IDiots can't read.

Posted 11 October 2009 by Richard B. Hoppe

This is discussed in an earlier comment thread but I thought I'd promote it. The Disco 'Tute is in a swivet over the California Science Center's cancellation of a showing of Darwin's Dilemma, the latest excretion of Illustrata Media, producer of the late unlamented Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (at the Disco 'Tute). Disco Dancer Robert Crowther, of course, attributes the cancellation to the machinations of the Loyal Order of Dogmatic Darwin Conspirators. However, Doc Bill of antievolution.org has the story. In its glee about the showing, the 'Tuters issued a press release that strongly implied that the Science Center and Smithsonian are somehow involved in the film's premiere. Now, there may be some question about whether the press release actually violated the Science Center's contract with the ostensible sponsor of the showing, the American Freedom Alliance -- IANAL, and don't know the connection, if any, between AFA and the Disco 'Tute. However, the first sentence of the Disco 'Tute's press release says

The debate over Darwin will come to California on October 25th, when the Smithsonian Institution's west coast affiliate premieres Darwin's Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record, a new intelligent design film which challenges Darwinian evolution.

That plainly says it's the Smithsonian that's doing the premiering. And that's flatly false. It's the institutional version of inflationary credentialism, one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience. Note that the press release also identifies Stephen Meyer as a scientist, more inflationary credentialism. Hat tip to Abbie.

9 Comments

Mitchell Kent · 11 October 2009

It may help to be reminded of the Dover Pa, ruling on Di where a conservative Bush appointed Federal Judge called the DI people dishonest and guilt of perjury. He also ruled that DI is a religious belief and had no part of Science education. PBS has a documentary on the trial that is worth watching.

MikeTheInfidel · 11 October 2009

It really is worth watching, Kent. I actually laughed out loud at the ineptitude of the IDiot side of the trial.

For those who haven't seen it - watch Intelligent Design on Trial. It's a fascinating look at a court case that was more like what you'd see on a TV drama than anything else.

MikeTheInfidel · 11 October 2009

MikeTheInfidel said: Kent

Uhh... Mitchell. Sorry.

Mike Elzinga · 11 October 2009

I think we can add another characteristic of pseudo-science. Practitioners of pseudo-science get really miffed when they are spurned by celebrity or institutions of high importance.

Getting taken down by a “nobody” really has to hurt. When they are shot full of holes by a “nobody” (which most “nobodies” can do), not only do they still look like idiots, they can’t even get any "celebrity" to rub off on them. Unfortunately for IDiots, most of the scientific community is made up of “nobodies" who don't care for celebrity.

It is no wonder IDiots get so upset when famous people and institutions turn them down; they have to mix with those damned “nobodies.”

Poor schmucks; can’t get any respect!

Bob O'H · 12 October 2009

That plainly says it’s the Smithsonian that’s doing the premiering.

No, but it looks like it. The nounal phrase is Smithsonian Institution’s west coast affiliate, and the noun in there is affiliate, so it's only an affiliate to the SI that is being written about. OTOH, the way it's written, you see Smithsonian Institute, and that's the connection you make. It's certainly deceptive, but I don't think it's strictly false.

ravilyn sanders · 12 October 2009

Bob O'H said:
That plainly says it’s the Smithsonian that’s doing the premiering.
No, but it looks like it. The nounal phrase is Smithsonian Institution’s west coast affiliate, and the noun in there is affiliate, so it's only an affiliate to the SI that is being written about.

Even when people parse it correctly and understand the subject is the affiliate not Smithsonian, they would think the word means a subsidiary, a subordinate. Thus the distinction is unimportant and it is the Smithsonian that is sponsoring the screening. The writer has very cleverly used Smithsonian in the possessive case to emphasize the subordinate nature of the "affiliate". Further by not naming the affiliate the writer has minimized the independent nature of CSC. All to create the impression that Smithsonian sponsored the talk. Wow! Talk about science envy! It shows the level to which Smithsonian and other science establishments have earned their reputation even among the creationists. As they continue to bad mouth all science establishments as co-conspirators, more and more moderates and youngsters who go to college and see outside the bubble leave the fold. Just like evaporation makes oceans more and more saline as time goes by, the pools of creationists is getting to be more and more concentrated. The Creationist predatori that feed on the Creationist vulgaris also adapt to the higher concentrations. That probably explains why the likes of Dembski, Wells, Meyers are so corrupt.

Reed A. Cartwright · 12 October 2009

In their press release, the DI claimed to be organizing these subversive showings of the film: "Regional premieres of the film are being organized by
Discovery Institute . . .". So I suspect that they might have been involved enough to be violating the contract.

jswise · 16 October 2009

Thanks for introducing me to the word "swivet."

Ed Darrell · 31 October 2009

No, but it looks like it. The nounal phrase is Smithsonian Institution’s west coast affiliate, and the noun in there is affiliate, so it’s only an affiliate to the SI that is being written about. OTOH, the way it’s written, you see Smithsonian Institute, and that’s the connection you make. It’s certainly deceptive, but I don’t think it’s strictly false.

It's not even the affiliate of the Smithsonian that is "premiering" the movie. I think the press release makes a claim that most copy editors would recognize as one that should be checked out -- and one that could produce a libel suit if published as is. It's a tribute to the California Science Center that they only cancelled the showing, and have not sued. It would be an interesting suit: What is the value of accurate science, versus a religiously-tainted pseudo version? And who would get to collect the damages?