The Discoveroids’ #1 Story for 2015 Is …

The suspense is over, and the long-awaited news has been released. This was just posted at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog: Happy New Year! Here Is #1 of Our Top Stories of 2015: A Scientific Debate that Can No Longer Be Denied.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Look at that title — a “scientific” debate that can’t be denied! That’s the Discoveroids’ top story for the year. No experiments, no data, no evidence that clearly contradicts evolution. It’s about nothing — except what they call a debate. This is just as silly as the rest of their Top Ten stories, all of which we mentioned yesterday in Discoveroids’ Top Ten for 2015 — #3 & #2.

Who was given the honor of writing about their Number One accomplishment? It was written by David Klinghoffer, a Discoveroid “senior fellow” (i.e., flaming, full-blown creationist), who eagerly functions as their journalistic slasher and poo flinger.

Okay, we’ve come this far, so let’s see what he’s talking about. Aha — he refers to and then copies something he wrote for the Discoveroids back in July: A Scientific Controversy That Can No Longer Be Denied: Here Is Debating Darwin’s Doubt.

We didn’t write about it because we had found the same material the day before in a press release from something called Religion News Service — an appropriate news service for distributing information from the Discoveroids. Our post about that was Discoveroids’ Response to the Scopes Trial.

It’s all about Debating Darwin’s Doubt: The Scientific Controversy That Can No Longer Be Denied, a sequel to Stephen Meyer’s book from 2013: Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. The thing was “published” by the Discovery Institute Press — the Discoveroids’ in-house vanity press operation. You probably know about the book by now, but here’s a bit of what Klinghoffer’s post and that press release said:

Among the book’s 44 chapters are 10 by Stephen Meyer, who received his PhD in philosophy of science at Cambridge University. Other authors, led by William Dembski, Douglas Axe, Ann Gauger, David Berlinski, Paul Nelson, and Casey Luskin, also take on the critics.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Two of those intellectual giants, Dembski and Luskin, are no longer with the Discovery Institute. The Discoveroids are having a brain drain — something they can ill afford. And now they have a whistleblower problem with a former Discoveroid. Could there be a connection? We won’t speculate about that.

Klinghoffer’s post today ends like the press release did, so we’ll quote that:

Meanwhile, the case for design in biology (and cosmology) goes forward, gathering power as it does. “The dogs may bark,” as the saying goes, “but the caravan moves on.” They don’t realize it yet, but we are leaving them behind.

That’s it, dear reader. They’re leaving you behind, and that’s their top story for the year. They must be very proud.

Copyright © 2016. 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 “The Discoveroids’ #1 Story for 2015 Is …

  1. And the sum total of the research in their top 10 stories is … 0 (that’s zero for those at the DI who may not be maths oriented). Identical to the amount of research data that supports the hypothesis that a sky fairy designed the universe.

  2. How many times must we tell these numskulls that science is not a debate.

  3. Douglas E says: “How many times must we tell these numskulls that science is not a debate.”

    Haven’t you figured it out yet? They’re not in the business of science, because they know that’s hopeless. They get paid for the debate.

  4. True enough; we all have them figured out, and hopefully their donors will also soon see the light and stop funding the “debate.”

  5. “They don’t realize it yet, but we are leaving them behind.”

    Ah, yes, let us watch them as they, like the proverbial lemmings, rush headlong off the big precipice and into their green-screen beyond. Adios, designers, and good riddance.

  6. abeastwood tallies the Disco’Tute’s 2015 achievements:

    the sum total of the research in their top 10 stories is … 0

    But credit where credit is due: the Tooters are consistent! That’s the same score they have achieved over the past two decades!

  7. The buckle hat brigade must really be down in the dumps. Obama is president, not Santorum or Huckabee or some other theocrat. Their best theocrats are polling badly while the leader is a hedonist, egomaniac, godless capitalist! What’s a billionaire Christian nationalist to do?

    The Tooters have nothing to show for the money spent on them. Even Louisiana’s LSEA hasn’t generated the tidal wave of creationism they hoped it would.

    “Debating Whatever” currently sits at 451,127 on Amazon. Some debate.

  8. Meanwhile, in other news, the WEIT site has a post that asks the question Is the Discovery Institute falling apart?

  9. Meanwhile, in other news, the WEIT site has a post that asks the question Is the Discovery Institute falling apart?

    Did you see the last line?

    “h/t Doc Bill”

    Woo hoo! First ego boost of 2016! I’m Number One! I’m Number One!

  10. Which raises the question, will the Dishonesty Institute continue to get funds from their pampering insurance mogul? And for how much longer given that results are non-existent and glorified voices are abandoning ship.

  11. The whole truth

    And the discotooters are number two, if you know what I mean.

  12. Pete Moulton

    ” The Discoveroids are having a brain drain — something they can ill afford.”

    SC, you’re being uncommonly–and uncharacteristically, I might add–generous here. I don’t believe anyone anywhere ever considered the departure of Little Casey Luskin to constitute a ‘brain drain.’

  13. The whole truth

    Here are some things to consider: gauger was already on the discotoot payroll and didn’t have much or anything to do in the way of research, so they gave her another job title and put her in charge of communication preaching, and sarah chaffee can be and likely is paid a lot less than luskin was getting. I won’t be surprised if chaffee becomes one of the main mouthy-pieces for the discotoot.

  14. Doc Bill: My apologies — I didn’t recognize you, but now I realize you often contribute to WEIT.

  15. Douglas E | 1-January-2016 at 3:09 pm | How many times must we tell these numskulls that science is not a debate.

    Well, actually, it is, but it’s supposed to be a debate in which everyone involved actually argues from evidence and reason. Creationists have just figured out that if you can fake those, you can sell any sort of nonsense and find buyers.

  16. SC:
    ” Two of those intellectual giants, Dembski and Luskin, are no longer with the Discovery Institute. The Discoveroids are having a brain drain…”

    What Pete Moulton said above. I was all set to say “Brain drain? Is that even possible?”, but then I read Pete’s comment.

  17. Our Curmudgeon notes that Creationists are

    not in the business of science, because they know that’s hopeless. They get paid for the debate.

    Indeed–but there’s a bit more to it than that: the Creationists actually do further their agenda, not by ‘winning’ a debate, but simply by promulgating the notion that there is a debate at all.

    How many times have you heard, when confronted by some dingbat believer in alien abductions, or ghosts, or faked moon landings, &c &c, the argument “Well, science doesn’t know everything!”

    And of course it doesn’t. It just knows a hell of a lot more than any other approach to reality, and moreover, it has a proven methodology for steadily refining, correcting, and increasing that precious store of knowledge, even if that knowledge can never be complete.

    Which is why I continue to think it is folly to engage in ‘debate’ with Creationists. They are impervious to data or reason, they can actually advance their dangerous agenda simply by persuading folks that a ‘debate’ is meaningful–so how else can one deal with them other than heap on them the mockery and opprobium they deserve?

  18. Megalonyx:” Indeed–but there’s a bit more to it than that: the Creationists actually do further their agenda, not by ‘winning’ a debate, but simply by promulgating the notion that there is a debate at all.”

    Even when they lose, they get mileage by playing the martyr. But here’s yet another reason why I avoid the word “creationists.” Biblical organizations like AiG have a small but dedicated following, so they never lose. But they don’t win much either. The DI, including all the ones who have left the organization, are certainly politically aligned with the fellow radical, paranoid authoritarians at AiG, ICR, WND, etc. But they also know that young-earth, baramin, etc. claims are pure nonsense. The DI also seems to know that, despite their bogus claims of “weakness,” evolution, including ~4 billion years of common descent, is the only explanation that works, and would. even if their claims of catching a designer red-handed had any validity. Which they also know is not the case. Of course they’ll never admit that. So as long as critics say “you mean God” instead of asking “what did the designer(s) that you claim to have caught do, where, when and how?” they get a free pass.

    The DI may have some rich donors, who may be tiring of their lack of productivity (as Templeton did years ago), but they have something that the Biblicals do not – a way to fool a majority of nonscientists – mostly not Biblical literalists – without making any claims that most people can tell are nonsense. And every time a critic responds with “there is no design” rather than “there may be design, but your bogus method didn’t find it” they get another free pass.

    Let’s make this the year to deny them free passes.

  19. @Frank J
    Sometimes it seems to be that we’re the only people who insist on “what happens, if it does’t involve evolution?”
    It seems to be so easy to “take the bait”.