Discoveroids: Ten Great Years Since Kitzmiller

As you know, every 20th of December we wish one another a merry Kitzmas, to celebrate the decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. This year will be the tenth anniversary of that opinion.

In anticipation of that event, the York Daily Record, located in York, Pennsylvania, near the location of the Kitzmiller trial, published Dover intelligent design 10 years later: Plaintiffs, attorneys drawn together by the case, about which we wrote Ten Years After the Kitzmiller Case. That was one of several other articles in the same newspaper about the anniversary. The National Center for Science Education has links to them here: Kitzmiller in the York Daily Record.

The Discoveroids have never stopped moaning and groaning about the results of that trial — especially Casey Luskin, our favorite creationist. He often writes about how Judge Jones got everything wrong — everything! We wrote about his last effort in Casey and Kitzmiller — One More Time.

Since those articles were published in the York Daily Record, we’ve been eagerly anticipating a response from the Discovery Institute, and at last it has appeared at their creationist blog: Following Kitzmiller v. Dover, an Excellent Decade for Intelligent Design. There is no author’s byline. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

Tomorrow marks the tenth anniversary of opening of arguments in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case that resulted in the most absurdly hyped court decision in memory.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! They’re just getting started:

In 2005, did an obscure Federal judge in Dover, Pennsylvania, at last settle the ultimate scientific question that has fascinated mankind for millennia? Of course not. The decision by Judge John Jones established nothing about intelligent design — far from being the “death knell” sometimes claimed by Darwin defenders.

You can read the 139-page Kitzmiller decision for yourself, if you haven’t yet done so. Let’s find out what else the Discoveroids say:

For a definitive take, see our book [link to Discoveroid book deleted]. In fact, the decade since Dover has been an excellent one for ID. Casey Luskin noted some highlights not long ago:

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We wrote about Casey’s article here: Discovery Institute: How Long, O Lord?, in which we said:

What follows is a list of non-existent “victories.” You can click over there to see them. They include the “peer-reviewed” papers they’ve published (in their own captive journal), the cutting-edge research they’ve done (in their own captive lab), Stephen Meyer’s book Darwin’s Doubt, and the alleged attempts by “the Darwin lobby” to stifle criticism of “the orthodox evolutionary paradigm.”


To summarize Casey’s message: Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. We’re winning, really we are. Keep the money coming!

After repeating Casey’s forlorn list of “accomplishments,” which long ago vanished into well-deserved oblivion, the Discoveroids tell us:

With the December anniversary of Judge Jones’s decision, you’ll probably hear more from evolution enforcers about its world-shaking significance. That would be predictable. Perhaps we’ll say more later.

We look forward to it. In conclusion, we’re confident that their “theory” will fare as well in the next ten years as it has during the last.

Copyright © 2015. 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 “Discoveroids: Ten Great Years Since Kitzmiller

  1. “Evolution enforcers” !

  2. I’m going to need a fedora and a violin case…

  3. Love the language…
    “most absurdly hyped”
    “obscure Federal judge”
    “ultimate scientific question that has fascinated mankind for millennia”
    “hear more from evolution enforcers about its world-shaking significance”

    Too funny.

  4. Cross Bagdad Bob with 1984 Newspeak and add a dash of Pythonesque absurdity and you have the Discover Institute circa 2015.

  5. The Discoveroids use the same tactics that the ancient Egyptians regarding their historical writings. The Egyptians never recorded battles that were lost. In a failed military campaign, they would simply record battle victory after victory — which seemed to occur closer and closer to home as the campaign wound down and the Pharoh’s troops fought to get home as intact as possible.

    Of course, there is the danger of running afoul of of Godwin’s Law in pointing out the similarities between the hyperbole of Josef Goebbels’ description of the Nazi wonder weapons that were almost ready to assure German victory over the Allies even as the Red Arny swept into Berlin, and the Discoveroids’ endless and mindless prattle post Dover.

    Until the Discoveroids start publishing proper research in reputable scientific journals, they can legitimately be dismissed as the pan-handling kooks that they are.

  6. The whole DI premise seems to revolve around 1) we believe God exists, 2) we believe God is an agent, 3) agents do things, and 4) um… well… at this point it falls apart; they have no idea what, when, how, where or why God does.

  7. “evolution enforcers” – wouldn’t that be the mutations?

  8. @Ken Phelps: I think mutations would be the agents of evolution; hungry predators the enforcers. Oh — and cosmic impacts, changing climatic conditions, disease agents, and so on and so forth.

  9. One thing for certain that will never evolve — the thinking of the Discoveroids and other creationists. Their ideas are petrified in the pages of ancient scripture.

  10. Nick Matzke has a great graph from Google illustrating the Disco Tute’s “prominence.” No wonder their bleatings in the past year or so have been so loud and shrill. Ain’t nobody listening.

  11. docbill1351 says: “Nick Matzke has a great graph from Google”

    I’ve posted a link to that from time to time. Here’s one example: The Collapse of Intelligent Design? (It’s not the graphic at the top of the post.)

  12. Don’t underestimate the DI’s prominence. Sure, almost no one I know has heard of them, or can name any Fellows (those who heard of Medved rarely know the connection). Even after I tell people about it – or Dover – they forget it quickly. But everyone knows of “creationism” (as Adam and Eve, snakes, apples and dinosaurs on arks, etc.) and some “monkey trial.” Nevertheless, the DI’s memes are spreading, and most of those mindlessly repeating them don’t even realize what they’re doing. The % that claim to deny evolution is virtually unchanged in 30+ years, but how people defend their denial of evolution has. Polls that give an option of “unsure” show that they have increased, at the expense of both accepters and committed deniers. And deniers are more vague than ever on about what they think happened, where, when or how, in lieu of evolution. They have been trained to focus on perceived “weaknesses” of evolution, instead of any credible evidence of a candidate alternate explanation.