Discovery Institute: Wells Spins Campbell Deception

[SeaLion]

No less an august personage than Rev. Moon acolyte Jonathan Wells has now penned a DI blog piece about DI Fellow and profressor of rhetoric John Angus Campbell's campaign for a spot on a local school board -- the topic of an earlier thread here on DC, Discovery Institute “fellow” lies in school board race

Wells' waffle is entitled Darwinist or Darwinian, They're One and the Same, but surprisingly, doesn't even mention Campbell (he wouldn't be embarrassed about something here, would he?), but instead spins some hilarious sophistry about the word "Darwinist".

The Seattle Weekly is one of those free newsprint advertisers that you find in bins on street corners in most major U. S. cities. Their editorial boards usually consist of people too far to the left even for the establishment media, and as sources of news they’re probably about as reliable as Minju Choson, the official organ of the Democratic People's Republic of [North] Korea. But homeless people make good use of them.

The August 29, 2007 issue of The Seattle Weekly features an article quoting Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). Despite its name, the NCSE is not about teaching science but indoctrinating students at public expense in Darwinism, the creation myth of modern secularism. Whenever critics of Darwinism raise their heads, the NCSE rushes in to bop ‘em, kind of like a carnival game. Except that when the NCSE bops someone on the head it usually means the end of that person’s career in science teaching.

Scott is quoted in The Seattle Weekly as saying that “a real follower of modern science would never call himself a ‘Darwinist’,” because “evolutionary biology has advanced way beyond Darwin's 19th-century tracts.” [1]

It’s true that the word “Darwinist” is seldom used by defenders of Darwin’s theory, though “never” is too strong a description.

...spin continues...

[PatrickHenry]

This is truly a new low, an astonishing accomplishment for an organization which has previously dominated the depths of intellectual discourse. Wells begins by trashing The Seattle Weekly, the newspaper that exposed Campbell's duplicity. Then he slings the ol' left-wing insult at them. For all I know, The Seattle Weekly may indeed be a leftie outfit. Alas, most journalists seem bent that way. But even so, their exposure of Campbell's deceit seems true, and we note that Wells -- for all his flim-flam -- doesn't dispute it. So even a leftie give-away flier has hit a home run, and Wells has nothing to say except: "Yeah but you're fat!"

Then, while "dismissing" the views of Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), Wells descends to the ultimate depths of irony. He says: "Despite its name, the NCSE is not about teaching science ..."

Look who's talking about names! Hey, Jonathan! Would you like to discuss all the "discoveries" made -- or even attempted -- by that queerly-named outfit you work for, the Discovery Institute?

[js1138]

I'm actually pretty tired of people futzing about the word "Darwinist."

Plenty of legitimate writers, including Dawkins, have referred to themelves as Darwinists.

[Carolina_Guitarman]

I'm actually pretty tired of people futzing about the word "Darwinist."

Plenty of legitimate writers, including Dawkins, have referred to themelves as Darwinists.

Kinda like macroevolution; it's a legitimate word used by evolutionary biologists and paleontologists. That it is deliberately misused by creationists doesn't alter that.

[Doctor Stochastic]

There's always, "lackey" or "running dog."

[js1138]

"Evolving Dog" sounds like a good name for a botique wine.

[MineralMan]

That is evocative. Here's another interesting wine name:

[dread]

...

The Seattle Weekly is one of those far left communist rags.
... But homeless people make good use of them.

Something to keep in mind John. Not even a Ph.D in Religious Studies will keep you off the street when no one is buying what you're selling.

The August 29, 2007 issue ... quoting Eugenie Scott. Despite its name, the NCSE is not about teaching science but indoctrinating students at public expense in Darwinism, the creation myth of modern secularism.

Yes Jonathan, you demand to teach your creation myth at public expense, although no one at the Discovery Institute is prepared to offer a syllabus, a learning plan, or willing to state the course objectives.
The reading list is, I'm sure, well settled; yet you don't care to publish that either. Why is that?

Whenever critics of Darwinism raise their heads, the NCSE rushes in to bop ‘em, kind of like a carnival game.

Whack-a-mole?

Except that when the NCSE bops someone on the head it usually means the end of that person’s career in science teaching.

As if they were actually teaching science instead of religious mumbo-jumbo ....

...spin continues...

It does indeed.

[MineralMan]

Or this, the favorite beverage of Darwinists, everywhere:

[The Sinister Minister]

...

The Seattle Weekly is one of those far left communist rags.
... But homeless people make good use of them.

Something to keep in mind John. Not even a Ph.D in Religious Studies will keep you off the street when no one is buying what you're selling.
[quote]

[Elmo Zoneball]

This is truly a new low, an astonishing accomplishment for an organization which has previously dominated the depths of intellectual discourse. Wells begins by trashing The Seattle Weekly, the newspaper that exposed Campbell's duplicity. Then he slings the ol' left-wing insult at them. For all I know, The Seattle Weekly may indeed be a leftie outfit. Alas, most journalists seem bent that way. But even so, their exposure of Campbell's deceit seems true, and we note that Wells -- for all his flim-flam -- doesn't dispute it. So even a leftie give-away flier has hit a home run, and Wells has nothing to say except: "Yeah but you're fat!"

Then, while "dismissing" the views of Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), Wells descends to the ultimate depths of irony. He says: "Despite its name, the NCSE is not about teaching science ..."

Look who's talking about names! Hey, Jonathan! Would you like to discuss all the "discoveries" made -- or even attempted -- by that queerly-named outfit you work for, the Discovery Institute?

They've apparently Discovered that becoming a political influence machine trumps anything they could ever possibly do in regard to science. The hiring of lawyers instead of science researchers, their fellows running for school board seats, and Wells writing attack screeds against the evil leftist leaning newspapers for exposing their mendacity all point to the utter capitulation of the UnDiscovery Institute on every point of science they ever tried, and failed, to argue.

The last refuge of a scoundrel is politics, and the UnDiscovery Institute is in dire need of refuge.

[Liberal Classic]

Wells should know better than to mention Korea.

[Liberal Classic]

This is rich:

The August 29, 2007 issue of The Seattle Weekly features an article quoting Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). Despite its name, the NCSE is not about teaching science but indoctrinating students at public expense in Darwinism, the creation myth of modern secularism.

...

Since logic is no longer a standard part of the curriculum, students might not notice that this is the time-worn fallacy of equivocation – changing the meaning of a term in the middle of an argument. Equivocation can make anything imply anything else. As a result, rational thought disappears.

So rather than learn Scott’s word games, biology students should begin by learning to distinguish “evolution” from “Darwinism” and “evolutionist” from “Darwinist.” Or “Darwinian” – it’s one and the same.

Now read this:

http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Wells/Wells-051013.htm

The Case For Intelligent Design In The Classroom

Jonathan Wells
October 13, 2005
Special to World Peace Herald

...

At the heart of the controversy is the theory of intelligent design (ID). What is it, and why is it stirring up so much trouble?

ID maintains that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than unguided natural processes.

...

So the controversy is scientific at one level, because it involves testing theories against the evidence. But at another level the controversy is also religious, because both Darwinism and ID can have implications for religion. It is this second level that provoked the ACLU to oppose ID in the Dover case.

Yet it makes no more sense to prohibit the teaching of ID because of its religious implications than to prohibit the teaching of Darwinism because of its anti-religious implications.

[js1138]

Not to beat a dead horse, but any statement made about the world will conflict with some religion or another.

[Ichneumon]

But at another level the controversy is also religious, because both Darwinism and ID can have implications for religion. It is this second level that provoked the ACLU to oppose ID in the Dover case.

Bullshit. (Sometimes it seems that Wells can't open his mouth without uttering a falsehood.)

The Dover case did not happen because "ID" has "implications for religion". It happened because the Dover school board was explicitly trying to promote their own religion in the public schools.

[SeaLion]

I'm actually pretty tired of people futzing about the word "Darwinist."

Plenty of legitimate writers, including Dawkins, have referred to themelves as Darwinists.

I think everyone here is missing the real gem in this piece. From the original newspaper article:

He also says that, despite his advocacy for bringing intelligent design into the classroom, he himself is a "Darwinist."

I mean, c'mon guys, woo hoo! And high five, BlackOps,

A Darwinist "mole" has infiltrated the Discovery Institute!

Remember, Campbell is a professor (of rhetoric), so there is no possibility whatsoever that his claim to be a "Darwinist" is anything other than the plain and unvarnished truth. I won't even countenance that this statement of his is not true; the thing is simply not possible.

And I think this statement should be brought up every time Campbell publishes anything on Darwin or biology.

So ease up on Campbell, folks -- he's one of ours!.

And can anyone blame him for being a bit coy about his Fellowship at the Discovery Institute? No wonder the guy is jumpy, it can't be easy being the only Darwinist at the Discovery Institute. I mean, just scroll back through a month's worth of the DI's blogs, and see how many times you find "Darwinist" equated with immorality.

Jeepers, I feel a whole new blog piece coming on....

[js1138]

A Darwinist "mole" has infiltrated the Discovery Institute!

Behe, even in his latest book, accepts common descent and an ancient earth.

Dembski has fallen back to something like AG's algorithm at inception. In other words, the ID movement is pretty much building its hidey-hole in the anthropic principle.

[dementon]

A Darwinist "mole" has infiltrated the Discovery Institute!

[Wyatt Earp]

For those not familiar with the Seattle Weekly, it is indeed a commie rag. It is so far to the left that it makes articles in the Washington Post look like right-wing-extremist propaganda by comparison.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Wells should know better than to mention Korea.

Now that he's Chosen to do so, perhaps his lunar connexions will be waxing in the media.

[JennyP]

For those not familiar with the Seattle Weekly, it is indeed a commie rag. It is so far to the left that it makes articles in the Washington Post look like right-wing-extremist propaganda by comparison.

In fairness to the Weekly, they're not as left as The Stranger.

Plus the Weekly has the hilarious Ask an Uptight Seattleite and Ask a Mexican.

[SeaLion]

The topic of this thread is the subject of a fresh article at the DC Blog: Discovery Institute: One of Our Darwinists is Missing!