For years, the Discovery Institute has attempted to peddle their brand of creationism as a scientific theory, and except for a few victories in a couple of states with demented legislatures, they’ve had no success whatsoever. We explained their problem years ago in Intelligent Design, the Great Incongruity, where we said:
Traditional creationism is openly and honestly religious, while ID [intelligent design] is the Discoveroids’ “Don’t ask, don’t tell” version of creationism. ID creationists have repackaged their dogma into an ostensibly secular concept which they claim is a scientific theory. Despite ID’s complete lack of any scientific attributes, it is promoted as a scientific alternative to Darwin’s theory of evolution. But it’s a flimsy disguise — a reversible coat with meaningless science jargon on the outside and miracles on the inside — a garment made for flashers.
Besides failing catastrophically in court, ID has produced nothing in the world of science, and has no utility in medicine, pharmacology, industry, or agriculture. It’s track record is indistinguishable from that of astrology.
The surprising thing is that the promoters of ID actually thought they could accomplish everything described in their Wedge strategy: attain scientific standing, popular appeal, bypass the Constitution, and achieve their political goals too. That, dear reader, is the Great Incongruity.
The Discoveroids are aware of their failure, but as long as their generous patrons keep the money flowing, they indend to continue their shabby crusade. Today they’re lashing out at their critics. Look what Klinghoffer just posted at their creationist blog: Say What You Want About Intelligent Design. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:
Literally, say whatever the hell you want. You can say things that are true. Or you can say things that are false. Either is fine, but with most mainstream media outlets, false is likely preferable.
Klinghoffer sounds angry, doesn’t he? Then he gets specific:
Writing at the slick science magazine Nautilus, Brian Gallagher demonstrates yet again that there is no accountability when criticizing ID is on the agenda. He tries to draw a line connecting last month’s story about Turkey eliminating evolution from 9th grade science class, with “fundamentalist” Christianity, with creationism, with intelligent design, and with academic freedom legislation. Let’s see how he scores on credibility.
Oh, how infuriating! This is the article that Klinghoffer is upset about: How to Weed Creationism Out of Schools. He quotes a bit from it, including this:
A creationist rebranding, “intelligent design,” which holds that evolution was God-guided, was also advanced as a credible alternative to evolution to be discussed in class for the sake of “academic freedom.”
These tactics haven’t been entirely unsuccessful. In 2008 in Louisiana, and then in 2012 in Tennessee, laws passed allowing teachers to discuss the supposed “weaknesses” of evolutionary theory — a loophole, some science-education advocates said, through which creationism would creep in.
Klinghoffer is outraged, and tells us:
Mr. Gallagher gets a point for at least linking to intelligentdesign.org, where we’re able to explain the meaning of ID ourselves rather than having the National Center for Science Education tell us what it means. Yet while oddly not quoting the NCSE, as these articles almost always do, Gallagher otherwise might as well be taking dictation from them. Let’s go through it briefly.
He lists some of the “mistakes” in Gallagher’s essay:
• He repeats the myth about ID as “rebranded” creationism. Hardly. One is an inference from science, the other from the Bible. That’s a big difference.?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Here’s another “mistake” in Gallagher’s essay:
• ID is not “advanced as a credible alternative to evolution to be discussed in class for the sake of ‘academic freedom.’” ID’s leading institutional proponent, Discovery Institute, warns against introducing intelligent design in public school classrooms.
Yeah, the Discoveroids would really hate it if ID were taught in public schools. At least, that’s been their position since Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. He says:
• We support the idea of introducing students to objective, scientific sources on evolutionary theory’s strengths and weaknesses. That is called academic freedom.
• He [Gallagher] thinks academic freedom laws are a “loophole … through which creationism would creep in,” and cites as evidence a study reporting survey information from 2007 from around the country. That was the year before the 2008 Louisiana Science Education Act, the first of two laws he points to, was passed. So the LSEA was inviting creationist sentiment into the classroom nationally before it was a law in one state? That’s quite a trick.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The Discoveroids were promoting their model law before Louisiana passed it. He continues:
• And check out the gratuitous scare quotes in the phrase about “supposed ‘weaknesses’” of evolutionary theory. It’s the old “No weaknesses!” talking point. What weaknesses, I wonder, did Brian Gallagher investigate and conclude they only merited to be called “supposed”?
After reciting his list of Discoveroid talking points, Klinghoffer declares:
So it goes when the media turn to the subject of intelligent design and academic freedom. You can say anything you want, however distorted, and only we stand ready to correct you.
Klinghoffer rants a bit more, but we’ve given you enough. It’s good to see that the critics of intelligent design “theory” are having such an effect on the Discoveroids.
Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.