Discovery Institute Demands Integrity

In preparation for whatever it is they intend to do during the next week in anticipation of Kitzmas, the day when the rational world celebrates Judge John E. Jones’s 2005 ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the Discovery Institute seems to have a strategy of destroying all the irony meters in the world.

We should have suspected what they were up to when we recently wrote Discoveroids Oppose Frivolous Lawsuits, but now their purpose is unmistakable. Therefore, we once again advise you to unplug your irony meters, otherwise they’re sure to explode over this one. The Discoveroids have just posted Hypocrisy of Atheists Activist Groups Draws Attention, as It Should.

Hypocrisy? When the Discoveroids accuse anyone of hypocrisy, we should keep in mind that while they pretend to be champions of academic freedom, and they scream to the heavens when a creationist is disciplined for promoting his religious views in a state school’s science class, they never object when someone is stopped from teaching evolution at a creationist school — see The Reality of Creationist “Academic Freedom”.

Let’s examine this Discoveroid accusation of hypocrisy. It’s written by David Klinghoffer, their journalistic slasher and poo flinger. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

Strangely, the Freedom From Religion Foundation has failed to respond to the sporting offer from Discovery Institute’s Dr. John West, tendered in these pages, of a $10 Starbucks gift card OR a free DVD of Privileged Species if only FFRF corrected its own hypocrisy.

We don’t see anything strange in ignoring the Discoveroids. What was it that prompted Westie’s “sporting offer”? Klinghoffer tells us:

Along with the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, the group has been calling for a professor at Georgia Southern University, Tom McMullen, to be censored for allegedly promoting theism to his students — even as FFRF issues no protest when a professor like evolutionary biologist David Barash boasts of using his own public university classroom to advocate atheism to his students.

Oh. It’s the Discoveroids’ usual one-sided demand to “teach the controversy,” which they deploy to insist that creationism (at least their version of it) should be presented in the science classes of state-run schools, while they never demand that science should be taught in bible colleges — and they never defend the academic freedom of those who do teach science in such places.

Klinghoffer then quotes extensively from an earlier Discoveroid article by John West. We’ll skip that, which brings us right to the end where he says.

In all seriousness, gift card or not, if the Freedom From Religion Foundation had any integrity, they would respond and do exactly what John West says they ought to do.

So there you are. The Discovery Institute is demanding that their opponents should exhibit some integrity. M’god — a creationist “think tank” is talking about integrity! There’s only one possible response: BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Okay, dear reader, now you can plug your irony meter back in. You’ll need it as we approach 20 December, the glorious day of Kitzmas.

Copyright © 2014. 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 “Discovery Institute Demands Integrity

  1. I always wonder just how Klinghoffer expects anyone to respond to any of the [expletive deleted] anyone posts on their ludicrous little blog, considering that they don’t accept comments. He certainly knows this, of course, because he’s far too cowardly to engage the people he insults in arenas where they might be able to fight back.

  2. a $10 Starbucks gift card OR a free DVD of Privileged Species if only FFRF corrected its own hypocrisy.

    Uh, do they have serious funding issues? Are their donors deserting? $10 or a DVD of a low-budget religious “documentary”.

    Anyway, it’s further evidence that the Discovery Institute should just change their name to Anti-Atheist Propaganda Central Office (AAPCO). What’s your evidence God created junk DNA again? Ooh, we hate, yet envy, atheists soooo much!

  3. Creative Challenge: Rename the Discovery Institute to something more accurate. Preferably ending in Hauptamt or Zentralburitat.

  4. Verily, dear SC, if you had limited this article to the header it would have been enough. LOL!

  5. Atheism isn’t a religion, get it? Pretty obnoxious of the professor and probably very boring for the students, but not against the first amendment.

    Professors being obnoxious and boring unfortuantely isn’t against the law (too bad), and many of us exercise our right to be that all the time. Anyone who’s ever been a student has noticed this.

  6. Incidentally, Jerry Coyne, who is affiliated with the FFRF, did criticize Barash, as have a number of others affiliated with the organization.

  7. Meanwhile Irony Meters file a class action lawsuit against the DI claiming reckless endangerment and wrongfull death……

  8. But, ma! I didn’t want a Hypocritcal Klinghoffer for Kitzmas.

    All I want for Kitzmas is a mad Casey,
    A mad Casey
    A mad Casey.
    All I want for Kitzmas is a mad Casey,
    And then I’ll have a Merry Kitzmas!

    Everybody, now!

  9. The whole truth

    Diogenes, how about Theokratischen IDiotisch Faschist Propaganda Hauptamt, or a different arrangement of those words?

  10. Can I play Dio’s game? How about…
    I.rregardless of

  11. Rando – great work; however, irregardless isn’t a word. BUT — all is not lost! “Irrespective” will work just fine.

  12. Diogenes, how about Theokratischen IDiotisch Faschist Propaganda Hauptamt

    Now that’s what I’m talking’ about.

  13. For rsg: Lexicographer Erin McKean says (I’m quoting from memory a talk she gave), “If it is used in an English sentence by a native English speaker, it’s a word.” She went on to explain the policies a lexicographer needs to develop so as to decide which ones to include in a particular dictionary.

    So “irregardless” is a word. It’s just a widely disparaged one. I avoid it, and so do you, for good reason. Therefore this comment is intended only to clarify the definition of “word” as it applies to the practice of lexicography, not to recommend that we all start using “irregardless.”

  14. “Ain’t” is a word too, and even appears in some dictionaries, but I wouldn’t encourage its use. Like “irregardless,” it suggests the speaker/writer is poorly educated and/or stupid.

    As for the subject of this post, I’d be perfectly happy to see schools “teach the controversy” if there actually were one. There isn’t. Klinghoffer and his ilk just want to get a foot in the door so they can begin the arduous process of rolling back all those court decisions which keep them from banning evolution from the classroom (“No Evolution Allowed”) and imprisoning or executing anyone who tries to teach Darwin’s ideas.

  15. And I ain’t gonna look stupid in EL’s eyes.

  16. My apologies to Rando. I certainly wasn’t implying that you were “poorly educated and/or stupid.” Your new name for the Discovery Institute is very clever. You needed a word starting with “i”, and “irregardless” came to mind.

  17. The whole truth

    I.rregardless of

    I like this too, although I prefer irrespective over irregardless.

  18. Does this pass the SC filter?

  19. TomS asks: “Does this pass the SC filter?”

    It shouldn’t have, but it did. I hope we don’t see any more like it.