11 April 2006

Yet more desperation at the DI

In the latest misaimed blast from the Whine and Cheese Division of the Discovery Institute, Michael Francisco expresses shock and dismay at the idea that people would actually claim that Intelligent Design and creationism are the same thing:
Finally, during the debate over [Kentucky Governor] Fletcher’s school board nominees, one House member argued they should "send a message that we are not a state that will fall prey to intelligent design, which is nothing more than creationism.” This argument merely repeats the common misconception that intelligent design and creationism are the same.
With all the effort that those dedicated Discovery Institute folks have put into trying to convince people that ID really isn't creationism, what could possibly make people think that it is?

In this case, they should probably blame the Governor of Kentucky himself. He seems to think that creationism and ID are somehow connected, and he hasn't been shy about stating that belief in public.

From his January, 2006 State of the State speech:
Our founding fathers recognized that we were endowed with this right by our creator.

So I ask, what is wrong with teaching “intelligent design” in our schools. Under KERA, our school districts have that freedom and I encourage them to do so.

This is not a question about faith or religion. It’s about self-evident truth.
And then there's that letter that he sent to the Kentucky Academy of Sciences, in response to their rejection of Intelligent Design:
My educational background provided me with thorough understanding of science [sic] and the theory of evolution. Our nation, however, was founded on self-evident truths. Among these truths are inalienable rights" endowed by their Creator." From my perspective, it is not a matter of faith, or religion, or theory. It is similar to basic self-evident objective truths that are the basis of knowledge.
Later in that same letter, Fletcher says that, "Since 1970, state law specifically allows public schools to teach "creationism" in conjunction with the theory of evolution," indicating that he both thinks this is appropriate, and that he has no comprehension of the fact that such laws have already been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

The Discovery Institute can complain all they want about people mistakenly thinking that Intelligent Design is another form of creationism. We've heard them say this before, but reality has contradicted the cdesign proponentsists once too often for anyone reasonable to believe them.


Zeno said...

The DI's allies are their biggest problem.

Oh, wait. It's their fake science that is their biggest problem!

Lifewish said...

If it's not a matter of theory then how the hell does he justify teaching it in science class?

Or does he just feel that it's "self-evident" that that's where it should be taught...

Anonymous said...

"I what could possibly make people think that it is?" - I think you're missing a word there possible "wonder" or the word "I" isn't supposed to be there.

Mark said...

The Disco Institute frequently complains that scientists accuse ID of being naught but Creationism in opaque pantyhose. Yet time after time, we see that the "common folkses" also are confusing ID with Creationism. Isn't it time for the DI to carefully explain to boreds of education, home schoolers, and legislators that ID has nothing to do with Creationism, that the DI wants nothing to do with Creationists, that they don't want contributions from Creationists, and don't want church-related groups (including such as Kampus Krusade for Krist) hosting ID seminars and talks?

Rev. BigDumbChimp said...

Yes and it was just a coincidence that in the ID's Necronominon Of Panda's and People you could take earlier editions and drafts and replace "Creationism" with "Intelligent Design" and "Creator" with "Designer" and have almost the exact same version as today's Of Panda's word for word.

ID isn't creationism? Now isn't that just a little dishonest Mr. Fancisco?

minimalist said...

The cock has crowed three times, and once again the DI denies their lord and savior! Forgive them, father, for they know not what they do.

I wonder if, after each such denial, they go watch The Passion of the Christ while scourging themselves as penance. Or perhaps not; that might suggest they have some lingering vestige of conscience.

TQA said...

"I think you're missing a word there possible "wonder" or the word "I" isn't supposed to be there."

Fixed, thanks.

Anonymous said...

"Self-evident truths"?? You mean like that the Earth is flat, the sun and stars revolve around us, and that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects?


Ginger Yellow said...

" It is similar to basic self-evident objective truths that are the basis of knowledge."

Indeed, except that these self-evident things are neither true nor objective. It's just convenient for us to pretend they are.

OccamsAftershave said...

I just came across Michael Francisco posting in comments on a xian blog.
He admires the YEC Inst. for Creo Research where he has a friend and thinks they have powerful arguments, he says the 8 or 10 big names in the ID movement are cranking out science and the mainstream is terrified, etc. His ignorance seems due to his youth. He's asking sincerely for others to correct him.
It's really a testament to the marginalization of the DI that they must resort to these evangelical kids like Crowther and Francisco as spokesmen for their propaganda arm.

King Aardvark said...

Ditto on what minimalist said. I wonder when the IDists will ever learn any of the lessons their religion tries to teach them.

Dave Thomas said...

ID = Creationism: Proof!

Just click this link, and don't blink!

Cheers, Dave Thomas

Anonymous said...

If ID is so "self-evident," then why do we need to teach it in school at all?

Anonymous said...

Remember the "we hold these truths to be self-evident..." and "endowed by our Creator.." stuff came from the Declaration of Independence(DOI), a letter having its language tailored to appeal to its audience of one, the king of England. The DOI is not a founding document of the USA - notice courts of law never use the DOI as a legal reference point. It's more like a very open, very honest Dear John letter: we're really pissed at you - go away. By contrast, the Constitution is a founding document and does possess the weight of law. Notice that the Constitution does not suggest any self-evident truths and intentionally leaves out any reference to deities, gods, or creators. In that regard, it's a rather nice piece of work.