Their latest post (by “Jonathan M.”) is Once Again, Why Intelligent Design Is Not a “God-of-the-Gaps” Argument. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us and their links omitted:
The “god-of-the-gaps” objection to intelligent design is one that we have addressed numerous times at ENV and elsewhere (most recently, here).
They link to an article by Casey, about which we posted Casey Luskin and the God of the Gaps. We didn’t leave much to be said, but now the Discoveroids are back, claiming that their “theory” really isn’t that kind of fallacious argument at all. They don’t say anything this time around that Casey didn’t before, but for some reason they think that repetition makes their wretched denials more effective. It doesn’t.
The writer describes a friend’s blog post claiming that intelligent design is as much a god of the gaps argument as the old claim that Thor was responsible for thunder and lightning. That offends the Discoveroid, who says:
This comparison fails on so many levels one barely knows where to begin. It is very difficult to envision how someone could offer an inferential design argument based on the occurrence of thunder and lightning. On the other hand, it is not at all difficult to imagine how one could offer such an argument based upon the digital information encoded in the DNA molecule and the intricate nanotechnology that is so abundant in living systems.
Do you see any difference between thunder and DNA? We don’t. They’re both excuses for invoking Oogity Boogity. Well, one is now hopelessly outdated, while the other hasn’t yet given up to join its relatives like the sun and the rain in the retirement home for obsolete miracles. But the Discoveroids try to show that there really is a difference:
Indeed, a key selling point of Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection was that it served as a designer substitute. It could produce the appearance of design without the need for intelligent activity. Even Richard Dawkins, at the beginning of The Blind Watchmaker, asserts that “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” No natural explanation for thunder and lightning has ever claimed to offer a designer substitute.
Huh? Well, ancient priests didn’t explicitly attribute thunder and lightning to an intelligent designer, but that’s a trivial matter. Everyone knows who the Discoveroids’ designer is. We haven’t researched them all, but it’s likely that every ancient religion has an Oogity Boogity explanation for thunder and lightning. The bible clearly attributes those phenomena to Yahweh. Check out these passages (King James version, of course):
When he made a decree for the rain, and a way for the lightning of the thunder (Job 28:26)
He directeth it under the whole heaven, and his lightning unto the ends of the earth. (Job 37:3)
Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go and say unto thee, Here we are? (Job 38:35)
The voice of thy thunder was in the heaven: the lightnings lightened the world: the earth trembled and shook. (Psalm 77:18)
Not satisfied to make one bad argument, the Discoveroids then make another:
The analogy offered by my friend also confuses observational and historical science. Thunder and lightening are a phenomenon that we can readily observe, repeatedly in real time. … The origin and evolution of life, on the other hand, are historical events and therefore (since they cannot be directly observed) require a different sort of reasoning process, an inference-based methodology.
Lordy, lordy. That’s creation science’s bogus distinction, which we’ve debunked numerous times (see ICR Says Scientists Don’t Understand Science). But it’s amusing to see the Discoveroids returning to their intellectual roots when they’re desperate. Let’s read on:
Another important problem with my friend’s comparison is that ID does NOT invoke a supernatural force to explain biological phenomena.
Yes it does, and everyone knows it. The only reason they refuse to officially name Yahweh as the designer is that they still hope to fool the courts into thinking that their enterprise is secular and thus jamming it into public schools somehow doesn’t violate the separation of church and state. We continue:
Contrary to [the blogger's] assertion, ID is not “a particular attempt to synthesize modern science and Christian faith.”
Ah, but it is! That’s made explicit in their Wedge Document. Here’s a copy of it from the website of the National Center for Science Education: The Wedge Document. There’s also an informative article in Wikipedia: Wedge strategy. The Wedge Document states in its “Five Year Strategic Plan Summary” that the intelligent design movement’s goal is to replace science as currently practiced with “theistic and Christian science.” Clear enough?
The author goes on for several more paragraphs, but all he does is restate the same arguments that Casey made in the earlier Discoveroid post which we discussed. There’s nothing new here, folks. Well, what’s “new” is the confirmation that the Discoveroids are sticking with their argument, and claiming that it’s not fallacious when it obviously is. But that’s not new — it’s just creationism.
Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.