The fun never ends with the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute‘s creationist public relations and lobbying operation, the Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids, a/k/a the cdesign proponentsists).
Today they’re taking an article in Nature, Frontier experiments: Tough science, and using it to claim a place for their “theory” of intelligent design at the frontier of science. Their article is Intelligent Design at the Frontier of Astrobiology and Biophysics. Their theory has never been anything more than the pre-scientific watchmaker argument, but now, suddenly, they’re at the frontier.
The Discoveroids somehow selected two of the ideas discussed in the Nature article and claim that they — the creationists of Seattle — have something relevant to say. The first issue where they claim a presence is the problem of spotting life on extra-solar planets. The Nature article explains the difficulties, and the Discoveroids say they’re right on top of things. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:
Undoubtedly, some evolutionists would consider the detection of alien life, even slime, a triumph for Darwinism. They would leap to the conclusion — actually, they long ago leaped to the conclusion — that we are no longer “special” or unique. That inference is empty; it rests on Darwinian assumptions that only evolution can produce life. Intelligent Design makes no claim that life on Earth is unique.
Really? What about all their past praise for the Discoveroid-authored book, The Privileged Planet? Apparently that’s no longer operative. It never was, really. “We have always been at war with Eastasia.” Don’t recognize that quote? Unless you master Orwellian apologetics, you’ll never understand the Discoveroids. You’ll find that quote right here. The Discoveroid article continues:
If every star had an Earth-like planet teeming with life, would that be a problem for ID? Absolutely not. … The argument for design does not rest on the number of trials, but on the existence of specified complexity.
Ooooooooh — specified complexity! Let’s read on:
If the European discovery of human inhabitants in the New World didn’t defeat the argument for design, then neither will the discovery of inhabitants on New Worlds. To date, though, the non-detection of alien life amplifies the design inference.
Isn’t that sweet? Life everywhere, no problem for ID. No life anywhere but on Earth, that’s solid evidence for ID. It’s grand when your theory can have it both ways. That’s how you know you’ve got a winner.
The next issue the Discoveroid frontiersmen borrow from the Nature article is that of molecular chirality, commonly described as left- and right-handed molecules. DNA is usually left-handed, a phenomenon not yet explained. However, as the Discoveroid article assures us: “Today’s ID advocates can say it matches the requirements for specified complexity.“
Ooooooooh — specified complexity again! Then they say:
Barring a “new physics” able to account for homochirality by undirected physical causes, ID advocates can and should continue to point to the phenomenon as an example of specified complexity best explained by intelligent design.
That’s a great example of the God of the gaps — a strikingly unpersuasive theological argument. And this is from the Discoveroids’ concluding paragraph:
A more unbiased scientific world would naturally give ID the edge for these two frontier experiments. ID should be the default position till demonstrated otherwise.
So there you are, at the frontier of science, where there are unanswered questions and hard work to be done. The Discoveroids aren’t doing any of the work, of course, but they’re claiming that until real scientists get the job done, the magical designer is the answer.
Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Curmy – related blog – Coyne shreds an ID paper published in the Baylor School of Medicine journal: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/intelligent-design-paper-in-a-medical-journal/
Douglas E says: “Curmy – related blog – Coyne shreds an ID paper published in the Baylor School of Medicine journal”
Yeah, I saw the Discoveroid article, and I almost blogged about it. The “peer-reviewed” article cites only creationist authors. Then I looked at the Baylor journal, and their editorial board is almost all MDs. I assume they’re a bunch of proctologists. Sad situation.
With reference the Baylor article, it’s notable that the journal included a commentary critical of it, on the page immediately following it.
My thought is that if the journal really thought the article was bad, it should not have published it in the first place.
“ID should be the default position till demonstrated otherwise.”
Wrong.
The Pink Four-Horned Bivalved Blatherbonger in my closet who sneezed Seattle into existence is the default position till demonstrated otherwise,
Sheesh.
Intelligent Design makes no claim that life on Earth is unique.
FINALLY they figured out that “ID proves that no life will ever be discovered anywhere” is a stupid position.
Barring a “new physics” able to account for homochirality by undirected physical causes, ID advocates can and should continue to point to the phenomenon as an example of specified complexity best explained by intelligent design.
You don’t need “new physics” to explain homochirality any more than you need “new physics” to explain the QWERTY keyboard or mint-flavroed toothpaste. Everyone uses the QWERTY keyboard because it got a large market share early, we’re all used to it and it’s too much trouble to change. All toothpaste is mint-flavored because we’re used to it and don’t accept other flavors, they don’t taste like toothpaste. And life processes use one chirality of molecule for the same reason: one type got an advantage early.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homochirality
Thanks, SC, for one of the funniest Discoveroid articles in a while. Of course no author is listed.
The actual Nature story linked to by the Discoveroids has this quote at the beginning:
Does this sound like the work of any ID advocate anyone has ever heard of? Do the armchair apologists at the Discovery Institute actually believe that they are doing work even remotely related to the research described in the Nature article? Or, even that they are doing work at all?
The Discoveroids write a silly statement that ID will be compatible with any discovery of life elsewhere. So what? ID is compatible with any finding whatsoever in any science. Goddidit is a universal answer. The Nature article did not even address the subject; it was focused on the devilishly difficult problem of detecting elements in the atmosphere of a small planet orbiting a distant star, and the work that will be required to do so. (insert here a plug for the 30-meter telescope to be built on Mauna Kea http://www.tmt.org/)
The Discoveroids get even sillier with their claim that the observed “left-handed” chirality is somehow support for ID. Why is that? Are they suggesting the designer was left handed? In biological chemistry it makes perfect sense that molecules would have a consistent, inherited, handedness – after all, they reproduce copies of themselves. Perhaps evolution weeded out the early organisms with opposite chirality. Identifying a feature of nature and stating that it is an indicator of design is not science at all, it’s just an opinion. The Nature article describes what real scientists are doing to investigate the phenomenon. Perhaps the Discoveroids could tell us what experiments they are conducting to prove or disprove their opinion. (The opinion doesn’t rise to the level of hypothesis, since it has no explanatory power nor does it suggest a means of testing its validity)
Ed – your last two sentences are a fine summary of the deficiency of ID. I am always amazed at how on the one hand they state that they need not say anything about the designer or how he/she/it works and yet in religious circles say that the designer is obviously Yahweh. Credit BioLogos for being totally upfront in stating who they believe is the evolutionary creationist, whereas the DI had to develop a clandestine wedge strategy.
“ID should be the default position till demonstrated otherwise.”
But it can never be sufficiently demonstrated otherwise to its advocates as long as they continue with magical thinking that opens up gaps as fast as science closes them, and don’t see that a default position that is unfalsifiable is not science.
Gabriel Hanna: I use the cinnamon flavored toothpaste myself. I like it BECAUSE it doesn’t taste like toothpaste.
@att: I never considered that toothpaste would have any flavor but mint until a friend from India was trying to find one, who eventually had to get an Indian version of Colgate. In grade school I read a book called “The Toothpaste Millionaire” about a kid who got rich with flavored toothpaste; but flavors other than mint seem never to have caught on in the US.
It’s no surprise that I&D are the first two letter of the word idiot. Magical thinking is a developmental stage that people go through. Apparently a good chunk of the population never actually gets past this stage.
As to Douglas E’s comment above and the folks peer reviewing for the Baylor Med school… MD’s do not receive training in evolutionary biology. They are no more qualified from a professional standpoint to criticize evolutionary theory than are engineers. I know b/c I am one, and the standard curriculum includes a lot of biology, anatomy, physiology, but not evolutionary biology. I’ve personally developed a keen interest in the subject and done much independent research including having taken classes in evolutionary biology, but the degree itself is meaningless in this regard.
The ancient Greeks had it both ways first. Don’t know which philosopher this is attributed to, but it goes to the question of infinity.
So an adventurer goes out to seek the boundary of the universe. If he never gets to a boundary wall, the universe is infinite.
If he comes to a boundary wall he throws a spear at it. If the spear goes thru the wall, then the wall is not a boundary and the universe is infinite.
If the spear bounces back off the wall, then the wall is truly a boundary. But the wall is only separating his side of the universe from the other side of the universe, meaning the universe is infinite.
It’s a much more heroic idea than the simple “it’s elephants all the way down” dogma.
Re: Toothpaste.
The original flavor of Crest was wintergreen, which technically is not mint. Crest is now available in a plethora of flavors, formulations, and sizes; probably because it’s a time-tested way to get more shelf space in the supermarket.
Anyone else remember McLean’s toothpaste? It actually had chloroform as an ingredient. Weird-tasting stuff, that McLean’s. Then there was Ipana. We used it in our family when I was a kid, and I can still conjure up its taste, but I couldn’t tell you the flavor. It wasn’t mint, however. Maybe that’s why it’s no longer on the market.
So what does all this have to do with the subject of this blog? Well, marketing is survival of the fittest, you know.