Discovery Institute vs. Methodists, Continued

As we discussed in What’s Happening To The Discovery Institute?, the Discoveroids’ thin facade of rationality — which was never very persuasive — has been shattered beyond repair, and now lies in fragments on the floor of their dingy Seattle headquarters.

They’ve had tantrums before — lots of them — for example: Discovery Institute — Ignored Again!, and they’ve never stopped ranting about Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, but nothing compares to this. The event that triggered their behavioral breakdown — evidenced by thirteen screaming posts in four days — was a trivial matter. A religious denomination was having a private conference, and they refused to let the Discoveroids have an exhibition table at the event. Boo hoo!

For some reason — which seems incomprehensible to the rational mind — the Discoveroids are treating this as if it were a death blow. Now they have yet another post on the same topic at their creationist blog: United Methodist General Conference Secretary Responds on Intelligent Design Ban. Wowie — they got a response! Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

Rev. Jay Voorhees, Executive Editor of the United Methodist Reporter, has published a short report on his church’s ban on intelligent design. As readers will know, the UMC barred Discovery Institute from having an information table at the upcoming General Conference in Portland, Oregon.

The Discoveroid post has no byline, and we haven’t checked out their link to the “short report” from the Methodists. It’s always hazardous to assume that creationists are quoting something accurately, but we’ll present the Discoveroids’ reaction — for what it’s worth. They say:

They [the Methodists] have offered a variety of rationales for the action, none that makes much sense, and in the article Rev. Voorhees quotes the secretary of the General Conference, who circles back to this:

[Alleged quote by the Discoveroids:] “The concern,” said Fitzgerald Reist, secretary of the General Conference, “is that the Discovery Institute’s stated mission is at odds with Resolution 5052 in The 2012 United Methodist Book of Resolutions.” This resolution states that “…the General Conference of The United Methodist Church go on record as opposing the introduction of any faith-based theories such as Creationism or Intelligent Design into the science curriculum of our public schools.

“We are bound to follow the social teachings of our church,” said Reist.

Okay, the Methodists are following their rules. What’s wrong with that? The Discoveroids never object when some bible college boots out a faculty member who wants to teach evolution. They praise such schools for following their rules — see The Reality of Creationist “Academic Freedom”. Klinghoffer specifically defended a Bryan College witch hunt against science faculty who teach theistic evolution or old-Earth creationism — see No “Academic Freedom” at Bryan College. But for some reason, this Methodist action is different. Let’s read on:

Just following the rules, he says? We told UMC officials back in December, when the issue first came up, that we are on board with them about not pushing ID into public schools. We have consistently opposed such a move, and did so, very explicitly, in the context of [the] Dover case.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The Discoveroids don’t try to push intelligent design in public schools? Then what’s the purpose of their campaign promoting their peculiar Academic Freedom bills? The Discoveroids’ rant continues:

When we informed UMC staff of this, it seemed to go in one ear and out the other. In addition, ID is a science — not a faith-based idea.


What’s more, if the UMC hierarchy is so concerned about following the “social teachings of our church,” then why do they embrace Home Depot and Staples?

Huh? What’s wrong with them? The Discoveroids claim:

[T]hose two businesses endorse a view marriage that, whatever its merits considered independently, runs straight up against the church’s clear doctrinal standards, a weightier thing than a mere resolution. The appearance of a double standard or opportunistic vetting is unavoidable.

A powerful point indeed — but only to a wildly theocratic denomination, not the Methodists. This is how the Discoveroids’ post ends:

Wouldn’t it be fascinating to receive a comment from Fitzgerald Reist on these points?

We get the strong impression that the Methodists aren’t going to cave in to the Discoveroids’ “pressure.” Good for them! So let the Discoveroids’ tantrum continue!

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

14 responses to “Discovery Institute vs. Methodists, Continued

  1. If you haven’t seen this presentation, it is quite worthwhile. It eviscerates the Discover Institute and Mr. Ham … wait for it … economically.

  2. Like Mike Elzinga (reporting on a previous thread on this blog), I also availed myself of the email link proved by the Disco’Tute to write to the officials of the UMC–but to express my support for them, and affrim my revulsion at the DI’s attempted bullying.

    And I received a kind reply from one–whom it would be improper to name, as this was private correspondence, but I do not think the author would object to a brief quote from that reply:

    Much of what they [the Discovery Institute] have distributed is incorrect, but they are a loud, shouting voice. Their behavior confirms the decision that they were not a good fit for our General Conference.

    Hear, hear!

  3. michaelfugate

    Does Home Depot have a booth at the UMC convention?

  4. The Dishonesty Institute also has a new post about the evolution of tardigrades (water bears). They do a great job of deliberately misrepresenting evolution and the fossil record, as usual. They conclude that evolutionists are stumped about tardigrades (ummm – no). The irony is that the DI is utterly stumped about why it couldn’t have one measly little propaganda table at a church conference. DI is especially entertaining recently – starting with the Kitzmiller anniversary.

  5. The DI tantrum over the Methodists is one of the best entertainment shows currently on the Internet.

    Go at it, DI. Keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into that hole.

  6. Curious that they won’t let this go. Any ideas why the Methodists have sent them this far over the edge?

  7. Creationism is not a “science”; at best, it’s a scientific theory. Apparently the lunkhead who wrote this DI post doesn’t know the difference.

    And even calling it a “theory” is being overly generous. Theories are formulated to explain sets of observed facts, not to explain them away or deny them outright as fraudulent.

  8. Steve, thanks for the great link!

  9. Like Anevilmeme I’m beginning to wonder what urges the IDiots from Seattle. Of course its even more hazardous to speculate about what’s going on in their minds. But the fact remains that at first sight this excessive string of posts is against their interest. The IDiots themselves make clear that you can be christian and accept Evolution Theory just fine.
    So what drives them?
    Given the departure of The Gerbil (Mega, how’s your therapy going?) – without a replacement – I speculate money. Could it be that one (or more) of the sponsors has expressed doubt? One who’s somehow, directly or indirectly, connected to the Methodists, so that the issue can’t be neglected?
    When it started I was rather lukewarm, but now I get curious.
    Fortunately our dear SC will satisfy my somewhat rancid curiosity the best he can.

  10. Mijn Heer mnbo, cognisant of my current bout of GWS (Gerbil Withdrawal Syndrome), kindly inquires

    Mega, how’s your therapy going?

    There are good days, and there are bad days. And the current hysterical tantrum by the Disco’Tooters are giving me a clutch of good days, thank you!

    Like others, I marvel at their inordinate obsession with the UMC. Of all their groundless and idle claims about being ‘expelled’, their claimed persecution at the hands of the Methodists is easily the least substantial. The UMC has absolutely no obligation whatsoever to anyone whomsoever to provide a forum at their annual conference, so what’s the beef?

    But their insane reaction is a wonder to behold, revealing just how nasty, authoritarian they are–and just how dangerous they would be if ever they were in positions of genuine political power.

  11. Great link Steve!

  12. The whole truth

    Narcissism (mainly) drives the tooters and their ilk.

    Be sure to read the section about “Collective or group narcissism”. The tooters narcissistically think of all christians as their ingroup, so to be ‘expelled’ in any way by who they think is an important part of their ingroup (The UMC) is intolerable.

  13. Charles Deetz ;)

    I don’t think they’d run out and publicize their snubbing, this certainly can’t be the first time. Perhaps they know there is someone influential in the Methodists who supports them, and they hope that person will hear their pleas and speak up on their behalf.

  14. Pete Moulton

    I suspect the ‘Tooters miss Casey as keenly as Megalonyx does, and are attempting to fill the void by all becoming rabid gerbils.