Unplug your irony meters, folks. This headline just appeared at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog: Correcting Disinformation on Academic Freedom Legislation.
The Discoveroids want to “correct disinformation?” BWAHAHAHAHAHA! If you read their founding manifesto — see What is the “Wedge Document”? – you’ll see that their sole purpose is disinformation. Specifically regarding their model Academic Freedom Act, all the world knows that it’s an anti-science, anti-evolution, pro-creationism piece of legislative slime. We’ve critiqued it here: Curmudgeon’s Guide to “Academic Freedom” Laws.
Their new “Correcting Disinformation” post 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. We’ll give you a few excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis.
Our colleague Sarah Chaffee [“Savvy Sarah” to us], who is Program Officer for Education and Public Policy for the Center for Science & Culture, has an excellent piece up at CNS News, correcting some of the rampant misrepresentations of the content of academic freedom legislation around the country. She charitably calls them misconceptions.
This is Savvy Sarah’s article: Scientific Inquiry – Not Opinion – Should Triumph in Schools and the Media. Klinghoffer quotes from it and then says:
The issue centers on what the legislation protects and what it doesn’t. Academic freedom is not about teaching creationism or intelligent design.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! After that he tells us:
I’ve noticed that misrepresentations of this legislation are often accompanied by citations of the Darwin-lobbying group National Center for Science Education (NCSE). In fact, while I haven’t made a formal study of it, my impression is that that is almost always the case.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We’ve noticed that actual misrepresentations about such legislation are always made by its promoters — the Discoveroids and their mindless lackeys in state legislatures.
Next, Klinghoffer complains about the article in Nature that we wrote about in Discovery Institute — Propaganda Whiplash. He says that Nature:
… quotes Glenn Branch of the NCSE, brandishing their favorite scare word (“The strategies of creationists have gotten more sophisticated”). [Klinghoffer put the word “creationists” in bold font.]
Get ready for Klinghoffer’s final paragraph. If your irony meter hasn’t blown out yet, it will now:
You have to hand it to these people [NCSE, presumably]. As champions of disinformation, with science and education reporters all but taking dictation, they are pretty impressive.
So there you are, dear reader. In the Bizarro World of the Discoveroids, on one hand you have Klinghoffer and the Discoveroids, desperately attempting to improve science education, and on the other hand you have the “champions of disinformation” like Glenn Branch and that “Darwin-lobbying group” NCSE.
Is anybody fooled by this nonsense? No. Creationists understand that the Discoveroids are on their side, and science-minded people know that the Discoveroids are a pack of creationists. Posts like Klinghoffer’s are part of the game — and for those who are concerned about integrity, they’re also very revealing.
Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
From Sarah’s article in a religious news outlet – no less:
“Academic freedom legislation makes explicit a right that should be recognized already, but unfortunately is not: that teachers and students should be able to engage with scientific information for and against controversial scientific theories in the curriculum.”
But evolution is not a controversial scientific theory (if it were controversial, it wouldn’t be in the curriculum to start with)- so why is it explicitly mentioned in these laws?
Klinghoffer newspeak: “correct disinformation” aka “updating fake news.”
Controversies in science are properly covered by specialists in the science involved, at the education level where it can be understood. Typically, this is at the graduate level. Occasionally at upper level undergraduate.
Can anyone think of a controversy in science which can be explained adequately in K-12 classes?
Welcome to Mirror-world.
Klinkledinkle hits another foul ball.
Poor Sarah. I always feel she gets stuck writing the articles no one else would want to put their name on.
Given that they are promoted by a creationist organization and by creationist politicians, pretty much tells anyone paying attention what their “designed” purpose is.
Well, its not about teaching nuclear physics or internal medicine or computer science!
It would be great fun to start pushing for legislation to allow for the “open discussion of the pros and cons of controversial topics” in religion class. Open the floodgates.
Especially because many creacrappers think “Darwinism” a religion.
I think it would be great for choice on sports. Let the smaller score determine the winner in basketball and football, and the larger score in swimming and golf.
The most ironic part of this, in my view, is that everything the D.I. does is in service to their religion – a religion which holds that honesty is a virtue.
By Sarah’s reasoning, astrology, the “Jupiter effect” and reincarnation (all of which have been studied and supported by supposedly serious scientists) should be taught as well (alongside contrary evidence, of course).
Somehow I suspect creationists wouldn’t like that.