The Discoveroids and the March for Science

You’ve probably heard of the March for Science, which is planning a bunch of marches in Washington and elsewhere on 22 April — a few days from today. We haven’t paid any attention to it, but now we will, because it has the Discovery Institute all riled up.

This appears today at the Discoveroids’ creationist blog: John West: March for Science or March for Secularism?, and it has no author’s by-line. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

This week, The Stream and the Center for Science and Culture [the Discoveroids] are teaming up the [sic] ahead of the March for Science to provide some crucial ballast. From April 17-21, The Stream and the CSC will counter the March for Science’s hypocritical claims of openness and diversity with a series of essays from leading scientists and scholars.

We imagine their “leading scientists and scholars” will all be creationists. Let’s read on:

Today, CSC Associate Director John G. West [“Westie” to us] has a post up at The Stream highlighting the double standards upheld by the March for Science organizers, and what they tell us about the purpose of the March.

This is Westie’s article at The Stream: March for Science or March for Secularism? We never heard of The Stream before, but they have something like a statement of faith which you can read here: Summary of Our Ten Principles. Among other things, it says: “Our most basic conviction is the Imago Dei, the idea that every human is made in the image of God with inherent dignity and value.”

The Discoveroids quote from Westie’s article:

March organizers say they believe that “science works best when scientists come from diverse perspectives.” They also claim that the “scientific community is best served by including voices and contributions from people of all identities and backgrounds.” Tell that to scientists who think there is evidence of intelligent design in nature. Discovery Institute represents many of those scientists, and so asked to become a “partner” for the March. We were turned down flat. I asked the March co-chair Jonathan Berman to explain why. He emailed me that “it is not our policy to advance specific worldviews or ideas outside of current consensuses of scientific fields.”

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The Discoveroids are shocked — shocked! They say:

That seems odd, considering some of the other groups that the organizers seemed to have no problem partnering with. West notes that these include American Humanist Association, Secular Student Alliance, and the Secular Coalition for America—all of which use science to argue that God doesn’t exist. So much for no “specific worldviews.”

The rest of the Discoveroids’ post is one more quote from Westie’s article:

Then there is the March’s honorary co-chair Bill Nye, the “Science Guy.” A few years ago, Nye was named “Humanist of the Year.” He claims “evolution is not guided by a mind or a plan.” He also invokes science to argue that humans are “insignificant” and “suck.” So according to the leaders of the March for Science, if you argue that science provides evidence of purposeful design, you’re anti-science. But if you argue science disproves God and shows humans “suck,” that’s fine.

We can’t find any actual reference to Nye saying that, but Klinghoffer mentioned it earlier and we wrote about it in The Discovery Institute’s Glorious Struggle.

Anyway, the March for Science has no place for the Discoveroids. They probably have no place for Hambo’s people either. The Discoveroids are furious. They promise more articles on the subject, but we’ll probably ignore them — unless they’re spectacularly amusing.

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

20 responses to “The Discoveroids and the March for Science

  1. Anyway, the March for Science has no place for the Discoveroids. They probably have no place for Hambo’s people either.

    That’s good, as these creationists are 180° anti-science, though they won’t admit it. Two points:

    One of their latest schemes is to separate science into “true” science and some other kind of science. The difference is that “true” science doesn’t disprove their religious beliefs. That other kind of science, which includes biology, geology, genetics, archaeology, etc. (sometimes called “historical sciences”) disproves creationist beliefs such as young earth and a global flood ca. 4350 years ago. They just can’t have that!

    Another creationist tactic, seen in most of the large creationist organizations, is to have a “code” which states that the bible is the ultimate word and anything that disagrees with the bible is wrong no matter what the evidence says.

    That last bit alone disqualifies them as a part of the science community.

    So no, creationists have no legitimate place in the March for Science.

  2. Michael Fugate

    Doesn’t the title alone signify that the DI admits it is religious?

    Tell that to scientists who think there is evidence of intelligent design in nature.

    And once again these scientists do so on religious grounds.

  3. Right, Westie, you were turned down because you are not a science organization, you are a creationist propaganda organization and EVERYBODY knows it.

    Face it, Westie, the Disco Tute is so despised that you couldn’t even get a table at the United Methodist annual convention. Ha, turned down by a CHURCH GROUP!

    Hey, Westie, ever consider that you are SO UNPOPULAR that your very own Attack Gerbil flew the coop? Now, that’s unpopular!

  4. “if you argue that science provides evidence of purposeful design, you’re anti-science.”
    Almost correct. To complete it: if you argue that science provides evidence of purposeful design coming from an unidentified immaterial/ supernatural/ transcendental intelligent agent (aka Grand Old Designer) , you’re anti-science. It’s all in your very own Wedge Document. See, if science provides evidence of purposeful design it does identify the designer, the means he/she used and the procedures he/she followed. IDiots systematically refuse to do so.
    Sometimes, very sometimes I am under the illusion that some creacrapper will finally get it.

  5. Ross Cameron

    Naught about ‘science’ in the bible. No cures (except by miracles which are in short supply today), no surgery, no transport or communications, no descriptions of physics, chemistry, biology and all the benefits that ‘science’ has introduced. Nary a word about unintelligent design. You would think an omnipotent being might have given us a few clues, even a spare prophecy to guide us. But, no, just the same old ‘do right or I`ll punish you’ that every dictator uses.

  6. Westie is indignant that his attempt to ‘partner’ the DI with the March for Science was turned down?

    I expect the Westboro Baptist Church will be similarly upset when the organisers of the San Francisco Pride March turn down their application to be that parade’s Grand Marshal as well…

  7. avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 1 Timothy 6:20
    But there is nothing about evolution, genetics, extinctions, speciation, clades, fixity of species (or kinds), biogeography, fossils, microevolution, the majority of life (microbes), the majority of nature, …

  8. Nye supposedly said humans suck! Well he most likely did not, but it is still true! The election of trumpkin proves that!

  9. Then there is the March’s honorary co-chair Bill Nye, the “Science Guy.” A few years ago, Nye was named “Humanist of the Year.” He claims “evolution is not guided by a mind or a plan.” He also invokes science to argue that humans are “insignificant” and “suck.”

    I’d love to know where West got his alleged Nye comment that humans “suck.” As for evolution not being guided by a Designer, that’s rather more than a “claim,” since use of that term implies that Nye’s position is some sort of fringe idea when, as West surely knows, it’s the consensus opinion of the scientific community.

  10. Undoubtedly Nye said that humans suck at something like flying, or running faster than predators, or some other physical ability. If we were made by a creator, especially in his image, we would presumably be fantastic at everything. But we suck at most things compared to other animals. Which seems to be evidence that we evolved, with all of the baggage of our ancestors. We survive because we are social animals and we are smart. But as physical creatures… not so impressive.

  11. Eric Lipps asks the same question I was pondering:

    I’d love to know where West got his alleged Nye comment that humans “suck.”

    Found it! And of course, the Discoveroids have yanked it out of all context and distorted it out of all recognition. It’s an especially egregious bit of quote mining by the DI and deserves a look:

    The occasion was his speech in 2010 at the American Humanist Association, and is available on Youtube, here. From about the 4:30 mark, he relates a lively anecdote from when he was a schoolboy on a field trip to the beach, and his 3rd grade teacher pointed out that there were more stars than there were grains of sand on the beach–leading one to a profound sense of ones smallness in the cosmos.

    It’s a cute tale, but of course the DI omit most of what Nye actually said, completely expunge the humourous tone, and strip his words down lto a particularly dishonest version of his words, here:

    I’m insignificant. … I am just another speck of sand. And the earth really in the cosmic scheme of things is another speck. And the sun an unremarkable star. … And the galaxy is a speck. I’m a speck on a speck orbiting a speck among other specks among still other specks in the middle of specklessness. I suck.

    So no, Nye never said “humans suck”, and once again the DI can be seen to be utterly vile and outrageously mendacious jerks. But that shouldn’t surprise anyone around here

  12. Well done, Megalonyx.

  13. > March organizers say they believe that “science
    > works best when scientists come from diverse
    > perspectives.”
    —————
    If the quote is accurate, then the organizers are flat-out wrong. Science works best when scientists have one perspective only – objectivity.
    —————-
    > They also claim that the “scientific community
    > is best served by including voices and
    > contributions from people of all identities and
    > backgrounds.”
    —————-
    Again wrong. The identity of the observer is irrelevant. Phenomena don’t change based on who is observing. Political fluff.

  14. Michael Fugate

    That’s a pretty grade school view of science, James.

  15. So as in the case of Bill Nye, we have another case of taking a quote out of context. Why is it that this people never feel bad about doing this? Why, when it’s pointed out to their fans that it’s been done, does this not cause anger? It would to me! And we have no morals!

  16. “I’m a speck on a speck orbiting a speck among other specks among still other specks in the middle of specklessness.”
    The funniest thing is that unbeliever Nye displays a humility here that IDiots claim to be exclusive to their belief system but never succeed to display themselves.

  17. Mark Germano

    “West notes that these include American Humanist Association, Secular Student Alliance, and the Secular Coalition for America—all of which use science to argue that God doesn’t exist.”

    It seems a little odd that neither West nor the EN author provided a link to a list of March for Science partners. So, I did a search and quick scroll of partner organizations and found:

    – The Clergy Letter Project
    – Hindu American Foundation
    – Religious Naturalist Association
    – Unitarian Universalist Association

    Huh. That’s a weird group of organizations that argue God doesn’t exist, if you ask me.

    West knew that the DI wouldn’t be accepted as a partner, not because of “worldviews,” but because ID is “outside of current consensuses of scientific fields.” He just saw a tremendous opportunity to promote their persecution and martyrdom.

  18. Michael Fugate

    If the DI wanted to March for Science, why not let them? If they were willing to agree to the March principles, then let them march and avoid the whining about their martyrdom?

  19. Turn off your irony meters! The DI is partnering with the Heritage Institute to denounce the March for Science as being too political!

  20. They never get invited to the good parties, do they? Last year the Methodists wouldn’t let them have an ID info table at their general conference. That upset the DI so much they cried and called the Methodists ‘Censor of the Year!’ Just no pleasing the DI, especially if you are interested in any actual science.