The Discovery Institute is an organization with innumerable problems. One that has been with them from the beginning is their failed attempt to present themselves as a science think tank, rather than a pack of flaming creationists. Back in the first year of this humble blog we wrote Discovery Institute: “Don’t Call Us Creationists!”, in which Casey was complaining that Tom Brokaw kept saying that intelligent design was creationism.
That sort of thing (i.e., accurate perception of reality) has plagued the Discoveroids throughout their institutional existence. Three years later we wrote Discovery Institute: “Stop Calling Us Creationists!” Casey was complaining about Reuters, the British news agency, which made the same “mistake,” and wouldn’t issue a correction — even after the Discoveroids pointed out their “error.”
Somehow — in spite of the Discoveroids’ continuous objections, journalists keep doing the same thing. Today at the Discoveroids’ creationist blog they’re complaining again. Their new post is Fact-Check: Austin, TX, Newspaper Bungles Description of Discovery Institute; Reporter Won’t Correct Record. It was written by Sarah Chaffee (whom we call “Savvy Sarah”). Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:
We’ve tangled with the Austin American Statesman in the past. Now the Texas paper is back, misrepresenting Discovery Institute. In her article, Creationism at Center of Debate Over High School Biology Curriculum, Madlin Mekelburg notes:
[Savvy Sarah quotes the newspaper, with her bold font and ellipsis:] Jonathan Witt, a fellow at the Discovery Institute, a creationist think tank, told the board he found the committee’s intent behind removing the four standards to be questionable …
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Sarah is outraged! She says:
Discovery Institute is an intelligent design think tank — not a creationist think tank. I explained this to Ms. Mekelburg in an email sent on the day after her article was published: [Sarah quotes her email.]
Because it’s so amusing, we’ll give you a bit of what Sarah wrote to the reporter:
Discovery Institute is not a creationist organization. Rather, it is “the institutional hub for scientists, educators, and inquiring minds who think that nature supplies compelling evidence of intelligent design.” … Creationism is typically associated with a literal reading of Genesis, a young age of the earth, and a belief that science can prove the supernatural. Intelligent design does not address how to interpret Genesis and most of the scientists supporting it accept an old age of the Earth and the universe. … I ask that you please correct this error. It would be accurate to state that Discovery Institute is an “intelligent design think tank.”
Well, what happened? Savvy Sarah tells us:
The following Monday, I followed up with the newspaper’s editors. I called the twice last week but have not heard back. It is concerning that this inquiry has gone entirely unaddressed.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Then she gives us a big quote from something written three years ago by John West (whom we affectionately call “Westie”). He’s the director of the Discoveroids’ creationist think tank. We’ll skip that because we wrote about it at the time — see John West Is Still Angry. After that impressive rant from Westie, we come to Sarah’s closing remarks:
Austin American Statesman reporter Madlin Mekelburg could take a lesson in neutrality in reporting.
Amazing, isn’t it? After twenty years of ceaseless propaganda, costing between $2 million to $4 million every year, people still don’t understand the Discoveroids’ message. Or maybe they do.
Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.