Discoveroids Try To Rebut God of the Gaps

Once again our entertainment comes from the Discovery Institute — which indicates the total absence of actual creationist news in the world. Anyway, the latest gem at their creationist blog is titled Watch: The Multiverse Is Some Scientists’ “God of the Gaps”. It was written by Klinghoffer. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

The “God of the gaps” label is a favorite with critics of intelligent design.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! It’s a “favorite” only in the sense that it’s a fallacy used all the time by creationists, so those of us on the science side of the debate often mention that it’s being used again. Anyway, Klinghoffer says:

It’s a fallacy, of course, since ID theory appeals not to what we don’t know but to what we do know about how creative and intelligent agents operate.

Amazing, isn’t it? More than amazing, it’s revolting. Let’s get serious here. Wikipedia’s article on God of the gaps says:

“God of the gaps” is a theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God’s existence.

God of the gaps is one of the principal arguments of creationists, and we point this out all the time. That bothers them, and sometimes they deny what they are so obviously doing. A good example is this from several years ago: Klinghoffer: “We Don’t Use God of the Gaps”. If you need any incentive to read it, we used Discoveroid logic to explain the origin of the female breast. But we apologize for the digression. Returning to the topic of the day, Klinghoffer tells us:

But it’s not the case that debates about ID are free of appeals to a “Gaps” deity. Philosopher and scientist Kirk Durston identifies “Science’s ‘god’ of the gaps”:

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Yes, it’s the folks on the science side of the debate who use a god of the gaps. Klinghoffer continues:

By “science” he means a rigid, question-begging notion of scientific thinking. [Huh?] As biologist Eugene Koonin put it, “By showing that highly complex systems, actually, can emerge by chance and, moreover are inevitable, if extremely rare, in the universe, the present model sidesteps the issues of irreducibility and leaves no room whatsoever for intelligent design.”

Fortunately there’s just a little bit left to the Discoveroid post. Here it comes:

This brand of scientific ideology requires a “God of the gaps” — Koonin’s “present model” — to explain away mysteries like the origin of life. And it finds its God, as Durston explains, in the form of the multiverse.

The multiverse? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! And that, boys and girls, is how you rebut claims that your “science” of intelligent design relies on the god of the gaps. Oh, we almost forgot — there’s some kind of video you can watch at the Discoveroid post, titled Science’s ‘god’ of the gaps.. Watch it at your own risk.

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

Was Carl Sagan an Ignoramus?

You’ll be amazed by what we found at the creationist website of the Discovery Institute. It’s titled Before Carl Sagan Said It, Science Debunked It, and the thing has no author’s by-line. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

On a new episode of ID the Future [Ooooooooooooh! A Discoveroid podcast!], Privileged Planet co-author Jay W. Richards sits down with host Eric Anderson to discuss the gold rush of extrasolar planet discovery and how the Privileged Planet hypothesis [Hee hee!] has held up since 2004.

We’ll jump in to give you a bit of background. As many of you already know, Jay W. Richards, a Discoveroid senior fellow, along with Guillermo Gonzalez, or “Gonzo” as we call him, co-authored the classic creationist book, The Privileged Planet, a “fine tuning” argument applied to Earth. Richards was a former faculty member at Biola University, a bible college, where he taught apologetics.

Okay, back to the Discoveroids. They say:

Richards teases an anniversary edition of The Privileged Planet in the works [That’s exciting!], and he and Anderson discuss the statement that Carl Sagan is perhaps most famous for.

You know what statement they’re talking about. It was in the introduction to every episode of Sagan’s Cosmos series: “The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be.” What does Richards have to say about it? The Discoveroid post tells us:

Richards explains how science had already disproven the famous Sagan claim [What?] by the time the astronomer first uttered it to millions of viewers in his documentary series Cosmos.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! What else is there besides the cosmos? Maybe Cosmos Number Two? Perhaps the firmament? Maybe the cave where the Intelligent Designer lives? Are we missing anything?

Oh, we almost forgot — the Discoveroids’ post ends with this:

Download the podcast or listen to it here. [Link omitted!]

Okay, dear reader, you know what you’ve gotta do. Listen to the Discoveroids’ podcast, then come on back to let us know why Sagan was a fool!

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

A New Book Explains the Absurdity of Darwinism

This might be the most thrilling news we’ve ever written about, and we found it at the creationist blog of the Discovery Institute. It’s titled In a New Book, Longtime Agnostic Dumps Darwin. The Discoveroid post was written by Jonathan Witt, described at the end as “Executive Editor of Discovery Institute Press and a senior fellow and senior project manager with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.” Impressive, huh? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Neil Thomas was a steadfast Darwinist, until an unexpected event. [What happened?] “I had something of an epiphany in a nightmare that Darwinism could not be true,” he said. “I decided to read around a bit to see if this subconscious flash of insight could be true, and my research (which was diligent) confirmed the theory to be absurd.”

He had “an epiphany in a nightmare”? We need to know more! The quote continues:

“I realized I had been conned,” he said. “I felt there was something dishonest about the huge claims made by Darwinism compared with the negligible evidence to support the thesis.”

This is amazing! We need to know more. Jonathan Witt, Executive Editor of Discovery Institute Press, tells us:

He was so alarmed by this conclusion that he felt impelled to write a book as a sort of warning call to humanity: “Beware! You have been fooled!” That book has just been released by Discovery Institute Press [Ooooooooooooh! The Discoveroids’ own in-house publisher!]: Taking Leave of Darwin: A Longtime Agnostic Discovers the Case for Design..

The Discoveroids link to the book at their own book store, but we hunted for it at Amazon — and we found it! It’s only $14.96 in paperback, and for that you get 166 pages. Amazing! And yes, there’s a “look inside” feature. It seems that there’s only one review so far, but it gives the book five stars. Whoopie!

Okay, back to the Discoveroids’ blog. They say:

Critics of intelligent design will have a hard time maligning Thomas as a “creationist in a cheap tuxedo.” He isn’t religious and is a longtime member of the British Rationalist Association, a group known for religious skepticism. [Impressive!] The book traces the evolution debate across millennia [Huh?], with Darwin and Darwinism emphasized as a crucial pivot point in the story. The author details key objections raised early on against Darwin’s theory and shows that those objections have been explained away, but never really rebutted.

Wowie — objections to Darwin’s theory were never rebutted! Our professors lied to us! The Discoveroid post quotes the brilliant author:

“One of the things I taught for decades was the language of Nazi propaganda (Dr. Goebbels et al.) and also the political brainwashing via the German language used by the apparatchiks of the old German Democratic Republic. This was most useful in assessing the special pleading and loaded phrases used by such as Richard Dawkins.”

Are you throwing up yet, dear reader? No problem. The Discoveroid post ends with one more quote from the brilliant author, and this is guaranteed to do it:

“The way Darwinism has been hijacked to attack religion is disgraceful, especially when on purely scientific grounds religion seems more logical than Darwinism,” he said. “Nothing comes of nothing after all, and there is no effect without a cause. The mindless automatism postulated for Darwinism on the other hand smacks of nothing so much as magical thinking.”

Okay, dear reader, now now here’s your assignment for the week. Buy the book, read it carefully, then get back here and tell us about the experience. We’ll be waiting!

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

If Behe Were King of Science

You may recall that several years ago — way back in 2009 — we presented our coveted Buffoon Award to the Intelligent designer for the truly incompetent job he did in designing us — see Buffoon Award Winner — The Intelligent Designer.

What brought that long-ago post to mind is something that was just posted at the creationist blog of the Discovery Institute, titled Michael Behe: What About “Bad” Designs in Biology? And Other Questions. It’s very brief and it has no author’s by-line. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

On a new episode of ID the Future [Ooooooooooooh! A Discoveroid podcast!], ID biologist Michael Behe continues fielding tough questions from philosophers Pat Flynn and Jim Madden.

We wrote about the first of those last week — see Behe’s Best Argument for Intelligent Design. Behe was drooling over the theology of Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274). What else does he have for us? The Discoveroids say:

Here in Part 3 of 3 [Egad, we missed the second podcast in the series!], Behe responds to the claim that some designs in biology are bad designs and to criticisms leveled at ID from some Thomists.

What does Behe say about the claim that some biological designs are bad? We may never know, because the Discoveroid post don’t tell us! Ah well, let’s see what they do say:

Also in the mix, the issue of academic pressure to distance oneself from ID, even before those involved understand what the theory of intelligent design actually is.

Academic pressure? Behe’s probably thinking about the attitude of his colleagues at Lehigh University, who for years have had a statement at the university’s website declaring their revulsion for intelligent design — see Department Position on Evolution and “Intelligent Design.

The Discoveroids continue:

Madden [one of the philosophers on the podcast] asks Behe what reforms he’d pursue if he suddenly found himself in charge of the National Academy of Sciences.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! What would it be — death to all Darwinists? Alas, we’re not told. There’s just a little bit more to the Discoveroids’ post. Here it is:

Listen in to hear Behe’s response, and much more. Download the podcast or listen to it here. [Link omitted!]

Well, dear reader? You know you can’t resist watching those Discoveroid things, so go ahead. Then get back here and tell us all about it.

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.