Discoveroids Announce a New Website

This is bizarre, but it’s the sort of thing we expect from the Discovery Institute. The latest at their creationist blog is New Website Advocates Free Science — An Idea Vital to the Progress of Knowledge, written by Sarah Chaffee, whom we call “Savvy Sarah.” Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Today, we launch a new site calling for freedom in science. The liberty to challenge ideas, in science and other fields, is a precondition to the advance of the theory of intelligent design. It is also a litmus test for the culture itself: In defense of orthodoxy, do we suppress dissent? If so, what cost will be paid by science?

You know where she’s going with this, don’t you? Here it comes:

At the newly launched Free Science, you can learn about public opinion on academic freedom, and read accounts of those who have been caught in the crosshairs over their dissent from Darwinian evolution. Also, find out about legislative efforts, and how you can get involved in defending free science!

Ooooooooooooh! A whole website where the Discoveroids can promote their Teach the Controversy campaign. Savvy Sarah tells us:

The progress of intelligent design [Hee hee!] is an illustration of a rebel idea that has made its way in defiance of the establishment, often paying the price for arguing in favor of “uncomfortable science.” As the case of ID demonstrates, values of free thought and critical inquiry are under siege precisely in the place where they should be most valued and protected — the scientific community.

Yes, the Discoveroids’ “science” of intelligent design has “made its way in defiance of the establishment.” So has the Time Cube, Moon-landing denial, flat Earth, and astrology. She continues:

Most should agree that people should not suffer professional harm because of personal views – especially those in the university. But that’s not what happens when it comes to evolution dissent.

She gives a few examples of creationists who experienced “professional harm,” most of whom we’ve written about before, including Richard Sternberg — about whom see Sternberg peer review controversy. Let’s read on:

Problems with conventional scientific explanations for the origin of life and of biological diversity are widely acknowledged — and scientists around the world tackle these issues. Why should scientists who think DNA code is a product of design, just like computer code, face discrimination and career repercussions? Couldn’t knowledge be gained by exploring these ideas?

Well, dear reader. Couldn’t knowledge be gained by exploring the Discoveroids’ “theory”? Anyway, at the end of her post, Savvy Sarah declares:

Freedom is necessary for scientists open to the thesis of intelligent design to make the case for the theory. But this is also what is necessary for scientific advancement more generally. So let’s encourage dissent and embrace an authentically liberal approach.

Sounds lovely, doesn’t it? It’s what’s been called Abuse of the Language of Rights

We doubt that we’ll be spending much time visiting the Discoveroids’ new website. The one we all know and enjoy is more than enough for us.

Copyright © 2018. 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

13 responses to “Discoveroids Announce a New Website

  1. Derek Freyberg

    So is this to be a sort DiscoTute golden oldies? – that’s all I see so far.

  2. But in order to advance the theory of intelligent design, ISTM that there needs to be a theory of intelligent design.

  3. docbill1351

    Looks like a repackaging of old junk. I laugh at how the Tooters bray about censorship and academic freedom from a website that blocks comments. Pure comedy gold.

  4. “… the values of free thought and creative inqury are under siege…”

    Pity they don’t carry through on their own hyperbole. One wonders how these values can be sustained on a website that doesn’t accept comments or discussion.

  5. Michael Fugate

    How will this be any different than what they already do? Like calling their anti-evolution commentary “evolution news”? I am sure they will push for evolution to be taught at all religious colleges and for no faculty to be punished for accepting evolution, no?

  6. Had a quick browse of the IDiots new site. Amount other things, they include an article on a 2016 survey that they ran, ostensibly on the subject of “scientific dissent”. It includes this rather perplexing statement from John West:

    “In the public arena, we hear a growing chorus arguing for the government to punish or criminalize dissenting scientific views,”.

    I thought that I was pretty well abreast of most things, but this seems a pretty extreme claim. Can anyone advise the who/where/when of such a “growing chorus”.

    Oh, wait a minute. This wouldn’t be a coded reference to “Kitzmiller v. Dover” would it?

  7. Desnes Diev

    They should federate with a group of scientists diappointed that reality, when studied by “mainstream science”, does not support their delusions: the Postmaterialists. The latter are forming nothing les than an Academy:
    Schwartz et al. (2017) The Academy for the Advancement of Postmaterialist Sciences: Integrating Consciousness into Mainstream Science.
    (Explore (NY), pii: S1550-8307(17)30442-1.
    One caveat is that the postmaterialists are not overly religious and they’re more in the field of psi powers. Nevertheless the Academy of Postmaterialist Design would be something to contemplate.

  8. Michael Fugate

    If scientists were to think DNA were just like a computer code, then they would be ignorant of either DNA, computers or both.

  9. Eric Lipps

    Freedom is necessary for scientists open to the thesis of intelligent design to make the case for the theory. But this is also what is necessary for scientific advancement more generally. So let’s encourage dissent and embrace an

    authentically

    liberal approach.

    Nice talk coming from people who (if creationist stalwarts like the mummified Pat Robertson and the deceased Jerry Falwell are fair examples) would probably rather hang authentic liberals by the heels over a blazing fire.

  10. Freedom is necessary for scientists open to the thesis of intelligent design to make the case for the theory.

    I’m STILL searching for this supposed thesis….. IF they ever actually get one, it might resolve much of their angst!

  11. Yeah, tons of publications from

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

    have been censored away by those hostile evilutionists.

  12. Holding the Line in Florida

    “The progress of intelligent design is an illustration of a rebel idea that has made its way in defiance of the establishment, often paying the price for arguing in favor of “uncomfortable science.” Excuse me, but wasn’t intelligent design the old guard school of thought (Goddidit) before what we now understand as Science developed? So how can that be the rebel idea? Last time I checked, the price paid by those who were advancing the cause of the real “uncomfortable science” was often pretty steep by the original IDiots defending their religious dogmas .

  13. In a video from Ken Ham with Andrew Snelling about his Grand Canyon research, it seems under the condition of the permit he has to make his research public. So now he has the ideal place “The liberty to challenge ideas, in science and other fields” to publish his YEC research.