<p>...Of Intelligent Design Behind Wall of Denial( US News and World Report Feb 12th, 2009, written by: Casey Luskin<br />Darwin Believers Hide Fears of Intelligent Design Behind a Wall of Denial and Ridicule<br />February 12, 2009 12:09 PM ET | Casey Luskin | Permanent Link | Print</p><p>Guest blogger Casey Luskin is cofounder of the Intelligent Design & Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center and program officer in public policy and legal affairs at the Discovery Institute in Seattle .</p><p>Most Darwinists involved in the public debate today have one, and only one goal: To stifle free debate on this subject and thereby discourage you, the public, from scrutinizing the scientific evidence for yourself.</p><p>Over the years, Darwinists have evolved a variety of strategies to accomplish these goals. We see each of these strategies in play in the op-eds and comments by Darwinists in this present forum on U.S. News and World Report. I'll discuss how my opponents on this forum use the strategies of (1) Ridicule, Demonization, and Character Assassination; (2) Equating Darwin-Skeptics with Religion; (3) Persecute Darwin-Skeptics; and (4) Pretend There Is No Scientific Controversy Over Evolution in order to try to dissuade you, the reader, from thinking for yourself on this subject.</p><p>Strategy 1: Ridicule, Demonization, and Character Assassination<br />Darwinists have adopted a discourse of demonization where they try to attack their opponents as dishonest, deceitful, or even worse—uncool and medieval! We should be suspicious of this tactic because Darwinists practice character assassination against nearly every single leading member of the ID movement, and I am no exception to that rule.</p><p>The comments on this forum have characterized my work as "pathetic," saying I work for the "Deception Institute," calling me an "IDiot," charging that I "display a total disregard for the truth," and claiming that my arguments that "sound good to the ignorant." (So if you believe anything I say, then don't worry, you're in good company for you too must be "ignorant.") One commenter said the following about me:</p><p>"Another ID wack-job trying to discredit evolution! You are out of touch with reality. Eventually, nut-jobs like you and your enablers will be weeded out by natural selection. Good Riddance!"</p><p>Another person replied by saying, "You have the freedom to remain ignorant and superstitious (and are doin' a nice job)."</p><p>One person even suggested that my viewpoint does not deserve to be printed, and wrote that: "it's surprising that even the editors of USN&WR did no background check on" me. This provides a nice buttress for my argument that Darwinists are trying to stifle debate on evolution. But at least these Darwinists are showing U.S. News & World Report readers exactly happens to you when you stand up and simply support academic freedom for scientists to support intelligent design.</p><p>Clearly, people with the evidence on their side do not feel the need to demonize their opponents in order to prevent the public from listening to the other viewpoint. So let me make myself clear: I'm not complaining about the treatment I've received, I'm just trying to show readers how Darwinists behave. The goal of such Darwinist namecalling, of course is to convince you that Darwin-skeptics shouldn't be listened to because we're evil, and to intimidate you from speaking out in support of ID, lest you become subject to the same ridicule. In the end, their tactic of demonization and character assassination is just another way they stifle free speech in this debate.</p><p>Unfortunately, this namecalling is not limited to the commenters, and in fact it is encouraged and modeled by my respectable opponents Richard Katskee and Robert Pennock.</p><p>Richard Katskee is well-practiced at the art of character assassination against ID proponents. In an article in the American Bar Association's journal after the Kitzmiller ruling was released in 2005, he was quoted saying that it is only "the lunatic fringe" of scientists who challenge neo-Darwinian evolution. The message sent, of course, is that if you are a scientist who doubts Darwin, you better not express your views or you'll be regard as a member of the "lunatic fringe."</p><p>In an article published in First Amendment Law Review in 2007, Katskee went even further, charging that those who do not oppose intelligent design "have been deceived" and are "succumbing to the basic deceit at the heart of intelligent design." He uses language to ridicule ID as uncool and evil, calling it a "Humpty-Dumptyesque linguistic project" which is "creationism in a cheap tuxedo" and "disingenuou[s]." Mr. Katskee engages in complex ridicule, asserting that "viewed from a sufficient distance, and with eyelids half closing in technospeak-induced slumber, even a cheap tuxedo can look almost elegant—at least to those of us without the training or discernment to distinguish cashmere from polyester blend."</p><p>We should ignore this type of empty rhetoric that is patently designed to intimidate dissenters.</p><p>In his latest article here at U.S. News & World Report, Katskee makes the don't do it because it isn't what the popular kids are doing argument that if we allow students to question evolution or learn about ID, then we'll be ridiculed as an "international laughingstock." I'm sure that he'd be more than happy to fling much of that mud to incite the "international laughingstock" ridicule himself.</p><p>Again, the message is clear: If you support ID you're evil, and if you decide to speak out in support of ID, you'll be called all kinds of nasty names. These are intimidation tactics, pure and simple.</p><p>Robert Pennock behaves in much the same fashion. In 2006, I observed that the University of California at San Diego ("UCSD," my alma mater) was requiring all freshman students to attend a lecture by Pennock attacking ID. I had no particular problem with that, apart from the fact that this was an imbalanced lecture series and no pro-ID speaker was invited for a similarly mandatory lecture. Pennock responded to my protests by writing a UCSD dean, attacking me as deceptive:</p><p>"The article on the Discovery Institute website about my talk (actually prior to my talk) is standard propaganda from these guys and filled with their usual deceptions and factual mistakes." (emphasis added)</p><p>In his recent op-ed here with U.S. News & World Report, Pennock likewise attempts to equate ID with creationism (more on this below) and tries to demonize ID proponents by stating that "Creationism, in whatever guise it has taken to get into the schools, has proven itself to be fundamentally deceptive."</p><p>Again, we see the use of demonization and character assassination to prevent people from scrutinizing the evidence for themselves.</p><p>( read more from link provided, unles

Like the fools on this board who think they've won a debate by saying "I laugh at you!"

Have you seen Ben Stein's EXPELLED? Our family went to BIOLA U. to hear Mr. Stein speak about the film. It is amazing the attacks on anyone in acadamia who wants to even bring up ID as a possibility. This is really very much like the discussion on Global Warming/Climate Change. "You're wrong, so shut up!" "Okay Galileo, go to your room and stay there!" No difference as far as I can see. Aristotle got it wrong about the earth being the center of the universe, and we've been going downhill ever since.

I personally am an old world creationist. I believe God got it all started, and has been playing with it ever since. This drives my wife, with a Masters in Apologetics from BIOLA, crazy. What gets in the way of this idea is the idea that God made it all at once in the beginning, and so nothing could have evolved. Yes, I even believe in a Big Bang, created by God. Hey, if we're going to believe that everything came out of nothing, anything is possible - even God.

What Darwinists are afraid of is being relegated back to a place of disdain where they have to fight to be heard. They're in the driver's seat, and don't want to give it up.

"Aristotle got it wrong about the earth being the center of the universe, and we've been going downhill ever since."

Downhill in what way, exactly?

And are you going to tell me with a straight face that Global Warming is agenda-driven junk science and Intelligent Design is not? If so, you lose any credibility here.

Happy 200th birthday, Charlie and thank you!!

Your intro is like a block of black ink and almost impossible to read; I quit after two sentences. Suggest you break it up into paragraphs and help the reader(s) to course along your topic. Very discouraging; it's an endeavor.

soulfulstrut pronounced:

"And are you going to tell me with a straight face that Global Warming is agenda-driven junk science and Intelligent Design is not? If so, you lose any credibility here."

I do? And I thought I was doing so well. Thank you for telling me that you have proclaimed my opinion invalid. I will immediately change my mind and go along with the lemmings here. Or were you referring by "...you lose any credibility here," to what you are reading on your computer screen? If so, I apologize for causing you pain.

Please carry on strutting.

Try clicking "message truncated" or "view full message"...the computer is a very intelligent design. May help your vision of the box and the words so eloquently designed...over billions of years within the box...or maybe the box with the words within it have not quite evolved to HTML staus despite the computer still being designed by a designer albiet not as beautifully done like the DNA strand...what came first DNA...or RNA?

I was just told in my physics class( yes sometimes were nerds speak) that the theory of realitvity would...could make Aristotles claim the Earth is the Center of the universe real....as mass/time/space is all relative if you piointed to a star and said, "Yup, that's the center of the universe" accordingly you and Aristotle are correct.

So who is to say an intelligent designer said before even the dilation of time, the speed of light slowing, or time as even a function, 'BOTH of you are right, and I love you equally,.......some theorem. neh, darwin is so much more relaxing to the mind because we can just let it all go, who cares? Dust to dust and all that rot...don't want to mess up the little dust bunnies as they decay in such a random way....