Intelligent Design Theory in Action

You may have heard of the BRAIN Initiative, a/k/a “Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies,” which Wikipedia describes as: “a proposed collaborative research initiative announced by the Obama administration on April 2, 2013, with the goal of mapping the activity of every neuron in the human brain.”

The Americans are going to spend $300 million per year on this, and there’s also a companion project in Europe: The Human Brain Project. This is just beginning, but Nature has a recent article about some early work: Whole human brain mapped in 3D.

Not invited to participate, but not wanting to be left out of the action, the Discovery Institute is offering their own contribution, which is posted at their creationist blog: Project Brain: Our Prediction.

Oooooooh! The Discoveroids already have a prediction — that’s amazing! But then, with the special insight they have because of their “theory” of intelligent design, we would expect them to be years ahead of everyone else. Those guys really know things!

We’ll skip almost all of their article and get right to their prediction, which is in the final paragraph. It’s a real humdinger, so we’ll break it into two parts (it’s more exciting that way), and we’ll insert a few [Curmudgeonly comments] here and there, just to show that we care. Okay, here it comes:

Our prediction? Simply this. Much as in the case of the human genome, the study of the physical makeup of the brain will provide remarkable insight into its components and structure. [Duh!] However it will also unlock layers upon layers of complexity. [Double duh!]

Don’t get impatient. We’ve saved the best for last:

In uncovering the mysteries behind neuroactivity and brain-based diseases, we will find that the brain is far too integrated and functionally complex to be a product of Darwinian evolution. [Wow -- we never saw that coming!] Instead, it will be shown to display the hallmarks of intelligent design. [BWAHAHAHAHAHA!]

Supernatural conclusion first, data later — if ever. Who needs data when you’ve already got The Truth? That’s the creationists’ scientific method. Nice going, Discoveroids!

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

18 responses to “Intelligent Design Theory in Action

  1. I was going to say that if such evidence were found, it would have no bearing on the research being done. But it’s obvious the idiots have no idea what they’ve read or heard about this and are unable to say anything coherent about it.

    They make me feel like Wiley Coyote, Supergenius!

  2. The mind-brain duality is critical to the ID creationists. It explains why they let the egnorant Egnor run amok on their site a few years ago.

    ID creationism depends on (cue woo) Mind (end woo) directing active agents to do mysterious things at mysterious times.

    Little Stephie Meyer’s book is hinged on the theory that “people make things, therefore Mind makes people.” He writes exactly that in the last chapter of his pathetic, lying little book.

    When, not if, consciousness is understood well enough to demonstrate it as an emergent property of physical activities then ID creationism is finished. Again. Of course, it will find something else to hitch its horse to but we can wait with baited breath.

    Yep, little Stephie Meyer writes that how the mind controls actions through the brain is just as mysterious as how the Mind controlled tweaking critters in the Precambrian, 500 million years ago, to ultimately create us (except, nudge, nudge, he didn’t stop tweaking and he’s still tweaking, that hard working old Intelligent Designer, blessed be he.)

  3. “Supernatural conclusion first, data later — if ever.”

    If you ever pen a book on all this (and i hope you do) that should be the title.

  4. I will also predict that we will find the brain remarkably complex.

    If we did this same project with a number of other animals from sponges to apes, we could probably piece together a series of increasing complexity from no nervous system at all (sponges) to simple worms and so on up to apes and humans. The examples of varying complexity would serve to illustrate plausible intermediate stages in the evolution of our brain. Somewhat like the existence of eyes at all levels of sensitivity and complexity amongst modern animals.

    Come to think of it, their argument is the very same one they used to make concerning the eye. They have no basis for their opinion other than their own incredulity.

  5. The fools can say anything they want as long as they don’t get any money for uttering such nonsense. Obviously, too, they can’t contribute in any way to research being done as the don’t know how to do research.

  6. Ed says: “we could probably piece together a series of increasing complexity from no nervous system at all (sponges) to simple worms and so on up to apes and humans. The examples of varying complexity would serve to illustrate plausible intermediate stages in the evolution of our brain.”

    Precisely. On the other hand, if no other species had anything like a brain, then it would be difficult to explain why we have such a thing. But we are not interstellar castaways on this planet, with nothing even remotely related to us.

  7. Doc Bill,
    since you have apparently read Meyer’s Necronomicon, I was wondering if you could comment on Meyer’s fake Cambrian plot, which is reproduced very small, at low res, by Nick at PT here. Meyer’s fake Cambrian plot is so fake I find it hard to believe it’s in his book. Can you vouch that that’s really in the book?

    A 2001 version of the plot is reproduced here and apparently not changed in 12 years.

    I have been trying to stimulate discussion about the fake plot at PT in a comment here.

  8. docbill1351

    Yes, the fake plot is in the book in spades. Meyer ignores all evidence contrary to his thesis that evolution didn’t occur. He quote mines Valentine into implying that Precambrian fossils didn’t exist, when, in fact, what Valentine writes is that the proliferation of mud burrowing worms “ate up” the Edicarian’s food and probably drove them extinct, but were responsible for the change in the ocean sediment that enabled fossilization in the Cambrian to occur. Meyer made it seem that fossilization conditions were “perfect” but, alas, since there were no animals to fossilize, none did.

    Total lie.

    Meyer ignores the Small Shelly Fauna altogether. Worse, he ignores 30 million years of evolution prior to the Burgess Shale which is his main talking point. Granted, the Burgess Shale represents a literal snapshot of Cambrian life, but it clearly does not represent the poofing into existence of that life as Meyer asserts.

    Meyer lies, lies, lies throughout the book and hides his references to boot. He makes it difficult, though not impossible, to trace his lies to the source which say the opposite, of course.

    Finally, at the end of the book, Meyer offers NO theory of ID. Surprise, surprise … NOT! As for mechanism of ID Meyer states, it’s unknown. At that point his book becomes a zombie and like World War Z lurches to a conclusion or sorts.

    To quote John Kwok, Meyer is a mendacious intellectual pornographer in that he deliberately distorts science and facts and his output has no redeeming social value. Meyer is, in the words of Dawkins, a disgrace to the human species.

  9. docbill1351

    Rant aside, yes that diagram is in the book. Figure 2.7 or something, I didn’t look it up at this time. The caption reads along the lines of: Darwin’s theory predicts a smooth tree (left) unlike the actual fossil evidence (right) implying that the fossil evidence contradicts evolution. It’s one of the many, many intellectually dishonest distortions of science and fact that Meyer cobbles together.

    If there were laws against this sort of thing then Meyer and Hovind would be roommates.

  10. Mark Joseph

    I hope the Brain project isn’t using a Discoveroid brain for their research; if so, then all of their predictions will be proved false–no insight, no complexity, no design.

  11. Since the Discoveroids know all the answers, we should end the project and just wait for their data! On second thoughts their predictions are no brainers. Every rational person knows at least this much, that mapping anything allows insights into the components of a thing.

  12. Our Curmudgeon writes:

    we are not interstellar castaways on this planet

    Speak for yourself, monkey man!

    My father, Jor-El, sent me here shortly before my home world of Krypton was destroyed….

  13. If thinking is done by the mind, not by the brain, what is the point of having a complex brain?

  14. TomS asks

    If thinking is done by the mind, not by the brain, what is the point of having a complex brain?

    That’s a great question for the Cdesign Proponentists–but don’t hold your breath awaiting an answer from that mindless crowd in whom brains are vestigial organs.

  15. Megalonyx says
    [..]from that mindless crowd in whom brains are vestigial organs.
    What a fitting description of the IDiots

  16. Shouldn’t the title of this column be Intelligent Design Theory Inaction.
    Just say’n.

  17. Doc Bill,
    Yes, the fake plot is in the book in spades.

    Thanks for looking that up. Does Meyer cite it to any source? Over at the PT thread, somebody dug up a 2004 article by Luskin at the IDEA Center “blog” that cites Luskin’s fake Cambrian plot to, off all people:

    Niles Eldredge, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism (1982), pg. 65-66.

    Yeah, Eldredge the evolutionist.

    I find it very hard to believe that Luskin got the data for his fake plot from Eldredge. But does anybody have The Monkey Business and can check out pp. 65-66 to see if it has a Luskin/Meyer type fake Cambrian plot?

    BTW, Doc Bill, how did you get a copy of Meyer’s book? A digital copy, perhaps? Obtained by a means you can’t go into detail about, perhaps?

  18. Techreseller

    Sorry to be the dictionary police. Doc Bill, bated breath, not baited breath. Unless you are walking around with either worms or small fish in your mouth. We have to keep all our communications above the level of the creotards.