ultimate leader of all Discoveroids.

Chappy’s article is Chuck Colson, Social Conservative Statesman. It’s rare that we learn anything from Chappy, but this new post of his is an exception. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

We will remember a number of personal visits and behind-the-scenes conferences where he explained to potential donors why the scientific understanding of reality can either distort culture and policy, as is happening now, or illuminate it. He was able to argue a critique of Darwinism and advocate intelligent design in regions where Discovery Institute otherwise had little reach. In a couple of heated instances, he bravely stood up to those who wanted to elide the issue of evolution and design and defended his friends at Discovery.

Colson was a behind-the-scenes Discoveroid! Who knew? Chappy continues with a few quotes from Colson’s articles at Colson’s own blog, BreakPoint. Chappy’s quotes are footnoted, so you can go to the source and read Colson’s essays in their entirety. Here are two of Chappy’s favorites:

Amid a firestorm of criticism and abuse from committed Darwinists, the intelligent design movement continues to press forward, gaining scientific credibility and even grudging respect from some evolutionists.

And one more:

Ironically, it’s the anti-intelligent design forces that are fully committed to a religious dogma — a dogma whose foundation is starting to show dangerous cracks.

So there you are, dear reader. Colson is gone now, and somehow the Discoveroids will have to carry on without him. As will we all.

Copyright © 2012. 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

12 responses to “Charles Colson, Discoveroid: R.I.P.

  1. “Colson was a behind-the-scenes Discoveroid!”

    Deep Scrote.

  2. Curmudgeon: “Who knew?”

    Me. And don’t give me the creationist “were you there?” nonsense. Using the extremely reliable “convergence, neither sought not fabricated” process that Pope John Paul II memorably used to describe evolution, I conclude beyond any reasonable doubt that all radical authoritarian theocratic public figures, except those with vested interest in old-stule YEC and OEC groups, are one way or another linked to the DI.

  3. Sigh…the questions that will never be answered. Like “Who are those ‘evolutionists’ who are not ‘Darwinists’?” Or “So if it’s just now ‘starting to show dangerous cracks’ you must think that those who insisted decades ago that ‘Darwinism’ was already dead did not know what they were talking about, right?”

  4. Frank J said: “old-stule YEC”

    Hee hee.

  5. retiredsciguy

    Well, that would certainly explain the Machiavellian manueverings of the DI.

  6. Hey ! McLeroy was on The Colbert Show ! Anybody see that?
    It would be a CLASSIC if someone has a link.

  7. He’s with his maker now, the giant faceless guy in the white snuggie. I wonder if his old boss Nixon made it, or was cast into the lake of fire instead?

  8. Remind me again, doesn’t the DI maintain that ID is not religion? Even in this piece, they cannot help but once again refresh our memories that the real purpose of their existence is not to promote “Discovery” of anything, ID or otherwise, but to advance religious belief by overthrowing all forms of naturalistic science.

    Somehow, though, Colson seems like a fitting hero for the DI. Fervent religiosity combined with a prison record.

  9. Ceteris Paribus

    Colson was one of the people who advised or convinced Reagan to disband the metrication board that would have implemented the US adoption of the SI system. Never heard a good explanation for disbandment other than putting into effect Reagan’s political slogans of the shining “City upon a Hill” and fighting “Godless Communism”. But now wonder if Colson’s subterranean connections to theocrats were factors.
    Irony is that the US military and 2nd amendment rights lobby had no problems at all moving to SI for their special interests.

  10. Doctor Stochastic

    Colson is another (similar to Chambers) who never changed his outlook, only which side he supported.

  11. Ed: “Remind me again, doesn’t the DI maintain that ID is not religion?”

    Sadly I’m probably the only critic ID who thinks this, but if they occasionally still say that, it’s only to get a rise out of us. Apparently none of their fans takes the “ID is science, not religion” seriously. If ID peddlers did make that claim half-heartedly in the 80s and 90s, they long stopped even trying. If anything, they want to keep the “debate” about religion, because that gets them off the hook from discussing the “what’s, whens and hows” of their “theory.” ID peddlers either privately believe that mainstream science is right on those conclusions, or if they agree “in their hearts” with YECs or OECs, know that evidence just doesn’t support it . So they’ll do anything not to alienate their fans. Unfortunately too many critics let them get away with it.

    It’s long overdue to stop acting like “ID is religion” is news. The goal now ought to be to let the courts deal with the religion issue, and concentrate on our job of convincing people who don’t care if it’s religion or not that it nevertheless grossly misrepresents science and bears false witness.