…and this is a 
Veeery interesting…
Category: Creationism
Posted on: April 17, 2007 3:52 PM, by PZ Myers
Zachary Moore had a casual conversation with a Discovery Institute staffer at one of their "Darwin vs. Design" conferences, and it sounds like said ID drone spoke a little bit too openly.
In fact, it was so friendly that as I was waiting in the auditorium lobby for the conference to start, I struck up a conversation with Todd Norquist, one of the Discovery Institute's employees in the Center for Science and Culture (the department that advocates for Intelligent Design). I asked him how many of these conferences were planned by the Discovery Institute, and he seemed hesitant, telling me that he didn't know if any more of them were going to be possible, since the costs were too high for the Institute to handle. He mentioned something about it costing $70,000, although I don't recall if that was the amount to produce the Dallas event alone, or if that was the current cost for the whole series thus far (the only previous event being in Knoxville). He complained that there had been virtually no money allocated for advertising, the sole contribution being $1000 paid to Scott Wilder for an "interview" of Stephen Meyer a week previously. He then told me (quite openly, also, which I thought was odd) that the financial situation of the Discovery Institute was grim, and that they were "bleeding money" and were "barely able to keep the lights on in Seattle."
Now that could be an example of pleading poverty as part of a pitch for more donations, or it could be a revealing peek at the DI's declining status after Dover. I suspect it's a real symptom of the slow collapse of the Discovery Institute — even if you were sympathetic to their aims, wouldn't you be reluctant to back a dog of a losing organization like the DI right now?
Comments
So, is this why they're having Sal making farting cartoons on the Internet rather than publish more of their worthless books recently?
Posted by: Stanton | April 17, 2007 4:10 PM
He then told me (quite openly, also, which I thought was odd) that the financial situation of the Discovery Institute was grim, and that they were "bleeding money" and were "barely able to keep the lights on in Seattle."
Zach Moore virtually signs his termination papers.
Nice. Ah well, all the better. Luskin can use the extra money to buy a special something for his "buddy" Sal.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | April 17, 2007 4:13 PM
Quick, everybody scrape together a few cents and send it to the Despicable Institute. Or else, PZ won't have any more stuff to ridicule.
Posted by: Scholar | April 17, 2007 4:13 PM
I got $.37 in my pocket, that I could throw their way. The entertainment value is worth about that to me. It's not often that you get people to make fools out of themselves in public that often.
It would be kinda cool also, to hire a Casey Luskin as a staffer, and tell him to take my Dawkins books back to the library and get me some more Darwin this time. He could also clean my boots and shoes, and other menial stuff like that. He DOES have an awful lot of experience in boot-licking, and that has to be worth something.
And if he behaves, and I am feeling expansive, then he wil not have to recite my Favorite Poem: "Casey Is A Whack", that ends, "Casey, weasel Casey, has struck out"
Posted by: J-Dog | April 17, 2007 4:14 PM
Better yet, lets all pray for them instead.
Posted by: Scholar | April 17, 2007 4:16 PM
"Or else, PZ won't have any more stuff to ridicule. "
HA!
Posted by: Rey Fox | April 17, 2007 4:22 PM
Could not happen to a more deserving (dis)organization.
Posted by: MikeM | April 17, 2007 4:24 PM
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | April 17, 2007 4:34 PM
On the DI website under the Darwin vs Design heading there's a little blurb asking for hosts for future conferences, including arranging funding. I thought that was strange since the DI is a PR machine and they sell tickets to the conference.
I doubt that Behe et al speak for free, but who knows? Travel expenses alone would run a few thousand dollars for the speakers. You'd think you could get four creationists to blab for two days for less than $30,000.
Hmmm, maybe there's gold in them thar intelligently designed hills!
Posted by: Doc Bill | April 17, 2007 4:36 PM
Is there any other evidence that the DI's status is declining?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 17, 2007 4:39 PM
The Discovery Institute should reconsider young Earth creationism; that's where the religious dollars go. But they can't, because they want to dance in the middle and pretend to be reasonable.
Posted by: MarcusA | April 17, 2007 4:41 PM
From looking at the DI's form 2005 form 990 (available at guidestar.org) it looks like they've managed to bring in only 2.7 million in 2005, whereas in 2004, they got some 3.9 million in contributions -- their first decline in contributions.
Posted by: silence | April 17, 2007 4:50 PM
Oh, I cannot wait for the day when the Discovery Institute is gone from existance.
Posted by: Callandor | April 17, 2007 4:53 PM
I'm afraid I have to take a pessimistic view of this; I also think it may well be a scare tactic to firghten fundies into giving them even more money.
In any case, as PZ has remarked before, Answers in Genesis is much bigger than these guys, and they are going strong.
Posted by: valhar2000 | April 17, 2007 4:58 PM
Hmmm, doesn't the DI also do other think-tanky things as well as ID? Perhaps it's the ID dept that is the only one making money? Maybe a spin-out is in order? Drop all those pesky transportation planning guys and concentrate on the real science!
Posted by: Alan | April 17, 2007 5:15 PM
Hey, am I the only one who still remembers how to complete that post title, ala Artie Johnson?
"...but schtupid!"
Posted by: CCP | April 17, 2007 5:42 PM
Told 'ya so. Kitzmiller v. Dover really was a very devastating case for the intelligent designers and the Discovery Institute in terms of their credibility. Behe is fortunate he got a contract for pubbing another edition of his book before the bottom dropped out of the market for it.
Answers In Genesis is not a treat to anything except the pocketbooks of the gullible either.
Posted by: David Wilford | April 17, 2007 5:42 PM
"barely able to keep the lights on in Seattle."
The lights have been on but nobody's home for quite some time.
Posted by: MartinC | April 17, 2007 5:43 PM
FWIW, the Answers in Genesis people have also seen a drop in contributions. It was 3.8 million in 2005, and 7.7 million in 2004. I'm not sure what triggered the drop -- it may have something to do with a change in fundraising activity rather than a change in peoples' willingness to give.
Posted by: silence | April 17, 2007 5:50 PM
FWIW, the Answers in Genesis people have also seen a drop in contributions.[etc.]
Perhaps something to do with the split between the US and international wings of the org? Are the older figures worldwide, and the newer ones US-only, or what? (ie. Is the drop real, or just a bookkeeping & reporting artefact?)
Posted by: Eamon Knight | April 17, 2007 5:59 PM
I briefly mentioned to Todd, while he was complaining about the lack of funding for the conference, AiG's financial largesse (at least inasmuch as they've received towards their new museum near my hometown), and suggested that the DI enter some kind of collaboration with them.
His face wrinkled up at the thought of it, and shook his head decidedly in the negative. I knew that the two groups didn't see eye to eye, but I didn't anticipate such a disgusted reaction to the prospect.
Posted by: Zachary Moore | April 17, 2007 6:09 PM
"barely able to keep the lights on in Seattle."
Have faith: Matthew 4:16. (the people living in darkness have seen a great light)
Matthew 4.17: and lo, it was in the office across the road, for they could pay their bills.
Posted by: Peter McGrath | April 17, 2007 6:09 PM
Is that Norquist as in Grover?
Posted by: tristero | April 17, 2007 6:34 PM
Since ID creationism has lost the battle. It needs to resurface in some new form to be able to take up the cause. Perhaps DI must go down too to accomplish that goal. We know it will be back somewhere sometime...
Posted by: George | April 17, 2007 6:39 PM
Eamon Knight: Without looking at financial information for the non-US portion of the organization (which I don't know where to find) I don't know.
Posted by: silence | April 17, 2007 6:43 PM
Poor Todd!
He's probably getting a spanking for talking to strangers.
As a theater major you'd think he'd be a VP of Discovery.
Yes, Kitzmiller put the kibosh on the DI, no two ways about it. They've dropped off in op-ed pieces and have fallen to such a low level that all they could hire is a brainiac spokesman to educate us on how ancient Greek physicians used intelligent design. Wrong city-state, DI, it was the Trojans who had the horse.
Posted by: Doc Bill | April 17, 2007 7:02 PM
But, if the Discovery Institute is gone, who will discover new things?
silence:
Actually, someone had their information wrong. There was an article about a 50% decline in AIG finances, but then it was discovered that the "2005" numbers only covered the first six months of the year. In fact, they had a slight increase in money over 2005.
Posted by: BC | April 17, 2007 7:29 PM
http://www.drzach.net/blog.htm
Has the next day article on the blog. Dr. Zach's evolution 101 podcast is fantastic.
Posted by: Tatarize | April 17, 2007 7:31 PM
I think that everyone should make a contribution. Something like two pennies, with the message "Here's my two cents worth ... GIVE UP"
Posted by: natural cynic | April 17, 2007 7:35 PM
Phhh. You've been "Street-theatred", PZ.
Posted by: Rich | April 17, 2007 7:37 PM
Me personally, I like the fact that he's admitting they pay for "interviews". Shame? Who needs it?
Posted by: Johnny Vector | April 17, 2007 7:38 PM
The bottom is the bottom line. As long as the IDers can sell books, they are in business, the far right wing of the right-wing book machine. It's no mistake Dembski helped Coulter with her fiction work.
The fact that they produce no science whatsoever despite huge talk to the contrary, will surely bring them down. After all, they can only repeat themselves. Then again, they've been doing so for decades, just by changing names...
Posted by: Science Avenger | April 17, 2007 7:45 PM
Tracy Hamilton at talk.origins had the funniest line about the DI having trouble keeping the lights on:
Posted by: John Pieret | April 17, 2007 8:26 PM
...
...
PZ, the day the DI closes its doors in Seattle, I swear I'll come to Minnesota and buy you and your missus a prime rib dinner. And I'm not saying that to keep my money, I'm saying "Yeah, baby! Let it be soon!"
I wanna celebrate the event, but it'll also give me an excuse to come there and meet you. :D
...
...
Posted by: Hank Fox | April 17, 2007 8:30 PM
Send them a copy of The Secret, in case they get really desperate.
Posted by: Ex-drone | April 17, 2007 8:34 PM
Slightly OT but as this is the current 'Creationism' thread, might as well drop the link here: a PLOS Editorial asks "Does Medicine without Evolution Make Sense?" Free access if you're interested.
Posted by: John Scanlon | April 17, 2007 10:26 PM
I noticed that after Kitzmiller v. Dover the ordinary news services began to make plain, positive statements about the fact of evolution without waffling about it.
Posted by: Monado | April 17, 2007 11:25 PM
No, not just that DI pays for "interviews," but that they pay the leading Christian talk jock in Dallas! You'd think Scott Wilder would do the interview to get at the truth, for the Glory of God, or something.
But no: Wilder does the interview for money.
I'll bet the atheists all know about Jesus driving the "moneychangers" from the temple. Funny that Wilder seems to have forgotten it.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | April 18, 2007 12:11 AM
Is it possible that the (Bill & Melinda) Gates Foundation have cut off -- or declined to renew -- their contributions to the DI transportation think tank?
Posted by: Gerry L | April 18, 2007 12:28 AM
I'd vote for the DI going broke. Reading Dembski's blog I wouldn't be surprised if these guys also charged the DI every time they talked at a conference, letting DI wear any loss as well as receiving some kind of retainer.
Posted by: Michael J | April 18, 2007 2:08 AM
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | April 18, 2007 2:18 AM
The Trojans had the horse because the Greeks built it and gave it to them. Is that what you meant?
(There was no horse, just a legend. But that's not important now.)
Posted by: xebecs | April 18, 2007 8:39 AM
Well, economical bankruptcy follows from intellectual bankruptcy.
And ironically it all started as moral bankruptcy.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | April 18, 2007 8:51 AM
Well, intelligent design certainly doesn't seem to be garnering much interest post-Kitzmiller.
Posted by: Mark H. | April 18, 2007 9:08 AM
I will be having a party when they die out, a block party, with booze for everyone.
Posted by: OptimusShr | April 18, 2007 11:18 AM
Except that they won't die out. They'll metamorphose into something new -- or at least, a new facade over the same old shit.
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 18, 2007 11:20 AM
All together now - "Hey, buddy, can you spare a DIme!"
Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | April 18, 2007 11:34 AM
Equipping a new science research lab is expensive--maybe they blew all their money on graduated cylinders and colored water.
Posted by: mark | April 18, 2007 1:17 PM
I've been "worrying" about this for the past year. Actually, I saw it in their faces last May when I met with them and showed them "the offending scenes" of my film, "Flock of Dodos." They were furious that the film portrays them as well funded (which they were, at least once upon a time). They even told me they were having a hard time, and the recent NY Times article about them told of all the foundations who were withdrawing support since the Dover train wreck.
My film also portrays them as shrewd and savvy communicators. Which I think they also were, once upon a time (they managed to score the cover of Time magazine at their pinnacle in August of 2005). But a couple months ago they put together their rinky-dink Hoax of Dodos website to attack the film, and then let Casey Luskin make his amateur acting nine minute video which I can't even get my friends to sit through. All of which now kind of annoys me as they are in fact doing damage to the credibility of my film simply by looking far less professional than I portrayed them. But what can I do. It seems they've become The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight.
Posted by: Randy Olson, Head Dodo | April 18, 2007 11:50 PM