The Paranoid IDolators
The actual course of her claims are almost impossible to decipher, but seems to run something like this:
"Materialism" is bad. "Darwinism" is bad, because it's "materialist." Liberals are really bad, because they like "Darwinism" and are therefore supporters of "materialism." Newspapers are really, really bad because they are "liberal" and promote "Darwinism," which means they promote "materialism." The MSM is going down because Denyse O'Leary and the conservative commentariat are breathing down its neck. ID is about to win because…
I don't know. It's a stream of consciousness rant, only slightly more coherent than Mel Gibson's presentation on the complexities of Middle Eastern politics to the Malibu Sheriff's department. The bizarrest claim is this:
most American Christians/theists/karmics/perennial philosophy types have unintentionally but fully accommodated to materialism. The Christians isolate a little tiny bit of reality called “the Word of God,” or “Scripture,” and announced that it and it alone is divinely inspired … Of course, if there is anything to ID, all of nature must be top down, as George Gilder proposes, not bottom up. In other words, either mind is at the top or matter is. Or, as physicist James Jeans put it, the universe is either a great thought or a great machine (he plumped for the former). So, to accommodate top down thinking, many people who are not hostile to ID must reorient to the whole of reality.This is comparable to a classic Even Steph/ven sketch from the Daily Show in which Stephen Colbert explained "It's not my logic, it's God's logic, as written in the Bible, every word of which is true, and we know every word is true because the Bible says that the Bible is true, and if you remember from earlier in this sentence, every word of the Bible is true. Now, are you following me here, or are you some mindless zealot."
O'Leary is convinced that ID is true. Not just that, but everyone secretly knows it. And so they are forced to reconfigure reality in order to accommodate a claim they've unconsciously absorbed. It isn't even worth considering what happens "if there is [no]thing to ID." That we don't then have to randomly wipe various parts of science out of school curricula and textbooks.
Speaking of which, I join Drs. Myers and Lynch in wondering where about a recent claim that "Discovery actually funds a great deal of primary research." This research should be trumpeted from rooftops, if indeed it exists and produces results. Then someone could write a textbook based on that research, and teach it in science classes. And the DI could stop having to explain how there really is all this research but they can't tell anyone about it just yet, on accounta it being so s3krit an' all.