Discovery Institute: Don’t Say We’re Anti-Science

There must be an ark-load of frustration at the Discovery Institute. Despite their endless denials — see Discovery Institute: “Don’t Call Us Creationists!” — people have no trouble understanding and describing what they are.

The Discoveroids’ entire campaign is based on imagining that if they change their terminology from creationism to intelligent design, they can fool everyone into thinking that they’re promoting a scientific theory. Words have always been more important to them than verifiable evidence.

That strange mode of behavior is apparent in what they just posted today: “Anti-Science” Is Increasingly Turned Against Its Creators. 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. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

The “anti-science” label is like Frankenstein’s monster. Designed by politically correct propagandists to serve their own purposes, namely blackening the reputation of skeptics on evolution and climate change, it has since turned against its inventors.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Somehow, we’re the “propagandists,” and now the “anti-science” label we routinely and accurately use to describe creationists is turning against us. This should be fun. Klinghoffer explains:

The aggressive Darwin-lobbying National Center for Science Education, for instance, has beat the drum for years, labeling doubters as “antiscience,” minus the hyphen (which always looks wrong to me from a copyediting perspective, as if it should be pronounced “an-TIS-ience”).

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The Discoveroids ceaselessly promote their creationist Academic Freedom bills, and somehow they’re not lobbyists. But those who recognize and oppose what they’re doing are the lobbyists. Anyway, we’re curious to learn how the anti-science label is turning against us. Let’s read on:

But check out recent headlines and articles that use the term. Judging by Google News, you’ll see the once-pliable beast has gotten quite out of control.

Klinghoffer then links to seven news articles that use “anti-science” in headlines, but none of them is a defense of creationism (or intelligent design). Imagining that he’s made his point, Klinghoffer continues:

Here’s a suggestion. Let everyone swear off the habit of avoiding debate by slapping invidious names and labels on people who disagree with you. That would be more honest. It would also be more in line with mainstream public opinion.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The Discoveroids are the biggest fans of labeling their critics. According to them, we’re secularists, naturalists, atheists, bigots, censors, bullies, propagandists, Darwinist conspirators, etc. If they give up their practice of hurling labels, what will they have to talk about?

Then Klinghoffer babbles for a few paragraphs about the results of the “poll” they recently promoted, and about which we wrote Discoveroid “Poll” Favors Teaching Nonsense. We’ll skip that. At the end he says:

Will the NCSE and others accept this piece of free advice? Don’t worry — I’m not holding my breath.

Klinghoffer has complained about the anti-science label before — see Klinghoffer: “We’re Not Anti-Science”. That didn’t work, so now he’s calling for a cease-fire. We don’t know what NCSE will do with Klinghoffer’s advice. Speaking only for our Curmudgeonly self, the Discoveroids are, always have been, and likely always will be a pack of anti-science creationists, forever lobbying to implement the nefarious goals of their wedge strategy.

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

28 responses to “Discovery Institute: Don’t Say We’re Anti-Science

  1. You know if the Hemorrhoids actually did some science it would be a lot harder to throw the anti-science label their way. But that’s silly, isn’t it, when in fact their ideology has nothing to do with the scientific method.

  2. If their organization ever used any “real” science they might have some sort of position from which to speak. I seem to remember that recently someone in their camp was promoting the use of “intuition”. If they think that’s science we are certainly correct in our use of the term “anti-science” (complete with hyphen!).

  3. Eric Lipps

    The “anti-science” label is like Frankenstein’s monster. Designed by politically correct propagandists to serve their own purposes, namely blackening the reputation of skeptics on evolution and climate change, it has since turned against its inventors.

    (1) When exactly did climate change become a concern of the Discovery Institute? Does the Bible join wackypot politicians like Oklahoma’s gift to the nation Sen. James inhofe in calling the idea an evil un-American conspiracy? (In his crusade against the global warming hypothesis the good senator lists creationists as authoritieson the subject.)
    (2) “Skeptics” on evolution have only themselves to blame for being labeled “anti-science,” since they are “skeptical” of practically all of the findings of the physical sciences over the past two centuries. (At least climate-change skeptics don’t go that far.) I put “skeptics” and “skeptical” in quotes with regard to creationists because skepticism implies doubt, and creationists have no doubt—that evolution is false.

  4. michaelfugate

    Is K’s logic that if anti-science groups (e.g. anti-GMO, anti-vax) other than anti-evolution and anti-climate change groups exist, then the latter are no longer anti-science? Do they cancel each other out? What if I call all four anti-science? What does political correctness have to do with any of this?

  5. We don’t know what NCSE will do with Klinghoffer’s advice.

    I can make a guess, but it ain’t pretty.

  6. Charles Deetz ;)

    I’d agree that divisiveness is getting thick in social media. My Facebook is getting less friendly, especially the ‘I hate Hillary’ type meme posts, because they are just about hate. At least the anti-Trump ones are about him being a bully or a windbag, more ridicule than hate.

    Ridicule and acrimony is approved by Charles Deetz for the purveyors of bad things, be it KKK, Westboro, Alex Jones, or the DI. They need to be silenced and marginalized at every turn.🙂

  7. Creationism is inherently anti-science. It starts out with a conclusion that must be supported, and uses denial, obfuscation, misrepresentation, faulty logic, quote mining and a lot of other dishonest techniques in order to support that conclusion. Creationism does not use evidence, as that has been shown, for a couple of hundred years, to contradict the conclusion that must be supported.

    In other words, they are doing the exact opposite of science and the scientific method–they are doing religious apologetics.

    And then they complain about being (correctly) labeled anti-science? What a joke!

  8. Ridicule and acrimony is approved by Charles Deetz for the purveyors of bad things, be it KKK, Westboro, Alex Jones, or the DI. They need to be silenced and marginalized at every turn.🙂

    I’d go along with that.

    My Facebook

    You’re lucky. Some years ago, a few months after I joined Facebook, its computers told me I wasn’t a real person. Since then I’ve probably saved myself,at a few hours per day, about six months’ worth of meaningless gibber, not to mention accidentally stumbling across a few videos of people being burnt alive or having their heads sawn off, but still it stings.

  9. So tell me, what exactly is Klinghoffer’s scientific background, that gives any credibility to his claim that his continual reflexive (and seemingly completely ill-informed) poo-flinging, mostly at scientists and scientific research, isn’t “anti-science”?

    The DI collectively lacks any substantive credibility on this canard, but Klinghoffer himself appears to lack any credibility at all on it.

  10. @Coyote
    it starts off with a conclusion
    And that conclusion is “something is wrong with evolutionary biology”. Traditional creationism says that God did something, and YEC specifies that it happened about 6000 years ago, but ID makes a point of not identifying “who” or “when”. None of them specify “what, where, why or how”.
    See the 1852 essay by Herbert Spencer, “The Development Hypothesis”

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Development_Hypothesis

  11. I just took a quick look at the dishonesty institute’s article and lo and behold there was featured a picture of Klingenhopper smack dab under the title! Takes a whole lot of ego to post his picture like that.

  12. The Wikipedia link our dear SC provides quotes very nicely: “To defeat scientific materialism.” That’s creacrap speak for methodological naturalism. IDiots do so to reject Evolution Theory. That’s totally anti-science.
    Coyote doesn’t go far enough. Not only is creacrap, including IDiocy, inherently anti-science. The IDiot’s Wedge Document admits it itself.

  13. Wow. I had no idea that Dr Frankenstein was a politically correct propagandist or that Frankenstein was designed by people like that.
    When the ‘tuters decide to throw up some hatred and ignorance they don’t pull any punches. How bizarre.

  14. Hey, give Frankenstein’s monster a break!

    He is, after all, a product of Intelligent Design

  15. To quote from the DI’s own “wedge document.”

    Governing Goals

    To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

    To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

    That seems like as good a definition of anti-science as any I’ve read.

  16. To replace materialistic explanations with theistic understanding
    I see two oppositions there.
    Materialistic:Theistic and Explanations:Understanding
    Do they really mean to replace explanations with understanding? (Or are they just avoiding repeating a word for stylistic reasons?)

  17. Richard Bond

    Hrafn: there is a revealing list of the IDiot’s qualifications here: http://www.theaunicornist.com/2012/02/discovery-institute-science-rebels-or.html

  18. How about the the term ascience, meaning “without science”, similar to apnea, or apolitical.

  19. I wouldn’t call the DI anti-science. After all, I doubt they were sitting in their MIT or Cambridge or Oxford or Princeton or Yale or Caltech science and math classes thinking, “Science is bad. I must destroy science for the Lord.” They simply don’t worship science like you guys do. I get it though. Will Provine nailed it when he stated “Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.” And as such it must be defended at all costs. I mean without evolution to help you sleep at night, what do you have left?

    Ironically however, although not anti-science – after all you can’t be against that which you worship – Darwinists have a tendency to caricature science by sensationalizing the trivial and trivializing the sensational.

    The duplication of a gene and its subsequent trivial mutations set the Curmudgeon’s heart aflutter with the headline “New ‘Information’ from Gene Duplication”. DocBill confidently chimes in stating that a photocopy creates new information dontchaknow. On the flip side, embryological development elicits a yawn and is declared by Prof. Janis as merely the result of a bit of “tinkering”. The examples could be multiplied but you get the picture.

  20. I wouldn’t call the DI anti-science

    I would.

    Will Provine nailed it when he stated “Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.” And as such it must be defended at all costs. I mean without evolution to help you sleep at night, what do you have left?

    This oft-repeated piece of propaganda is a truly idiotic caricature of the reality.

  21. KevinC pops up again, this time to claim

    I wouldn’t call the DI anti-science. After all, I doubt they were sitting in their MIT or Cambridge or Oxford or Princeton or Yale or Caltech science and math classes thinking, “Science is bad. I must destroy science for the Lord.”

    Actually, that is precisely what the egregious Jonathan Wells did, as he recounts here, in his own words:

    He [Sun Myung Moon] also spoke out against the evils in the world; among them, he frequently criticized Darwin’s theory that living things originated without God’s purposeful, creative activity. My studies included modern theologians who took Darwinism for granted and thus saw no room for God’s involvement in nature or history; in the process, they re- interpreted the fall, the incarnation, and even God as products of human imagination.

    Father’s words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.

  22. Megalonyx, having just read your definition of irreducible complexity, is no surprise you don’t grasp the difference between being anti-Darwinism vs anti-science. Nice try though.

  23. Will there ever be an anti-evolutionist who will say something positive, relevant, or substantial?

  24. I share your frustration, TomS. The 3 responses to my comments don’t qualify either.

  25. docbill1351

    Looks like Kev-C-plus gets demoted to Kev-D-minus with his oh-so-stupid remark. Of course the Tooters are anti-science! It has nothing at all with where one slept in class as credential-monger Kev-D-minus alludes. No, it has everything to do with how one conducts the scientific method.

    The Tooters are science deniers and creationist propagandists, and that’s it. Here’s how they deal with science when it accidentally happens to them.

    From the “super secret” ID creationist “Wistar” conference in 2007, Annie Green Screen boasted about recent experiments at the Biologic Institute. I know, “experiments” and “Biologic Institute” should never be used together in a sentence, but, don’t worry, it was short lived.

    As reported in 2007 after Annie Green Screen described “leaky growth” in bacterial colonies:

    Gunther Wagner said, “So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab?” at which point the moderator halted questioning. We shuffled off for a coffee break with the admission hanging in the air that natural processes could not only produce new information, they could produce beneficial new information.

    Anti-science, my poor delusional Kev-D-minus, is burying results that run counter to your hypothesis. In the case of the Tooters, they assert with no data whatsoever that random mutations can NEVER produce “new information” much less “beneficial new information.” That’s ID in a nutshell as advocated by the nutters themselves.

    Annie Green Screen was in such a state of denial that she blurted out evolution-supporting findings without even realizing it! Horrified, the moderators knew exactly what was going on, that is, The Jig Is Up (!!!) and shut things down.

    Later, Annie Green Screen wrote a blog posting about how there are levels of “new” information and “new new” information and “really new new new” information and that her experiments didn’t demonstrate “really new new new” information and therefore didn’t count, King’s X, no take backs.

    Pitiful if it weren’t so pathetic, but anti-science all the way down.

  26. Which is it? The tired old line that Biologic doesn’t do any research or Biologic does research that they unwittingly perform that proves them wrong. Finally a Kool-Aid drinking Darwinist admitting that the Biologic Institute does research. Lenin had a name for people like you Doc.

    I’ll check out your story. In the meantime, since you’re obviously in the mood to provide answers of substance, kindly provide me with proof to back up your claim that the DI rejects all definitions of information. While you’re at it, if you’re feeling really substantive, you can finally link to the recent paper that you claim shows “favorable results” for life in a hydrogen sulfide/ammonia ocean.

    Oh yeah, where can I find Annie’s blog post about new, new, new information. Or are you going to once again allude to something that you refuse to back up?

  27. docbill1351

    Kev-D-minus I’m not your mother. Look up stuff yourself. However, being in a kind mood today I will note that OBVIOUSLY you haven’t read “Signature in the Cell” which addresses your naive question about “information” directly. Some ID proponent you turned out to be! But, then, my standards for ID proponents are quite low.

    And, no, swabbing some petri dishes then ignoring the results is not research. Clearly, D-minus, you have no idea what research is, either. You might want to look that up, too, when you’ve finished playing PokeGo.

  28. It’s quite clear that DocBill’s credibility is in the toilet. The only thing left for him to do now is pull the chain. So…

    DocBill, I own Signature in the Cell. In fact I have a copy of it on my shelf as well as the Kindle version for easy searching. It’s heavily annotated and highlighted but there is nothing in the book that addresses my question. Kindly provide page number and paragraph of this “fact” that appears in Meyer’s book since you OBVIOUSLY read the book. I await your non-answer.

    As for Annie Green Screen, she sets the record straight here.

    How do we know her version of events is reliable? I can think of at least 3 reasons:

    1. DocBill reported the opposite and since he’s been thoroughly discredited, we can safely say there’s no truth in what he said.

    2. Dan Brooks violated his confidentiality agreement making his account untrustworthy.

    3. And best of all, The Curmudgeon employed his trademark silence on Annie’s post; no doubt because it didn’t conveniently fit his agenda.