Today the DI Media Complaints Division is complaining about being misrepresented about its position on ID in public education. The post goes on at some length, but here is a representative declaration:
Rob Crowther, Discovery Institute Wrote:They [some conservative intellectuals quoted in the Weekly Standard] are cited as being critical of “some” IDers who are trying to shoehorn ID into science curriculum. We completely agree with their underlying concern. At the risk of sounding like a broken record: Discovery Institute has never advocated the mandating of the theory of intelligent design in public school science curriculum.
Unfortunately, this is about as credible as the cdesign proponentsists’ claim that ID isn’t creationism. For example, almost all of the authors of Of Pandas and People, a book aimed at public school ninth grade biology students and originally pushed for statewide adoption in Alabama and Texas, are current DI fellows, and chunks of the book are posted all over the DI website. I suppose Crowther could exclude these facts on the basis that Pandas was written before the DI got into ID. But we also have the Wedge Document. It is fun to search on words like “teach” and “curricula”. For example:
Phase III. Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings. We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula
FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES […] 6. Ten states begin to rectify ideological imbalance in their science curricula & include design theory
How could anyone possibly get confused about the DI’s position?
I’m always wavering between Disco Institute (the superficial glitter covering up the utter lack of substance) and Deception Institute (deadly accurate, but a tad on the dry side)–neither of which is original with me (hey, how can a pinhead be expected to generate new information?).
But–speaking of information–Disinformation Institute does jave a real ring to it, as well.
It’s just getting ridiculous. These idiots make me [sic]
“jave”? “have”? Why sweat the details; the DI never does.
Your methodology used to determine the DI’s stance on the issue is hopelessy lost within materialist dogma.
Is it possible they’ve changed their position?
If you toss in a little Mao then you can get materialist running dogma.
*sigh*
OK, I’ll bite.
Why, oh seeker, would they change their position, eh?
Interesting name alternatives for the DI. Unfortunately, no such easy spoofs of Panda’s Thumb come to mind… The Panderer’s Thumb? The Pandemic Thumb? The Panda’s Dumb? The Pandering Dumb?
Must.Get.Coffee.
drugseeking won’t increase your intelligence quotient sufficiently to repair that lame attempt.
but, after you get that coffee, care to address the question i posed to you?
I’m betting your answer will be far more humorous.
It’d be irrelevant even if they have. Their original statement was:
Note that verb tense: has never. Demonstrably false.
Alles klar?
That they should lie about that does not make me feel confident that they’ve ‘changed their position’.
Lying kinda does that ya know, makes it so people don’t wanna believe you…
Organizations change, mature - the page from which the copy above was taken, has it been replaced by different copy? Have they admitted to changing their position, or are they denying that they ever had the previous position?
If they say they’ve changed, maybe you should consider that. I mean, Planned Parenthood says they’ve abandoned the eugenic, racist ideas of Sanger - should I also disbelieve them? Or should I be suspicious.
Sure, that was further in the past, and there are different people at the helm now. But I’m just asking - is it possible that they’ve changed their means and their ends, for either practical or ideological reasons?
Or can we just assume a conspiracy because we don’t like them?
Re: this dogma thing.
Whose Ma exactly are you calling a “dog”?
then answer your own dumb question.
Are the same people at the helm of the DI now as when the wedge document was created?
hmm.
maybe you better drink more coffee.
and yes, we remember you.
Nice try. To repeat: “HAS NEVER”. Means that at no time did they do it. That was their claim.
But we know they did advocate it. So even if they have changed their position, the statement is still false.
Two possibilities: either they’re too lazy to look up their old position papers, or they’re lying. Given how legendary the Wedge Document is, I think the latter is more likely. Pointing out someone’s falsehood is not a ‘conspiracy’. Aren’t you christian types supposed to oppose dishonesty?
BTW, nice swipe at Planned Parenthood. Classy.
Seeker:
“If they say they’ve changed, maybe you should consider that.”
Here is a useful link for you.
http://www.rhlschool.com/reading.htm
Well, it looks like they are lying about “never.”
seeker, is there proof Planned Parenthood ever espoused those ideas? Sanger is the founder, but (as we heard many times through the Dover trial) does the personal philosophy of a person necessarily taint their work or objectives?
But let’s say I grant you that you can prove at some point Planned Parenthood espoused “the eugenic, racist ideas of Sanger”. If you can prove that, and then the current-day Planned Parenthood said, “We have never espoused those ideas”, they would be liars, whether or not their position had changed.
The statement highlighted in the original post is a lie. It’s provably false. Whether or not DI has changed its position over time, it has just now released a fabrication.
Hey, Planned Parenthood is worthy of the abuse. They’re a favorite whipping boy, just like ID ;)
Damn, your admission totally deflates the impact of my post. Nevertheless, glad you have “seen the light”, so to speak.
Nice, this is progress. Unexpected, but progress nonetheless.
how can you ride that bike so fast backwards, seeker?
Nah, planned parenthood has much worse things to criticize than the spectre of Margaret Sanger. But that’s not what this post is about. ;)
By listening to you, toejam, by listening to you.
Ya gotta admit, if he can backpeddle and listen at the same time, he must not be quite as dumb as he sounds…
now if only EVERYBODY would listen to me!
plans for world domination, proceeding one person at a time.
muahahhahaha!
*snort*
don’t count your chickens…
Is it possible they got their ass reamed out in court, and would rather not repeat the painful experience again?
Hey Seeker, weren’t you about to explain to me how ID is different from creation “science” . … ?
Ahhhhh, a journey of a thousand miles, begins with a single step.
Now … what ELSE have they lied about through the years?
Hey, ‘Seeker’, I have a question for you. Try and answer it honestly.
Which would you personally prefer:
(a) that the DI really has changed their position, and do not want ID taught in schools;
or (b) that their position is actually unchanged, and that they still do seek to advance the teaching of ID in schools.
I’m not asking you what you think their position is. I’m asking you, deep down, which position would you rather they had. Not their public stance, their real position.
maybe he’s a coprophagous coprophillic?
otoh, mayb he just innately realizes that the study of ID is best defined as scatology?
The obsession with excrement is a Teutonic thing. The Berkeley folklorist Alan Dundes wrote a splendid little book on scatology in German culture–Life is Like A Chicken Coop Ladder. Dundes died last year, a real loss since serious scholars with a sense of humor are thin on the ground.
oh, btw, nice job there KhaTzek. er, lots of ‘food for thought’.…
“Maybe it’s because someone brought up the topic of religion and began attacking religious people, which has something to do with religion.”
Maybe you should read the actual thread first, you dolt. Then you’d see that it was seeker who brought up the topic by claiming that atheists are less moral than religious people. Moses was challenging that assertion, and so far he’s provided a good deal more of evidence for his side than seeker has, or you.
Go fling your doo-doo somewhere else.
That “mynym” is one seriously weird dude!
Can you imagine your reaction if he (no female on the planet would write that way) expressed admiration and agreement with your own position about, well, ANYTHING?
To identify Mynym as a male (and a white male, at that) it is only necessary to point out that he is an IDer.
If you take a look at the photos of all the prominent IDers at Discovery Institute, you will see that they are all, without exception, white males.
The same is true of ICR and AIG’s creation ‘scientists’.
Ah So.… Lenny. So they are the lost tribe of the anti-feminists who can always rely on HIM upstairs if they can just prove HE is really THERE.And who can tell those beastly fembots to make babies and keep quite.
Yo, Seeker, I notice you totally refused to address a single point I made, except to call the moral issue of slavery in America a “red herring.”
If you’re really that uninterested in slavery as a moral issue, then your “morality” is crap, and you’re in no position to preach about the moral condition of ANYONE, atheist or not.
If you really want to establish some credibility here, perhaps you can explain how lying to other people’s kids about science protects morality in the US. Perhaps you can also answer another question you have so far ignored: are Christians who accept evolution and oppose ID less “moral” in any demonstrable way than those who support ID?
Arguing only with the atheists’ most pig-ignorant talking-points won’t get you anywhere.
Silly boy, Lincoln was a politician who, in his own writings and admissions, was clear that he could never let the cat out of the bag. But the everlasting fact is that Lincoln was Deist who was definitely NOT a Christian, did not believe in Jesus, and was, in our day and time, properly classified as a new age spiritualist, if anything.
I mean, use your brain. He’s in his 20’s and writes his work. He gets ADVICE to burn his work because he has political ambitions and he will NEVER GET ELECTED AS A DEIST/ATHEIST. So he HIDES his irreligiousness to a great degree and, on occasion, does the “God talk” because it works!
And you call me ignorant. What a joke.
Oh, mynym, you never managed to rebutt the Japan thing. What I posted wasn’t from some intellectual light-weights who just ramble on in the internet. Rather, I summarized some pretty broad-based work that was published in International Journal of Law and Psychiatry and was a combined survey/research article with all these references and addressed/criticized/incorporated/refuted their claims (many of which, BTW, I’ve read):
And, in agreement or not with the causality factors of the final conclusions, it’s the way SCIENCE works. Not the assertion-with-out-facts garbage you spew.
This is cool, you have to try it. I guessed 70727, and this game guessed it! See it here - http://www.funbrain.com/guess/
Update