Long ago, in the first year of this humble blog, we wrote Discovery Institute: Their Own Version of Newspeak, in which we said the Discoveroids were using a form of Orwellian Newspeak.
We discussed some of their favorite terms, like “strengths and weaknesses” of the theory of evolution (despite the fact that no verifiable data challenges evolution), referring to the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) as a “pro-Darwin lobby group,” (when it’s the Discoveroids who are promoting legislation), “Darwinists,” when referring to sane, educated people who understand that Oogity Boogity has no place in public school science classes, and “one-sided dogmatic presentation,” for a scientific education that allows no room for mysticism in science classes.
The Discoveroids’ crude linguistic gyrations were obvious then, and their use of such perverted terms has continued unabated to the present day. A good example can be seen in the latest post at their creationist blog: What’s Wrong with the Terms “Anti-Science” and “Anti-Evolution”?
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. The graphic above this post is in his honor. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:
A colleague forwards to me a confused article dealing with “antievolution state laws,” aka academic freedom legislation. The article [link in the Discoveroid post] features the usual misinformation, including identifying us as “Discovery Institute, a think tank which supports teaching intelligent design.” For the umpteenth time, we do not support teaching ID in public schools, never have, and in fact warn against it.
“The usual misinformation.” Uh huh. Klinghoffer is just getting started. Then he says:
Beyond this, I’m struck by [the author’s] repetition of the catchword “antievolution.” He uses it and the noun form “antievolutionism” 17 times … . It’s a common formulation.
Then there is the cognate “anti-science,” or as the National Center for Science Education consistently styles it “antiscience.” (Which without the hyphen seems to invite mispronunciation — “an-TIS-ee-ence”?) “Antiscience bill in Mississippi,” “Antiscience bill in South Dakota,” “A second antiscience bill in Oklahoma,” etc.
It’s instructive to see how such accuracy upsets the Discoveroids. Let’s read on:
“Anti-evolution” and “anti-science” are terminology intended to win a debate without actually having one.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! There’s nothing to debate! As we’ve said numerous times, debating with creationists makes as much sense as debating with flat-Earthers, astrologers, or alchemists. Klinghoffer continues:
“Anti-evolution” bills in fact protect teachers who teach evolution, including the evidence for it, in an objective manner, while not hiding from students the evidence that runs counter to Darwinian explanations of how evolution works.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Here’s more:
Public school education aside, intelligent design is not “anti-evolution.” It is a theory of evolution, seeking to explain why biological diversity flowers and grows in the manner it does.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Yes, the Discoveroids’ “theory” is that biological diversity is the unseen handiwork of their transcendent designer — blessed be he! — which is a far better “explanation” than understandable, demonstrable natural causes. After referring to some books by Discoveroid authors, including one published by the prestigious Discovery Institute Press, Klinghoffer says:
There are vigorous debates in the study of history, medicine, physics, ethics, religion — but you don’t call your opponents in those fields “anti-history,” “anti-medicine,” “anti-physics,” or “anti-ethics.”
That depends. For example, when dismissing the claims of a faith healer, it’s entirely appropriate to refer to him as being “anti-medicine.” Klinghoffer finishes his rant with this:
In the context of evolution, if anyone is guilty of seeking to silence, harm, or falsely malign anyone, it is Darwin’s most aggressive orthodox enforcers, who routinely intimidate vulnerable scholars. Is suppressing scientific debate and punishing scientific dissenters “anti-science”? I leave that call to you.
There’s no need for Klinghoffer to leave it to us. We’ll leave it to the Discoveroids’ own words in their Wedge Document (sometimes called the Wedge Strategy), drafted in 1998. It’s the founding manifesto of the Discovery Institute. We discussed it in detail in What is the “Wedge Document”?
You can read the whole thing at the NCSE website: The Wedge Document. Here’s a scan of the original: The Wedge. It’s a pdf file which begins with a graphic of Michelangelo’s God creating Adam. One excerpt from the Discoveroids’ founding document should be sufficient:
Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. … Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.
So there you have it, dear reader. Are the Discoveroids anti-science? Their own manifesto says that they are. Case closed.
Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.