Discoveroids’ Top Ten for 2016 — #5

The tragic countdown continues, as the Discovery Institute posts about their greatest triumphs for the past twelve months. You can find links to items 10 through 6 in yesterday’s post, Discoveroids’ Top Ten for 2016 — #6, and now we continue to follow their listing of the Top Ten events for the year. They just posted #5 of Our Top Stories of 2016: Real-Time Censorship as PLOS ONE Retracts “Proper Design by Creator” Paper.

Everyone remembers this one. The journal PLOS ONE retracted a clumsily translated and shoddily edited paper that mentioned “the Creator.” Creationists everywhere were all excited. Ol’ Hambo posted Secularist Intolerance Against Scientific Paper That Briefly Mentions Creator.

The Discoveroids posted several times about it. For this occasion they’re repeating what Klinghoffer posted on 03 March 2016. We wrote about it in PLOS Retracts, Discovery Institute Reacts. Klinghoffer said:

Besieged by a furious mob of censors, the editors at the peer-reviewed journal PLOS ONE have retracted a paper on the “architecture” of the human hand that repeatedly invoked notions of “design” and a “Creator.”

As we said about that at the time:

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The peer-review process, albeit belated, is referred to as censorship.

Klinghoffer’s outraged post continued:

You can see, far from the first time in our coverage of matters relating to academic freedom, how the mechanism of intimidation works. … In this case, an editor’s naivety has become an occasion for admonishing others not even to consider researching their own heretical ideas. In an oppressive atmosphere where doubters are shamed and punished, honest investigation hardly stands a chance. The censors want an echo chamber, and that’s what they’ve created.

It was quite a rant, employing all the expected creationist terminology: “intimidation” … “oppressive atmosphere” … “doubters are shamed and punished” … “censors.” Then Klinghoffer said:

There are “closeted” design thinkers scattered around the academic science world — indeed, we know many of them, while you can be sure a great many more are out there too, unknown except to themselves. Whatever the merits of this paper, the episode was another warning to them.

After more of the same we wrote:

What is the purpose of such a bizarre post? Who will find it to be a satisfying explanation of events? Your Curmudgeon’s opinion is that such things are written to convince the Discoveroids’ generous patrons to keep the money flowing, because theirs will be a long struggle, against an exceedingly evil and determined conspiracy, which explains why their “theory” isn’t making any progress in the world of science.

So there you are. As with the earlier items in the Discoveroids’ list, this continues to show that the year has been so horrible for them that this silly incident has made their Top Ten. We’ve already learned about the bottom six of their top news items for the year. There are four more to still go. What further wonders await us? Stay tuned to this blog!

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

5 responses to “Discoveroids’ Top Ten for 2016 — #5

  1. Six items and six IDiot blogposts …. will the trend continue? Will the IDiots from Seattle implicitly admit they have nothing to show for but silly blogposts?

  2. mnb0 asks: “Will the IDiots from Seattle implicitly admit they have nothing to show for but silly blogposts?”

    They’ve already done that — implicitly. Whether they’ll explicitly admit it remains to be seen.

  3. THIS is the Number 5 of the Top Ten ID Whatevers?

    Yes, the article was censored! Burned! Tossed into the Great Bit Bucket! All memory of it ERASED! EXPELLED! Blacked Out! EXPUNGED! GONE FOREVER!

    Only, wait, it’s still online at PLOS. Hang on. You mean it wasn’t censored, burned, tossed into the great bit bucket, erased, expelled, blacked out and expunged. Hang on. You mean it’s not gone forever but still there online, big as you please.

    Ah ha! See? I told you so! Darwinists are incompetent censors! ID wins again!

  4. Klinghoffer writes:

    There are “closeted” design thinkers scattered around the academic science world — indeed, we know many of them, while you can be sure a great many more are out there too, unknown except to themselves. Whatever the merits of this paper, the episode was another warning to them.

    Er . . . “whatever the merits”? In other words, K. is suggesting, without actually saying so, that the retracted paper might have been retracted because it’s garbage—but wants to use it anyway as evidence of the scientific community’s “censorship” of creationist—ahem, excuse me, intelligent design—“research.”

  5. Except that it wasn’t censored. Except that none of the ID propaganda has been censored. Except that all of the ID books, tracts, pamphlets and coloring books are available freely for purchase. Except that no academics have been expelled for their views on ID. Except that nobody has lost their job because of ID. Except that the Bio-Illogic “institute” keeps re-discovering evolution with every experiment they do in their green screen fake lab. Except that 20 years down the road they are actually worse off since half their so-called “theorists” quit. I’d say that worrying about so-called censorship is the least of the Tooter’s worries!