Discovery Institute: A suppurating cesspool of stupid

Shrunk · #1 by **Shrunk** » Jun 07, 2010 1:35 pm

You have to love this. Richard Sternberg of the DI writes a post banging the drums to one of the favourite creationist canards, "''Junk DNA' does so have a function," here.

Larry Moran (doubtless after he has finally stopped laughing) simply quotes part of Sternberg's missive on his blog, and leaves it open to his readers to identify the errors. Which they do.

To compound matters further, Sternberg cluelessly responds to Moran's article by repeating the same error.

(If you want a concise summary of where he gets it wrong, look here and here.)

The_Metatron · #2 by **The_Metatron** » Jun 07, 2010 1:37 pm

I just have to say, before the advent if this forum, I had no idea what "suppurating' meant, and probably never would have.

That being said, I agree with your assessment of the institute.

Durro · #3 by **Durro** » Jun 08, 2010 2:18 am

Stupid is as stupid does...

Darwinsbulldog · #4 by **Darwinsbulldog** » Jun 08, 2010 3:32 am

DI is an inane concentration of mind-pus. One wonders what would happen if they succeeded in their goals. Instead of a noble intelligent species reaching for the stars, we would have a stupid ape, sitting in the dark on a pile of its own feces, to stupid to move, and quivering in fear at the "magic" that surrounds it. [Like lightning and thunder]. So instead of "childhood's end" and the progress of humanity, we would revert to helpless, neurotic children in the dark, catatonic in our fear and superstition. That it the Discovery Institute's "gift" to humanity.

Shrunk · #5 by **Shrunk** » Jun 08, 2010 10:40 am

The target of Sternberg's article, Stephen Matheson, has issued a response (addressed to Stephen Meyer):

Your Discovery Institute is a horrific mistake, an epic intellectual tragedy that is degrading the minds of those who consume its products and bringing dishonor to you and to the church. It is for good reason that Casey Luskin is held in such extreme contempt by your movement's critics, and there's something truly sick about the pattern of attacks that your operatives launched in the weeks after the Biola event. It's clear that you have a cadre of attack dogs that do this work for you, and some of them seem unconstrained by standards of integrity. I can't state this strongly enough: the Discovery Institute is a dangerous cancer on the Christian intellect, both because of its unyielding commitment to dishonesty and because of its creepy mission to undermine science itself. I'd like to see you do better, but I have no such hope for your institute. It needs to be destroyed, and I will do what I can to bring that about.

Like many theist anti-creationists, he has some problems with intellectual consistency, seeming to still harbor hopes that science will find a gap that nothing but his god will fill (note the references to Simon Conway Morris and Michael Denton later on). This had caused him to cut the ID crowd far more slack than they should be allowed. However, his personal experience seems to have finally opened his eyes to the true nature of the ID movement. I doubt he'll be accepting any more invitations to "debate" with them.

Rumraket · #6 by **Rumraket** » Jun 08, 2010 11:16 am

What is this "Biola event" he speaks of?

natselrox · #7 by **natselrox** » Jun 08, 2010 11:20 am

Rumraket wrote:What is this "Biola event" he speaks of?

+1

Mazille · #8 by **Mazille** » Jun 08, 2010 11:22 am

Rumraket wrote:What is this "Biola event" he speaks of?

Biola University is a private, evangelical University in the US, so I would think it was some sort of mind-wankery apologetics event located there. At least that's my guess. :dunno:

Shrunk · #9 by **Shrunk** » Jun 08, 2010 11:24 am

Rumraket wrote:What is this "Biola event" he speaks of?

http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2010/05/ ... ll-at.html

http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2010/05/ ... at_28.html

http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2010/05/ ... at_31.html

Mazille · **#10** by **Mazille** » Jun 08, 2010 11:25 am

Spot on.

Shrunk · **#11** by **Shrunk** » Jun 08, 2010 11:29 am

Mazille wrote:Spot on.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ugpg8XruhVk[/youtube]

chairman bill · **#12** by **chairman bill** » Jun 08, 2010 12:35 pm

Mazille wrote:... Biola Universit[/url]y is a private, evangelical University in the US ...

Given that it is not a university except in name, could we either place the word 'university' when used in this context, in maybe green type, something to indicate that there is something quite wrong about this abuse of the term?

Rumraket · **#13** by **Rumraket** » Jun 08, 2010 12:44 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Rumraket wrote:What is this "Biola event" he speaks of?

http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2010/05/ ... ll-at.html

http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2010/05/ ... at_28.html

http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2010/05/ ... at_31.html

Ahh thx, that clears it up. Essentially the expected case of Lying for Doctrinetm

Shrunk · **#14** by **Shrunk** » Jun 08, 2010 5:49 pm

Rumraket wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
Rumraket wrote:What is this "Biola event" he speaks of?

http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2010/05/ ... ll-at.html

http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2010/05/ ... at_28.html

http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2010/05/ ... at_31.html

Ahh thx, that clears it up. Essentially the expected case of Lying for Doctrinetm

It does show up one of the handicaps that people who oppose creationism while remaining theists work under. Matheson seemed to assume that his fellow Christians, though they may be misguided and mistaken in their support of ID, would nonetheless treat one of their brethren with respect and an open mind. Hence the hurt and disappointment he experienced when one of his arguments was quote mined and distorted to make it appear that he had stated that ID was the best explanation for some facts of biology. He seemed to expect that his opponent in the debate would try to actually understand his argument, which was rather subtle, rather than simply exploit it for propaganda value. An atheist, OTOH, would know this was only to be expected, and would have responded to the invitation to the "debate" with a polite "Fuck you."

Adkinsjr · **#15** by **Adkinsjr** » Jun 23, 2010 4:43 pm

C0nc0rdance actually has a video on this topic:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_YAibTIzLk[/youtube]

Robert Byers · **#16** by **Robert Byers** » Jun 24, 2010 7:22 am

I am YEC. Yet I find discovery to be quite good on many points of creationism.
They represent well degree ed people who have become famous and many siccessful book sellers.
They have made a imprint and are agents of change in origin issues. they are a threat to the establishment here and are growing in influence.
They have helped biblical creationism with ideas and concepts but also practical politics.
By I'D;s enemies attacking them as biblical creationists, in order to discredit them, they gave to us more publicity and credibility. I.D is well known and has interest in them in academic circles and culture and by lumping them with us brought us more attention.
Cause and effect.

Mazille · **#17** by **Mazille** » Jun 24, 2010 7:25 am

You make it sound like all this was a good thing.

tnjrp · **#18** by **tnjrp** » Jun 24, 2010 8:04 am

So, has this been on already and if not, what do you peeps with sound on your machines think? An accurate assesement for once or not?
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/06/ri ... .html#more

Shrunk · **#19** by **Shrunk** » Jun 24, 2010 10:55 am

tnjrp wrote:So, has this been on already and if not, what do you peeps with sound on your machines think? An accurate assesement for once or not?
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/06/ri ... .html#more

Natural selection would be falsified if heritable traits did not exist, just as one example. Just because the influence of natural selection cannot be falsified in every single case, does not mean it is unfalsifiable as a general concept.

So does the DI say how their argument supports ID? Have they ever demonstrated how ID can be falsified?

tnjrp · **#20** by **tnjrp** » Jun 24, 2010 11:41 am

Agreed on the first, and on the questions I have not seen any such. But what I really just asking is if what they claim Prof. Dawkins says (I can watch his lips move but I can't hear what he says) is what he really means or if they are just creatively quoting select bits and presenting their own interpretation. Seemed like a good thread to put such a question in, seeing as DI is behind the "news item".

Discovery Institute: A suppurating cesspool of stupid

Discovery Institute: A suppurating cesspool of stupid

Re: Discovery Institute: A suppurating cesspool of stupid

Re: Discovery Institute: A suppurating cesspool of stupid

Re: Discovery Institute: A suppurating cesspool of stupid

Re: Discovery Institute: A suppurating cesspool of stupid

Re: Discovery Institute: A suppurating cesspool of stupid

Re: Discovery Institute: A suppurating cesspool of stupid

Re: Discovery Institute: A suppurating cesspool of stupid

Re: Discovery Institute: A suppurating cesspool of stupid

Re: Discovery Institute: A suppurating cesspool of stupid

Re: Discovery Institute: A suppurating cesspool of stupid

Re: Discovery Institute: A suppurating cesspool of stupid

Re: Discovery Institute: A suppurating cesspool of stupid

Re: Discovery Institute: A suppurating cesspool of stupid

Re: Discovery Institute: A suppurating cesspool of stupid

Re: Discovery Institute: A suppurating cesspool of stupid

Re: Discovery Institute: A suppurating cesspool of stupid

Re: Discovery Institute: A suppurating cesspool of stupid

Re: Discovery Institute: A suppurating cesspool of stupid

Re: Discovery Institute: A suppurating cesspool of stupid

Who is online