The Discoveroids Are Going Global

This is exciting news from the Discovery Institute. Look what popped up at their creationist blog: In 2018, Please Help Us Take Intelligent Design to the World!, written by Klinghoffer. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Living in the United States, we’re accustomed to evolution being thoroughly politicized, in the sense that the media encourage everyone to divide into armed camps: evolutionists versus Darwin skeptics. In both the U.S. media and academia, there’s a kind of social panic for many about being classed with the dreaded “creationists.”

Yes, the media are to blame for all the problems of the Darwin skeptics. Then he says:

But that panic is largely unknown in other countries. The world is wide open to scientific arguments for design in nature. The big launch of ID in Brazil is a case in point …

Yeah, we wrote about that — see Discovery Institute Makes Progress in Brazil. But there’s more: Klinghoffer tells us:

In the coming year, we’ll be debuting a Spanish language edition of Evolution News [their creationist blog], and Discovery Institute Press will publish a new work by a major European scientist detailing his own explorations of the design hypothesis. More on that soon.

[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh! [*End Drool Mode*] Discovery Institute Press! Very impressive. Klinghoffer continues:

What about the rest of the globe? As 2017 comes to a close, we ask you to help us extend our reach internationally. This will be an important theme for us in 2018. Please, go here [link omitted] and contribute as generously as you can to support Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. If you donate now, a fellow contributor has committed to match your gift by 50 percent. In other words, if you give $200, you’ll actually be giving $300. Thank you!

While you’re deciding how much to give, we’ll read on:

Our work has long been international in scope. Summer Seminar students come from just about everywhere around the globe, and have brought ID home with them where they are pursuing careers in science and other academic fields. It’s all about planting seeds — and watering them, which we do through mentoring, publishing, and more.

Verily, it’s a glorious crusade! Another excerpt:

The story of paleontologist Günter Bechly in Germany demonstrates the power of ID to find its way and change minds and hearts. It was reading books by our Fellows that turned him around.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Here’s more

I could go on and on. I’ve seen an international map of ID scientists and scholars, many of them still confidential, that a colleague put together, and it is very impressive.

No doubt. In this next excerpt, the bold font is Klinghoffer’s:

All this has convinced us of the urgent need to go even further in introducing the rest of planet Earth to the evidence for ID. Remember, it’s not like the U.S. where many have already made up their minds based on irrelevant sociological factors and are (in the case of Darwinists) hardened against considering counterarguments. The world is an extremely fertile field for our efforts, and yours!

Now we come to the end:

Frankly, all that’s needed now are the resources that you can bring. The world is waiting and you can help us export intelligent design everywhere. Please take a moment now to give what you can! [Link omitted.]

Well, dear reader, you’ve been looking for a worthy cause. There it is! The world needs more Oogity Boogity!

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

14 responses to “The Discoveroids Are Going Global

  1. Just imagine. If they can fail world-wide, that will be so much more effective than failing in USA.

  2. And… there it is… a donation sales pitch with no accountability attached.

    I REALLY need to come up with a business plan like this…..

  3. Michael Fugate

    Like most things – whether DNA is “junk” or not is of no help to ID and no harm to evolution. Organisms are not machines. Stephen Meyer has claimed that reproduction makes even more complex and therefore more likely to be created, but it is reproduction that drives selection and allows it to “fashion” organisms. They don’t need help.

  4. Scientists don’t think or talk like this. They’re acting like their idea is a religion. Which it is.

  5. As a Dutchman I feel discriminated by Klinkleclapper. He totally ignores the fine tradition, thanks to orthodox protestantism, of Dutch creacrap.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_van_der_Hoeven

    “Van der Hoeven said that Charles Darwin’s theories were incomplete and that new things had been discovered by proponents of intelligent design.”

  6. This is like a virus spreading to a population not yet sufficiently immune, though. I don’t see it get a foothold in Northern Europe anytime soon, but some of the former East Bloc countries have taken religion to their hearts again. The UK, of course, have those dreaded faith schools (“The Blair Wedge Project”) where it might make inroads- Paul Braterman had better brace himself.

    Africa and the Middle East are up for grabs as long as they can make it sound compatible with Islam. Fortunately the ME is largely insignificant in scientific research so it will likely remain contained in their madrassas.

  7. BTW pity that the Toot didn’t announce distance courses for overseas pupils, or you could have written “The Discoveroids are going Postal“.

  8. Africa, East Asia and South America are “up for grabs” by missionaries for
    Christian creationists. As long as the USA remains the exemplar of progress.
    I’m thinking of the possibility of China taking over that status.

  9. Klunkledoofus.

  10. Off-topic, but timely:

    Anyone else getting excited about the fast-approaching Kitzmas celebrations?

  11. Can’t do Kitzmas.
    Monkey day and Cat Herders day have done me in.
    https://pastafarians.org.au/pastafarianism/holidays/

  12. Michael Fugate

    From their piece:
    Yesterday a correspondent sent along an article from the current issue of a prominent biology journal, BioEssays, in which a Russian geneticist seeks to revive the idea of junk DNA against the evidence of ENCODE. Professor Eugene Sverdlov of the Institute of Molecular Genetics in Moscow starts by citing and quoting an article from Evolution News, and goes on to argue with us. We’d like to take up the topic with him here another time, but the point is: With your help, we really get around.

    Sverdlov makes a good point in the article, but errs in believing that the presence of so-called junk DNA provides any support for ID. It doesn’t.

    Sverdlov says:
    1. If the Stars Are Lit Up − Does That Mean Someone Needs It?
    These are the words of the famous Russian poet Vladimir Maiakovskii in his poem “Listen!” They reflect the peculiarity of human thinking: everything that exists is expedient and strictly deterministic. It also concerns scientists engaged in RNA-seq: the sequencing community has split into two irreconcilable camps. “Determinists” (and ID believers) are convinced that very low level transcripts represent a huge world of “functional” RNAs, just because they exist. Their opponents put forward serious reasons to question this view. Probably, many new biochemically active coding and ncRNAs will be discovered in future, but it is more probable that the vast majority of low abundant transcripts are simply junk. Therefore, the first group takes a lower threshold to catch the maximum of VLA RNAs, whereas skeptics choose a higher threshold to cut off “nonfunctional” RNAs.

    Transcribed Junk Remains Junk If It Does Not Acquire A Selected Function in Evolution
    Eugene Sverdlov
    BioEssays Volume 39, Issue 12 December 2017

  13. In the coming year, we’ll be debuting a Spanish language edition of Evolution News [their creationist blog], and Discovery Institute Press will publish a new work by a ‘major European scientist detailing his own explorations of the design hypothesis. More on that soon.

    I can just imagine.

    Notice how it’s a nameless “major European scientist”? Considering the standards the Discovery Institute has applied in the past, it’ll probably (almost certainly) turn out to be some quack affiliated with a European version of the DI.