I haven't used this heading in a while, but sometimes it just fits too perfectly. Over and over again we hear the Discovery Institute claim that they are not a religious organization, but a scientific one -- and how their pet idea 'Intelligent Design' isn't a religious proposition but a scientific theory. So here is yet another example of that being nothing more than a lie: "The Envelope Please: Doug Axe and Undeniable are World Magazine 2016 Science Book of the Year.". I caught it in a Facebook announcement from the DI:
Here's is what World Magazine is (My underlines for emphasis):
"World (often written in all-caps as WORLD) is a biweekly Christian news magazine, published in the United States by God's World Publications, a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization based in Asheville, North Carolina. World's declared perspective is one of Christian evangelical Protestantism." (Wikipedia: World Magazine)So while little klingy is busy polishing his little award, isn't it funny that he fails to provide the context one would need to understand the importance of this award. For example, there is a world of difference between an Oscar and the Humboldt International Film Festival (the oldest student-run film festival in the world).
Announcing that you won say "Best Picture" is fine, but when you say you won Best Picture at Humboldt -- if they even offer such an award -- would raise a shrug from just about anyone you know. However winning Best Picture at the Oscars means something totally different. I am not trying to compare World Magazine's award with either the Oscars or Humboldt, I was just trying to give you an idea of how context helps you understand the value of an award.
So what context is the 'Science Book' award klingy is so proud of? It might mean something if the award was from a science journal or even a scientific organization. But we can see that it's not, it is a 'science book' award given by an organization whose perspective is not science, but Christian evangelical Protestantism. It certainly places a different spin on it, doesn't it?
What I find the most amusing is how klingy forgets to mention it. I'm not surprised, klingy and the DI often forget to identify certainly things, particularly any connection with religion. It's a common theme. Here are a few other examples:
1. Remember the '700' list? You know the 'Dissent from Darwinism' petition the DI likes to bring up every now and again. In "Since the "700" keeps coming up . . ." we discussed how the DI misrepresented the credentials of those signatories, inflating their academic credentials and also forgetting to mention any connections with the Discovery Institute itself.
2. Back a while ago, in a post "So there is nothing religious about Intelligent Design? Part II" I discussed Heather Zeigler. One of my points was that the DI described her as:
"[NOTE: Today we welcome a new contributing writer to Evolution News & Views, Heather Zeiger. Ms. Zeiger graduated magna cum laude from the University of Texas at Dallas with a B.S. in chemistry and a minor in government and politics. She received her M.S. in chemistry, also from UTD; her research was in organic synthesis and materials.]"and yet forgot to mention all her credentials, like [the bold were the words they used, the rest they forgot to mention. I added the underlines for emphasis]:
"Heather Zeiger graduated magna cum laude from the University of Texas at Dallas with a B.S. in chemistry and a minor in government and politics. She received her M.S. in chemistry, also from UTD; her research was in organic synthesis and materials. She interned at Probe Ministries prior to graduate school and now serves with Probe as a Research Associate. Her interests involve science and culture issues, including bioethics, origins, and the environment. She is currently working on a M.A. in bioethics from Trinity International University. She is married to David, another former Probe intern and teacher at Trinity Christian Academy. "In other words, the DI decided to not mention that Heather is one who already drank their kool-aid and tried to pass her off as somewhat objective. Of course, when you look at her a little bit closer, you realize that she probably won't be particularly objective at all. I don't think they hired her for her objectivity.
3. A while back the DI discovered the power of polling, we discussed in "A New 'Poll' conducted by the DI says what the DI says, what a surprise!" The DI announced the results of a poll, yet they forget to tell you it was their poll and they worded the questions and twisted the results for their own purposes. In another poll they even forget to tell you what questions were asked ("Another poll from the Discovery Institute, oh boy, oh boy!"), they only presented their spin on the results. Their version of a poll is something like one kid asking another, "Have you stopped beating up your sister? Yes or No."
4. In "Klinghoffer lies by Omission" we discussed a new 'Biography' of Alfred Russel Wallace written by the Michael Flannery. In the piece, little davery klinghoffer described Flannery as:As you can see, this is one of their common tactics, forgetting to place various announcements into a context, which makes it sound like it is much more important than it really is. So a religious non-profit gives an award to a religious book written by one of the apologetics at the DI. You know World Magazine didn't even need to read the book. Remember the book announcement when it came out last year:
"Michael A. Flannery is Professor and Associate Director for Historical Collections at the Lister Hill Library of the Health Sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) and editor of Alfred Russel Wallace's Theory of Intelligent Evolution (2008)."For some reason little davey forgot to mention that Michael Flannery is also Fellow at the Discovery Institute. Now why in the world for davey not bother mentioning that little item? He says so many nice things about Flannery, but not once does he mention that he and Flannery are buddies who share the same political masters, the DI. Why would that be?
"Axe argues that the key to understanding our origin is the “design intuition”—the innate belief held by all humans that tasks we would need knowledge to accomplish can only be accomplished by someone who has that knowledge. For the ingenious task of inventing life, this knower can only be God." (Amazon listing)So you see, Axe does have one thing going for him, he does admit the identity of the 'designer', something the rest of those cowards at the DI refuse to do 'officially'. But other than that, he wrote a religious book that just won an award from a religious magazine. And klingy thinks it's a big deal . . . but hell, there's nothing religious about it, right?