Your Chance To Be a Creation Scientist

This is big news, dear reader. Look what just popped up at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog: Summer Seminars on Intelligent Design Offer the Opportunity to Join the World of ID Scholarship. It has no author’s by-line.

Take a moment to let the meaning of that title sink in. You’re being offered the “opportunity” to join the “world of ID scholarship”! Isn’t this what you’ve been looking for? The Discoveroids have these seminars every year. We wrote about the one from last year in The Discovery Institute’s Annual Seminar.

We know you’re excited, so let’s plunge in without further delay. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

You can spend hours reading about intelligent design, its arguments and evidence, but there’s no substitute for personal interactions with the top scholars in the field. That’s especially true for rising scientists and scholars interested in advancing ID-related research themselves.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Every sentence of this Discoveroid post is pure comedy gold. It reminds us of those advertisements in 1950s comic books that promised popularity if you learned to play the accordion.

Are there “rising scientists” interested in “ID-related research”? Where will they find jobs doing such research? Universities? No — except for bible colleges, they don’t recruit or promote people like that. The biotech industry? Pharmaceutical firms? No again. Private industries employ tens of thousands of scientists in the fields of biology, biochemistry, etc., but they don’t recruit intelligent design “scholars,” and they don’t waste their money doing “creation science.” Where are all the opportunities for the “rising scientists” the Discoveroids want to indoctrinate? Let’s read on:

Intended primarily for college undergraduates (juniors and seniors) and graduate students, the Summer Seminars offer the opportunity to learn from the stars of the ID community — like Stephen Meyer, Douglas Axe, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Ann Gauger, Richard Sternberg, John West, Paul Nelson, Robert Marks, Scott Minnich, Jay Richards, and more.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! A constellation of intellectual giants! After that we’re told:

The next Seminar will take place in Seattle from July 7 to 15. It is an invaluable chance to take a first step in what might be the beginning of a career in advanced ID research. [Hee hee!] We’ve seen many of our graduates go on to just such promising futures. You’ll be hearing from them in due course.

That should be fun. We never hear from their “graduates” in the science journals, so we’re curious as to where they work and what they’re doing. The Discoveroid post continues:

There really is no deeper way to explore the science of ID or its relevance to the humanities. See here [link omitted] for reviews from our past students. The deadline is April 4. Questions? Reach us at [link omitted].

We must warn you, dear reader, that they won’t accept just anyone. One of their links leads you to Summer Seminar on Intelligent Design in the Natural Sciences, which says:

Admission Requirements: You must be currently enrolled in a college or university as a junior, senior, or graduate student. Required application materials include (1) a resume/cv, (2) a copy of your academic transcript, (3) a short statement of your interest in intelligent design and its perceived relationship to your career plans and field of study, and (4) either a letter of recommendation from a professor who knows your work and is friendly toward ID, or a phone interview with the seminar director.

One last excerpt from the Discoveroid post:

We cover room and board, with travel scholarships available based on need. If you’re not a student, we also hold open a small number of spots for professionals, professors and scientists, clergy [Huh?], and teachers. If you know someone who might be interested and qualified, please spread the word.

The rest of it is a pitch for donations to help them carry on “this crucial intellectual struggle,” so this is where we’ll quit. Now it’s up to you, dear reader. Go for it!

Copyright © 2017. 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

45 responses to “Your Chance To Be a Creation Scientist

  1. Our Curmudgeon strolls down memory lane:

    It reminds us of those advertisements in 1950s comic books that promised popularity if you learned to play the accordion.

    Actually, the Disco’Tute’s pitch is much closer to the comic book ads for The Amazing X-Ray Specs!–which also claimed its “a scientific optical principle really works”!

    And our Curmudgeon further asks:

    Where are all the opportunities for the “rising scientists” the Discoveroids want to indoctrinate?

    Patience, patience! The Donald hasn’t been sworn in yet–but soon! And even if His Orangeness implodes in a Nixonian supernova, never fret: there will be even more opportunities for the Disco’Tute alumni under President Pence…

  2. Also, no knowledge or experience with science required.

  3. Charles Deetz ;)

    Maybe we can send a spy researcher …. http://gofundme.com/totallynotcurmudgeongoingtotheDI/

  4. On reflection (or maybe I should say, “on diffraction”), I marvel that the Disco’Tute doesn’t advertise in comic books, which would seem a no-brainer for their target demographic. They could make a fortune, viz.:

    THE AMAZING ID-SPECS!

    An Hilarious Myoptical Illusion!

    Pseudo-scientific bait-and-switch principle really works! Imagine: you put on the ID Specs and hold your hand in front of you. Thanks to the built-in Explanatory Filter, you seem to be able to look right through centuries of scientific investigation and see the blueprint of the Intelligent Designer Him/Her/It/Them Self/Selves! Look at your friend. Could he be a transgender pervert sneaking into the wrong bathroom? Loads of laughs and fun at scientific conferences! Send only $1000 plus 25c shipping charges or order COD (SCIENCE)

  5. Michael Fugate

    It reminds me of those old vending machines in gas station bathrooms. My older cousins plunked down 25¢ for a “pecker stretcher” which was two thin dowels with a piece of cloth or paper for carrying an injured woodpecker. This is all fuzzy, but I think the crude bird had a cast on its leg.

  6. If you click on “what graduates of our Summer Seminars say” below the testimonials you’ll see this, “If I make this all sound risky, don’t worry. We’re scrupulous about protecting identifies.”
    While it sounds like it is paid with scholarships, there are subtle hints the student is on the hook such as “based on need” and “look here for more on admission, costs, scholarships, and more.”
    Yes this is a make work project for creation “scientists”.

  7. And, to be fair, for once the DI make an honest and accurate claim, viz.:

    You can spend hours reading about intelligent design, its arguments and evidence

    Yep, a few hours tops is all it takes to master all the slim folder of arguments they have been endlessly repeating for 20+ years.

    Refuting them is generally a matter of minutes.

  8. (I meant to embolden admission and costs to emphasize possible areas where students might be on the hook, though of course money is never mentioned up front)

  9. Michael Fugate

    You can spend hours reading about intelligent design, its arguments and evidence

    But please don’t; if you are reasonably intelligent, you will shake your head and move on.

  10. Pete Moulton

    DavidK points out, “Also, no knowledge or experience with science required.”

    Nor even desired.

  11. Michael Fugate

    From the The CSC Seminar on Intelligent Design in the Natural Sciences background:
    Do you have a commitment to truth and to following the evidence where it leads? Do you have the desire, the vision and the determination necessary to breathe new purpose into the scientific enterprise and influence its self-understanding in ways that will benefit both science and humanity?

    The answer they are looking for in question 1 is obviously “no”. You need to already think you know the truth or you wouldn’t bother to apply.

    I imagine that sessions include “how to make your beliefs resemble science”, “how to spin any scientific finding into an argument for design”, “how to get a graduate degree without learning anything”,…

  12. Michael Fugate

    I wonder why they don’t use “toolkit” in their propaganda? It is all about design, mechanics, and engineering.

    Just look at this section from the Next Generation Science Standards comparing Science and Engineering:
    2. Developing and Using Models
    Engineering makes use of models and simulations to analyze existing systems so as to see where flaws might occur or to test possible solutions to a new problem. Engineers also call on models of various sorts to test proposed systems and to recognize the strengths and limitations of their designs.

  13. Michael that is just the hook. Creation science only has two possible markets: selling books and selling speeches. Here they are selling the speakers. This has a very synergistic effect: the speakers raise their profile and make some money. The discovery institute can pan handle for donations to give the students scholarships, which for the most part is reabsorbed. The students themselves do lose since very few will end up being a monetarily successful creationist author or speaker. But even creationists have to pay the bills.

  14. Just like any other scientific institute, it is necessary to protect the identities of its students. I guess they would not be able to attract students otherwise, but still…

    My guess is that the sessions might include:
    – Quote mining and refining
    – How to resurrect dead scientists and what to do with them
    – Hitler, Hitler, Hitler
    – Facts: How important are they anyway?

    and, of course, others which I cannot think of at the moment.

  15. One of the most important skills is how to speak or write without saying anything on topic.

  16. Don’t forget hijacking others’ research and drawing different, evidence free conclusions.

  17. Michael Fugate

    Any wondering if KevinC is a Summer Seminar graduate?

  18. @Ed: How to hide your non-research behind a green screen.

  19. And another for the syllabus:

    Paranoia 101: Cultivating Your Irreducible Persecution Complex

  20. Brian Axsmith

    I play the accordion and am very popular!

  21. Thanks for thinking of me, Michael Fugate but I’m not a graduate nor will I attend. I’d rather defer to the younger crowd who would benefit more than I. Reminds me of Germany’s invitation-only, Lindau meetings where young scientists get to rub elbows with Nobel prize winning scientists. Requiring the same criteria this year, the 2005 organizing committee

    …invited scientific academies and other agencies around the world to open competitions for young scientists to attend, then whittled down a list of nearly 10,000 applicants. The final 2005 list of 720 invitees represented a new profile of participant: academically excellent, familiar with societal impacts of their research and fluent in English. They are generally under thirty, but the majority are now Ph.D. students or postdocs, pushing up the general level of education.

    [Gunter Blobel (medicine, 1999)] learned something, in turn, about the young scientists. “It was curious to see the questions that students from different cultures ask,” Blobel remarked after a discussion on evolutionary biology led by Christian de Duve (medicine, 1974). He was taken aback to find some students expressing so much interest in the “creative guiding hand” of intelligent design.

    Abbott A. (2005), “Nobel laureates: Close Encounters,” Nature 436:170-171

    So while poor Darwinists delude themselves into thinking they’re stemming the tide of Intelligent Design with their blogs and comments, young minds are not impressed with the pathetic attempts to explain away the evidence. Have you folks learned nothing from the 2016 Election? When victory is all but within your grasp, you wake up the next morning only to find that reality has arrived to wipe that smug grin off your face. Comedy gold indeed.

  22. Blimey! KevinC is back, which can only mean that somewhere a village is missing its idiot.

    You have yet to either defend, with citations, or else to retact, as a demonstrated error, your claim on this previous thread, viz.:

    The Darwinist narrative has always been: T3SS first and then the flagellum evolved from that.

    Your claim is flat-out wrong. Scientists have no problem acknowledging when new data supplants previous findings; if you had any decency, you would do the same.

    But I’m not holding my breath. If you are not capable of rational discourse, you really should just quietly slink away with your tail between your legs.

  23. Which is it: my claim is flat-out wrong or the new data supplants previous findings? Make up your mind!

  24. Michael Fugate

    What evidence would that be KevinC? You still haven’t provided a single iota.
    I would gladly accept ID if they showed me a designer designing anything.

  25. You ceased being cute a long time ago, KevinC. But, just to be pedantic, I will spell out what we all already know: the new data, which I provided, shows your claim is flat-out wrong.

    You have nothing of value to say–which really does mean it is time for you to shut up.

  26. @Michael Fugate
    May I suggest that your statement is open to too wide an interpretation.
    For example, Roger Penrose designed the “Penrose Triangle”. Leonardo Da Vinci designed a helicopter. Tycho Brahe designed a model of the motions of the heavens.

  27. Michael Fugate

    And a crow designed a probe to fish for insects.
    But the DI doesn’t believe that. Crows aren’t created in their god’s image. This is another way the analogy collapses. Organic beings aren’t designed like anything designed by any intelligent designer we know, but intelligently designed things like tools are designed the same by intelligences the DI doesn’t believe are related. If humans are more closely related to a god than to a bird, then their argument is even weaker (hard to imagine, I know) than they think.

  28. Let me make it even easier for you, KevinC. Here’s a draft of what you should be posting (please feel free to rework using your own words):

    Jeepers! I uncritically presented a claim by the DI which further investigation has demonstrated to be false; oops! At least, I now understand why folks are skeptical about them, and I have learned to be more careful in future.

    Nonetheless, I remain persuaded that Intelligent Design is worthy of scientific consideration because it can give an empirically-based account of the development of life on earth as follows [fill in your best shot at ‘what, when, and how’ here]

    Or else, just carry on trolling, shucking and jiving to further demonstrate your intellectual bankruptcy. Your choice.

  29. Michael Fugate

    Has there ever been a scientific claim the DI has made that wasn’t false? Or at least highly compromised – if you want to nitpick?

  30. BTW, I took those examples of design with this in mind: they are designs which did not end up with a product. A Penrose triangle is an impossible object. Leonardo never tried to build a helicopter – and I don’t think that he had a power source adequate to the job. And Tycho had no intention of being an architect of the planets.

  31. Micha el Fugate muses

    Has there ever been a scientific claim the DI has made that wasn’t false? Or at least highly compromised – if you want to nitpick?

    Short answer: nope.

    The only dance the Tooters know is the Twist. Whatever they publish the game is to “find the twist.” It’s always there.

    Except there was that one time, many years ago, at a fake Tooter conference far, far away … Annie Green Screen blurted out when asked about current studies that in her green screen lab she had observed “leaky growth” in some bacterial cultures. After it was pointed out that this demonstrated adaptation and evolution in action, the mics were cut, went to commercial break and never continued the subject. Apparently, AGS violated the ix-nay on the oath-gray vow. However, that wasn’t reported by the Tooters but by an “outsider” who had been invited to the conference (probably a mistake).

  32. Saith KevinC:

    So while poor Darwinists delude themselves into thinking they’re stemming the tide of Intelligent Design with their blogs and comments, young minds are not impressed with the pathetic attempts to explain away the evidence. Have you folks learned nothing from the 2016 Election? When victory is all but within your grasp, you wake up the next morning only to find that reality has arrived to wipe that smug grin off your face. Comedy gold indeed.

    What evidence, Kevin?

    Oh, and about that election. Evidently you haven’t heard that Hillary Clinton actually won the popular election by nearly three million votes. Donald Trump is slouching toward Washington to be sworn because of the Electoral College, which was deliberately designed to give smaller (and slave-holding) states a political edge as a bribe to ratify the Constitution. Since the Civil War, this has given us four presidents (all Republicans) who assumed office despite losing the popular vote: Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Benjamin Harrison (1888), George W. Bush (2000) and now Donald J. Trump.

    So if anyone is smug, it’s creationists like you, who think that they can win their argument through politics even though most people disagree with them, and that therefore all they have to do is talk about “evidence” without producing any that stands up to scrutiny.

  33. “…the Electoral College, which was deliberately designed to give smaller (and slave-holding) states a political edge as a bribe to ratify the Constitution.”

    Maybe in your universe. Slave states at the time of the Convention outnumbered free states 2 to 1 (not counting RI) and were more populous save for Delaware and Georgia. Slave states didn’t need a political edge and free states were unwilling to give them more power than they already had. The Electoral College was put in place to safeguard against both a purely democratic and aristocratic election process.

    Shall we see if Eric Lipps is really a champion of the popular vote? In 2008, Proposition 8 in California passed by a larger margin (percentage) than did Hillary in the 2016 popular vote. Should the popular vote for Prop 8 have prevailed, Eric Lipps?

    Let’s rework the above sentence in your comment:
    “it’s [the left], who think that they can win their argument through [the courts] even though most people disagree with them,”
    There, that’s better.

  34. How’s the lesson on irreducible complexity coming? Are you compiling that list of things that aren’t irreducibly complex?

  35. How about the list of things that aren’t intelligently designed?

  36. Can something be intelligently designed but not irreducibly complex?

  37. @MG
    That would be a good question, if only the terms meant anything.

  38. One might as well say something is irreducibly designed or intelligently complex.

  39. Or stupidly simple. Only a designer is capable of making something too simple to work. But God cannot make something too simple.
    But the reasons that I am interested in the wording: things which are not intelligently designed …
    God made all things.
    On the other hand, even things which do not – or cannot – exist are designed.

  40. Michael Fugate

    KevinC – there is this pesky thing called a constitution and prop 8 violated it.

  41. The same Constitution that gave us the ellectoral college? Yeah I know that but I was asking Eric Lipps.

  42. Before y’all fly off on a tangent, there’s still some unfinished business for the attention of the redoubtable KevinC

    The Darwinist narrative has always been: T3SS first and then the flagellum evolved from that.

    You have had ample opportunity to offer, as requested, any supporting evidence for that DI claim you confidently regurgitated. Your prolonged and continuing inability to do so indicates that not only do you have no supporting evidence for that claim, but also lack the basic integrity and honesty which are prerequisites for rational discourse.

    So at least I can thank you for so amply demonstrating just how the DI and its shills have earned the deep contempt in which they are generally held. But having made that fulsome demonstration, you really are superfluous to requirements here.

  43. Michael Fugate

    It is a feature of creationists of all stripes – including the DI and its acolytes – to never ever admit they are wrong. KevinC over to you….

  44. Thanks Michael Fugate. I’ll take it from here.

    Poor Megalonyx. Still trying to recover from the fact that he made the DI’s case all on his own. This whole thing can be resolved right now. The Curmudgeon can come to your defense and agree with you that the flagellum preceded the T3SS contra Dover. As for my claim about the evolution of the flagellum, TSC would have to retract his statement here that it’s been debunked and remove the corresponding link. Now that would be an awesome Kitzmas present!