Discovery’s Crowther: Spaghetti Monster Gets More Attention than ID’s “Robust” Scientific Research Program

| 188 Comments | 2 TrackBacks

USA Today has a front-page article on the impact of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (March 27th, 2006). The article discusses Bobby Henderson’s exciting new book, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

fsm-book.jpg

Dan Vergano of USA TODAYwrites

But not everyone finds the FSM so amusing.

It’s too bad that they’ll get attention for this sort of drivel when we have a robust scientific research program that the media doesn’t seem to want to write much about,

Discovery Institute spokesman Robert Crowther said in an e-mail interview. The Seattle-based institute is the leading think tank for intelligent-design advocates.

I’m puzzled. It seems the main output of Discovery’s “robust scientific research program” has been books like Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box,” or Phillip Johnson’s “Darwin on Trial.” So, by publishing a book about His Noodly Appendage, isn’t Henderson performing research as robust as that of the Discovery Institute?

2 TrackBacks

Last month the big joke was three college kids torching 9 churches in Alabama. This month it’s making a mockery of the religion of 8 of 10 Americans. The bungling political ineptitude of the Darwin worshippers is just incredible. They’re... Read More

I learned from Dave Thomas post at Panda's Thumb about a story in USA Today regarding the impending release of a book entitled The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster from the FSM's creator, Bobby Henderson. The most interesting part Read More

188 Comments

I’d like to see Crowther - or anyone - show me where on the Discovery Institute website they describe this “robust scientific research program” they’re so proud of. I for one would be very interested in hearing about it.

Don’t be fooled by the cute humor, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is really Cthulhu!

And not only does the Discovery Insitute have a scientific research program, they’ve got practical results, like the math that led to Bill Dembski’s multi-level marketing scheme and the biology research that led to Behe’s penis lengthening pills.

the DI gets way more attention than they’ve earned, i don’t see what he’s bitching about.

From the article:

Mark Coppenger, a pastor who teaches at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville. “Besides, the parody is lame, and there are few things more encouraging than cheap shots from one’s opponents.”

I guess that’s why after all this time the “evilutionists” are still encouraged…

Actually, part of the parody is that the creationists don’t realize how spot on the satire really is.…(talk about lame.…)

Kevin Parker wrote

I’d like to see Crowther - or anyone - show me where on the Discovery Institute website they describe this “robust scientific research program” they’re so proud of. I for one would be very interested in hearing about it.

It’s being performed in the secret Disco Institute laboratories, buried deep under a mountain, by a platoon of lawyers and PR flacks disguised in white lab coats.

RBH

Kevin Parker Wrote:

I’d like to see Crowther - or anyone - show me where on the Discovery Institute website they describe this “robust scientific research program” they’re so proud of. I for one would be very interested in hearing about it.

They can’t tell you, because they have to protect their researchers from the inevitable persecution that would follow if the media reported on it.

Ah, the folks at Uncommon Descent have had their feelings hurt. It’s a mean world out there. But there’s reason for the mockery, and they’re the cause of if.

Traditionally in this country (the US) one’s religion was above criticism, mockery, or satirizing. But the minute a party projects their religious beliefs into politics as a basis for public policy, those beliefs are fair gaime for mockery. Don’t want your religious beliefs mocked? Then keep them in the privacy of your home or church, and all will happily let you belief whatever you want without comment.

By “robust” I can only assume that the Disco Inst is using more garlic. That would certainly be a step in the right direction.

Someone over on TO just posted this link to a Discovery Institute article in response to the Discovery Institute claim:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi[…]0-%20Science

The title of the article claims that these are articles that support the theory of intelligent design. The publication date is after the Dover court case. The two Discovery Institute fellows that testified in the Dover court case should be surprised by this list because they are named as authors of seversl of these papers. Surprised because they both testified under oath that there were no scientific papers supporting ID published at this time. So what are these papers supporting?

Look at the trackback..

Wah wah I’m davescot.. *throws toys out of pram*

When I’m not making idiotic generalizations, I’m replying to every post I see in BOLD because I have that high opinion of myself.

I love him for the comedy value.

Check out the Uncommon Descent trackback on this article:

“Last month the big joke was three college kids torching 9 churches in Alabama. This month it’s making a mockery of the religion of 8 of 10 Americans. The bungling political ineptitude of the Darwin worshippers is just incredible.”

Yeah, it’s those damn Darwinists who are somehow responsible for three students from a Christian-affiliated college burning down a bunch of churches. I guess it’s not any more nonsensical a claim than the Nazis being Darwin’s fault.

Oop, sorry about the redundancy. But DaveScot can be happy that at least three people are reading his site…

I’m sure Crowther has a ‘robust’ ID scientific research program around somewhere. It’s just as obvious to him as the identity of the designer the ID lot claim exists is.

we have a robust scientific research program

I wonder why they didn’t tell the judge in Dover about it?

–number of scientific papers published on ID — zero

–number of scientific articles published by Crowther, Dembski, or Nelson on … well … anything —- zero

Oh. I guess THAT’S why they didn’t tell the judge in Dover about it.

Hahahahahhahahha NOT Amusing attention getting drivel? hahhahahahhahahhaha

Why do they waste the best irony on themselves…is there such a thing as Martyrdom by self irony ?

Just wait until a lame parody of the Dis-intelligence Industry’s BIG IDEAS .…Idiocy Detector/ Incomprehensible Crapulence/ Come Spend Income arrives.

THEN they will complain Not everyone finds ID/IC/CSI so amusing. Its too bad they get attention for this sort of drivel when we have a robust scientific media research program that the media nobody? seems to want to write much about,

RBH wrote: “[research] being performed in the secret Disco Institute laboratories, buried deep under a mountain, by a platoon of lawyers and PR flacks disguised in white lab coats.”

Perhaps my suggestion for the SNRF was not far off the mark. If so, the DI would have the first functioning SNRF in the country.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Over on Crash Landng, er, Uncommon Descent - Davescot asks:

“Who all thinks this is quite humorous and will enjoy seeing much more of it?”

Dave, couple of points;

You’ve banned everyone who doesn’t agree with you, so it’s not a fair question.

By starting that post yourself you’ve left yourself no chance of giving a smug retort in bold, thus limiting your pleasure greatly.

Bruce Thompson

On your “Super Natural Research Facility”

Oh yeah of little FAITH (0)!!! hahahhahahaha

The US army spend squillions on just such a facility.

The Men who stare at Goats.

Crack mind readers were placed into a room so they could read the minds of their KGB counterparts.(giggle) Goats were de-bleated so they could be stared to death.(Gaffaw) An army of super soldiers were supposed to be trained to adopt a cloak of invisibility. (presumably after they had taken mescalin)

It just goes to show you don’t have to make up stupidity it just happens.

What’s all this “parody” nonsense? I had pasta last night. I tell you guys, this is real! My plate of pasta was worth more that all the ID research papers, more worth than all the time spend on ID research and more substantial than all the ID arguments put together. So, enough of the “parody” stuff already! Ramen!

Anyone knows where I can by humour? Some people on a certain other blog sure needs some. I am willing to donate.

…we have a robust scientific public relations research program…

Fixed.

I just want to point out how sexist you pastafarians are. How do you know it’s a “He”? I defy you to show me any trace of a male noodly appendage. ;-}

Touchstone Magazine interview

Paul Nelson, Discovery Institiute Center for Science and Culture Fellow Wrote:

Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory now, and that’s a real problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as “irreducible complexity” and “specified complexity” —- but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.

Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker

Charles L. Harper Jr. Wrote:

The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.

“They never came in,” said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.

“From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don’t come out very well in our world of scientific review,” he said.

KvD Decision Part 2

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Wrote:

As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.

**********

The evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications.

**********

On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: “There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.” Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe’s argument that certain complex molecular structures are “irreducibly complex.” In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing.

**********

After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science.

From DaveScot’s Trackback:

Last month the big joke was three college kids torching 9 churches in Alabama. This month it’s making a mockery of the religion of 8 of 10 Americans.

Hmmm, since the FSM is a parody of Intelligent Design, is he admitting that ID is just religion?

The trackback says it all:

Last month the big joke was three college kids torching 9 churches in Alabama. This month it’s making a mockery of the religion of 8 of 10 Americans.

What can you say to people who don’t even know the difference between felony arson and constitutionally protected speech? Do you really expect them to know the difference between a “robust scientific research program” and a privately bankrolled pud-pull?

They should remove the term “think” from “think tank” if they truly believe that supporters of science and evolution consider church arson a joke. I find that pretty offensive.

JAllen references the Templeton Foundation’s Charles Harper’s quote about actual ID research. I think if you’re an ID supporter, that quote has to make you swallow hard. The Templeton Foundation wants to merge science and religion, they want to find evidence for christianity, they wanted to give ID money to do reasearch, and the IDers couldn’t think of any. They can do press conferences, they can do debates, but they can’t do any actual scientific research.

Wait a minute– didn’t the Discovery Institute logo used to feature a parody (kind of) of a religious painting– God creating DNA (instead of man)? Why was it okay for DI, a purely scientific enterprise to be sure, to get away with that?

Advice to the DI and the religious right in general: If you mix your religion with your politics, you can’t expect your political opponents to separate them.

Flying Spaghetti Monster fish and Cthulhu fish are available on the net. You can also make tee shirt designs by printing onto t-shirt paper.

This is a science vs. religion blog.

No it’s not. It’s an ID vs everyone else blog.

As I’ve pointed out before, the ID fight is a POLITICAL fight. It’s all about political power, who gets to have it, and what they get to do with it.

It has virtually nothing to do with religion. It also has virtually nothing to do with science.

Perhaps that is why (1) nearly all the IDers claim to be doing science, and (2) over two-thirds of the people who oppose ID are religious.

This is a science vs. religion blog

only in the sense that you want to make it so, Carol.

ARe you telling me you really CAN’T find a better forum to vent your issues in??

wow.

I don’t need to insult your intelligence if so, Carol, you do just fine all by yourself.

No sooner do I appear in a thread and a lively debate ensues

only in your own mind.

in reality, what mostly ensues are catcalls.

any lively debate based on your ideas died months ago.

you haven’t posted anything new since you arrived.

Carol Clouser.

I answered your question. You did not respond. What conclusions should I draw from that?

Stephen,

My previous post #94404 is my response. You have not responded to that response of mine.

Emba Wrote:

The correct title is Jewish Book World, as confirmed by the Library of Congress and Amazon.com. It is published three times a year by the Jewish Book Council.

I know. I pointed it out because Carol claims to be an ‘editor’. She also makes numerous errors of detail, including spelling, incorrect names, etc. (not to mention the outright lies, obfuscations, distortions, illogic, and ignorance that characterize her posts).

Posted by Carol Clouser on April 6, 2006 12:21 PM (e)

Stephen,

My previous post #94404 is my response. You have not responded to that response of mine.

But I did. In 94870.

Posted by Stephen Elliott on April 5, 2006 11:03 AM (e)

Posted by Carol Clouser on April 4, 2006 05:00 PM (e)

What did I say to deserve these questions? …

This Carol.

Posted by Carol Clouser on April 4, 2006 01:48 PM (e)

Stephen,

I am saying that the so called Old Testament, which contains some 613 commandments, is a document that was intended for Jews, was written by Jews, and the lion’s share of it is clearly addressed to Jews, and they are in fact the only people observing those commandments today. The Jews also are the only people speaking the Bible’s tounge as a first language, had scholars studying the Bible for the longest and most ancient times. It is to be expected therefore that it is among them, especially the Taludists, that the greatest expertise on Biblical interpretation is to be found.

jonboy:

the Big Gang theory is not the dominant conception of the universe

The great thing about this blog is the new stuff you learn every day. For example, I sure didn’t know that there was a Gang Bang Theory of the conception of the universe.

Would that be anything like the Multiple Designers Theory?

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Dave Thomas published on March 27, 2006 7:46 PM.

Scientists Find Skull of Human Ancestor was the previous entry in this blog.

“Evolution 101” - Understanding evolution for the layperson in Kansas is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter