And then there were none

I mentioned last week that the Discovery Institute misrepresented the Minnesota state science standards, pretending that they endorsed “teaching the controversy”. Now Dave Thomas goes through the other 3 (or 4? The DI can’t count) states that the Discovery Institute slandered, and guess what? They don’t support creationism either.


  1. says

    I cannot see the logic in their 1)championing of so-called “teach the controversy” standards, and 2)incessant whining that teachers, activist judges, and scientists (also liberals, atheists, and invisible unicorns) won’t “let” them teach the “controversy.” Evolution is in “crisis” – and a monolithic, oppressive conspiracy; about to be “overthrown,” and impossible to crack.

    *Tiptoes away from violating Godwin’s Law*

  2. Arcturus says

    I just listened to Behe’s interview at Point of Inquiry, , and came to the conclusion that he’s completely nuts.

    He argues that evolutionary biologists have something to explain because they try to explain an illusion of design. But ID-ers don’t, because God designed everything and we cannot know his thoughts, motivations. How is that for a scientific theory ?:))

    Another funny point was that malaria could not have evolved, it was designed. So the question is, what kind of ethics does this designer have? To design this killing machine, whiping out humans … His answer? A benign designer, because malaria might have some beneficial effect on the biosphere as a whole. :))

    Behe is VERY inconsistent in his views. He wants to sneak in the “desginer” but not talk to much about that designer.

    Maybe someone should write an essay about the implications of ID, just for fun, and talk about how cruel this designer must be. How can he create all this life that constantly fights for survival, kills, eats, and doesn’t care about ethics? I wonder if the designer is inteligent, he surely is a very bad boy :))

  3. Moopheus says

    “Maybe someone should write an essay about the implications of ID, just for fun, and talk about how cruel this designer must be.”

    Hey, two great tastes that taste great together. Since creationists are always misrepresenting since to “prove” the existence of the diety, one could extend the ID rhetoric along the lines of the old Gnostic ideas that the creator-diety was in fact blind and insane. Quote-mine some of the apocryphal material from Nag Hammadi and so on, and you’re done.

  4. BlueIndependent says

    It seems…no, actually it is…highly illogical that such elaborate fools errands such as the DI continue forward and receive funding, in spite of their public legal rebukes. But, I guess the John Birch Society, American Enterprise Institute, and other fraudulent outfits have been trundling along for decades in spite of their vapid platforms.

  5. says

    *winks at David Marjanović*

    But you know what I mean! How can something “about to collapse” be so “dangerous” and strong in its “weakness”? I can’t help it if it reminds me of another fearmongering ideology. Okay, I’ll think of a better metaphor. The John Birch Society is a good one.

  6. AlanWCan says

    “Maybe someone should write an essay about the implications of ID, just for fun, and talk about how cruel this designer must be.”

    Already been done:
    All Things Dull and Ugly
    (To the tune of ‘All Things Bright and Beautiful’)
    All things dull and ugly,
    All creatures short and squat,
    All things rude and nasty,
    The Lord God made the lot.
    Each little snake that poisons,
    Each little wasp that stings,
    He made their brutish venom,
    He made their horrid wings.
    All things sick and cancerous,
    All evil great and small,
    All things foul and dangerous,
    The Lord God made them all.
    Each nasty little hornet,
    Each beastly little squid,
    Who made the spiky urchin?
    Who made the sharks? He did.
    All things scabbed and ulcerous,
    All pox both great and small,
    Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
    The Lord God made them all.

  7. says

    A little off topic, but a question I have had for a very, very long time about the DI:

    Why don’t they allow comments on their posts/news items on their website?

    It’s 2007 and there is NOTHING on the interhighway that doesn’t allow comments especially pertaining to blogs and “News” pages (Yes, the DI gets News in quotes since they seem to loathe honesty or facts).

    ID proponents love to act like open-minded citizens. “Teach the controversy”, they say. “Teach both sides!” “We need honest debate and discussion about the shortcomings of evolution!” So then, isn’t it fecklessly hypocritical that on their own website, the DI refuses to hear what others say and is wholly one-sided? How can they expect discussion/debate if they can’t even provide it on their own hallowed ground?

    I think that if enough people flooded them with this question, their false notion of credibility and non-biased actions would fly out the window.

  8. Arcturus says

    Thanks for the suggestions, I was actually sure that many before have thought about the vile ethics of this supposed “designer” :)

  9. says

    Dave and I disagree on the point of New Mexico. The science standards here relevant to the discussion are:

    Strand III

    Standard I: Understand how scientific discoveries, inventions practices and knowledge influence and are influenced by, individuals and societies.

    Benchmark I: Examine and analyze how scientific discoveries and their applications affect the world, and explain how societies influence scientific investigations and applications.

    Performance Standard 16: Understand that reasonable people may disagree about some issues that are of interest to both science and religion (e.g., the origin of life on Earth, the cause of the Big Bang, the future of Earth).

    Performance Standard 17: Identify important questions that science cannot answer (e.g., questions that are beyond today’s science, decisions that science can only help to make, questions that are inherently outside the realm of science).

    These are exactly the standards that allowed ID to be brought into the Rio Rancho schools. As long as there is language in the standards which include both science AND religion, I don’t think we’re going to shake free of the spectre of ID in our schools.

  10. Molly, NYC says

    Kristine – Personally, I think “teaching the controversy” is a swell idea. Really, how hard is it to put together a “teach the controversy” lesson plan that would make ID proponents wish they’d never brought the subject up?

    You know that section mentioned in PZ’s cited post from last week where Minnesota kids are expected to know the difference between a theory, hypothesis and law, acceptable criteria for scientific knowledge, etc? ID is a great example to use repeatedly in this context, as an example of what real science is not. After covering all that, maybe they could have a classroom discussion about exactly what kind of controversy ID is, since it’s clearly not a scientific one.

    The pressure to put ID in public schools is a teachable moment, and a controversy–just not the kind the Discovery Institute et al. think it is.