Discovery Institute — Recycled Foolishness

HE’S DONE IT AGAIN. Our favorite Discoveroid, Casey Luskin, employed as a full-time blogger for the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, has written this gem: Do Car Engineers Turn to Darwinian Evolution or Intelligent Design? Excerpt:

We’re often told that Darwinism is like a scientific magic bullet that can solve anything. Darwinists love to quote Theodosius Dobzhansky saying, “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” We’re also told that intelligent design threatens to destroy science. Nonetheless, I can’t help but notice that when engineers design technology to be sold to the public, they prefer to tell them about processes of intelligent design over unguided selection and random mutation.

There’s a pic that eventually gets posted in all debate forums. It shows a man slapping his forehead and saying something like: “Aw jeez, not this stuff again!” If that weren’t such a cliche we’d post it here.

The point being made in Casey’s Discoveroid blog article is so old and so bad that it’s one of those on a list (a very long list) published at the excellent Talk.Origins website, here: Index to Creationist Claims. The insight that Casey imagines is so brilliant is discussed generally here: CI130. Functional integration indicates design, and more specifically here: CI131. Every machine’s origin, where determinable, is by intelligent agency.

The fact that Casey’s argument has long been listed — and rebutted! — in a well-known collection of creationist idiocies is a powerful clue that Casey hasn’t the beginning of an understanding about the science he’s trying to undermine.

Hey, Casey! Here’s an idea for your next brilliant article: Why are there still monkeys?

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

2 responses to “Discovery Institute — Recycled Foolishness

  1. thyrsis1971

    I was also struck by this bit of nonsense from Luskin and mentioned it in my own little entry, albeit from a slightly different angle, here. It’s the sort of thing that, repeated often enough, is going to give ID a bad name with anyone who functions in the real world (hopefully not as much a diminishing number as it appears).

    I was appalled and slightly shamed, though, to find that I’d gotten to it the day after you, though. Oh well, if we’re doing Newspeak, then “After Is Before”!

  2. Gee, I hadn’t heard that “Darwinism…can solve anything” before. My education is obviously sadly lacking. Have they finally found the better mousetrap?