Discoveroids Have Reason To Hope

The Discovery Institute produces a lot of books, videos, and blog articles, but they have no science to support their “theory” of intelligent design. So they keep cranking out propaganda to attract the support of those woeful souls who are impressed by their output.

We see a good example today at their creationist blog: In Wisconsin, a Win for Academic Freedom. Ooooooooooooh! Who could be opposed to academic freedom? Don’t be confused, dear reader. The Discoveroids are adept at what’s been called Abuse of the Language of Rights.

Their new post was written by Sarah Chaffee, whom we call “Savvy Sarah.” As you will see, it’s a continuation of what she wrote about a few months ago — see Discoveroids Announce a New Website. We haven’t visited the place, but she said: “The liberty to challenge ideas, in science and other fields, is a precondition to the advance of the theory of intelligent design.”

Okay, you know what’s coming. No science, just “academic freedom” for whatever it is that the Discoveroids are promoting. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

David French at National Review [The Wisconsin Supreme Court Strikes a Blow for Academic Freedom ] reports on a decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court:

[She quotes David French:] In a stinging 63-page ruling, the court held that Marquette University violated its own faculty handbook when it effectively terminated professor John McAdams for writing a blog post criticizing a graduate student instructor’s attempts to silence debate about gay rights in her ethics class.

What in the world does that have to do with creationism? Savvy Sarah will explain it to us. She says:

A few aspects of this catch my attention as pertinent to our concerns about academic freedom.

Here it comes. She tells us:

First, McAdams expressed a controversial position.

So what? She continues:

Second, this victory is of more than local importance. Not only does it set precedent in Wisconsin, but it is likely to be considered when similar situations come up elsewhere in the country.

Come on, Sarah! Where’s the creationism? Let’s read on:

Third, Marquette is a private institution. Shouldn’t public institutions be held to an even higher standard?

What are we doing here? Why are we slogging through this sludge? There’s only one brief paragraph remaining. Here it is:

I hope that these attitudes will extend to those who hold other kinds of controversial ideas, such as scientific skepticism about evolutionary theory.

We went through that whole mess for that? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

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

8 responses to “Discoveroids Have Reason To Hope

  1. Patience is a virtue, dear SC.

    She got there, eventually.

  2. Savvy Sarah writes something sensible: “The liberty to challenge ideas, in science and other fields, is a precondition to the advance of the theory of intelligent design.”
    Tell Annie Green Screen.

    Savvy Sarah writes yet another something sensible: “I hope that these attitudes will extend to those who hold other kinds of controversial ideas, such as scientific skepticism about evolutionary theory.”
    So we safely can put IDiot skepticism where it belongs: into the dustbin.

  3. Eric Lipps

    I hope that these attitudes will extend to those who hold other kinds of controversial ideas, such as scientific skepticism about evolutionary theory.

    There is no scientific skepticism about evolution, even from creationists. “Skepticism” implies doubt, but they have no doubt that evolution is wrong. Real scientists, meanwhile have no doubt that Darwin was right, though his theory has been refined since his time.

  4. I am not a scientist, but I think that science is not characterized by what any great person thought. Darwin what right about some things, wrong about other things, and had no idea about some things. In all things, today’s scientific consensus is based upon what we can learn from nature.
    For example, from all the testing that anyone can think of, life on Earth is related by common descent with modification, and no one has proposed an alternative explanation for the “tree of life” – the multiply attested nested hierarchy – comparative anatomy, biogeography, embryology, paleontology, biochemistry, genetics, etc.

  5. The creationists are more obsessed with Darwin than most scientists; that’s when the rot set in, as far as anti-evolutionists are concerned. Hence all their books with “Darwin’s-this” or Darwin’s-that” in the titles; and all the desperate attempts to besmirch the man himself; or belittle him by claiming he plagiarised natural selection; and so on.

    They think if they can destroy the man, somehow the whole evolutionary paradigm will come toppling down.

    And that’s enough to drive ’em nuts!

  6. There is an article from the BBC which is sort of off topic, but should be of interest
    Our Ability to Stand Up To Authority Comes Down to the Brain
    http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180709-our-ability-to-stand-up-to-authority-comes-down-to-the-brain

  7. @ChrisS: “The creationists are more obsessed with Darwin than most scientists.”
    Well, yes and it’s because they’re so narrow minded and lazy thinkers. They rely on Holy Scripture (even the IDiots from Seattle secretly do) and hence only can imagine that Origin of Species is the Holy Scripture of “darwinism”. This attitude also has the benefit of “justifying” their neglect of almost all progress Evolution Theory has made last 150 years.

  8. Project Blitz: part of the Wedge strategy?