my humble little blog is found by the discovery institute

By Alison Campbell 04/03/2011

Well, colour me startled! It seems that some of the things I said in a recent blog post & its associated comments thread have attracted the attention of the Discovery Institute. They don’t appear to be particularly happy with me. I don’t think that I’ve ever been called “dishonest” and “a liar” before, had my teaching methods impugned, or been described as stifling free speech and academic freedom. I must have reached the big time!

But seriously. As one commenter has noted on that thread (& on his own blog), the writer of the DI piece seems to have merely skimmed the original piece – how else could he have missed my comment that discussion of ‘intelligent design’ would be quite appropriate in a class on the philosophy & nature of science, for example? He does, however, show a certain ability in quote-mining.

And the supreme (and hilarious) irony: to be accused of trampling on students’ rights to free speech  by someone who does not allow comments on his own blog.


PS a colleague has noted that I must be more influential than he realised – after all, the DI post cites me as justification for legislative change in the USA (heading me off at the pass in case I ever decide to emigrate)!

0 Responses to “my humble little blog is found by the discovery institute”

  • Hi Alison

    Well done on your very thorough debate with the ID proponents on your blog. Luskin seems like an obnoxious person to me. I can’t belive his site is called Evolution News and Views. Wouldn’t anti-evolution be more appropriate?
    Using ID to explain biology is like using a stork to explain reproduction!

  • Thanks, Michael. I do think that Mr Luskin doth protest too much. After all, the fact that he must descend to personal attacks & invective suggests that the actual ‘evidence’ in support of his case is weak (well, non-existent).

  • It is amusing that the only ‘evidence’ that Casey presents that you’re wrong (wrong, WRONG! I tell you!) is a bunch of stuff that he himself wrote (either on the Disco ‘Tute site, or other fringe publications). His view of the debate would appear to be ‘I said it, I believe it, that settles it’ (and he is deeply wounded at your failure to pay homage to the Collected Works of Casey Luskin Esq.).

    Being attacked by Casey Luskin is generally considered (in anti-creationist circles) to be somewhat on the level of being mauled by a toothless geriatric chihuahua — with the only meaningful result being unintentional comedy.

    • hrafn – the ‘attack chihuahua metaphor had crossed my mind as well. (My poodle could do a better job!)

  • Congrats on hitting the big time. It reminds me of the first time I received a death threat from a fundamentalist who objected to my referring to evolutionary theory as “true”.

    You’ve pointed out of the key honesty indicators on the web. People who are pushing lies and who can’t stand up to an argument rarely allow comments. Or, if they do, they ruthlessly filter.

    Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis don’t allow comments. And Age of Autism (vaccines are evil) allows about 1 in 10 comments to see the light of day.

    Compare that to pretty much all science blogs where comments are welcome (though some comments may not receive a warm welcome from other commenters).

  • Self imposed IDiocy. It makes me mad. And sad I suppose, but more mad.

    It’s pretty rich that a bunch of clowns with no evidence what so ever feel they can attack somebody who’s business is studying and evaluating scientific evidence.

    Also, congrats (I think…) for getting cited in proposed US legislation; you must have made an impression with the religionuts!