OUR FAVORITE DISCOVEROID blogger, Casey Luskin, seems to have fallen off the edge of the flat earth. You have to read this thing he wrote to see what goes on at that “think” tank they call the Discovery Institute. Check it out: A Dialogue Concerning Intelligent Design. Here’s a brief sample:
Somewhere a dialogue is presently taking place concerning intelligent design, and it may be going something like this:
ID Proponent: DNA. Genetic code. Language. Commands. Information. Intelligent design.
Darwinist: Wedge.
ID Proponent: Cambrian Explosion. Pattern of Explosions. Cosmic Fine-Tuning. Intelligent design.
Darwinist: Wedge.
ID Proponent: Complexity of life. Irreducible complexity. Specified Complexity. Intelligent design.
Darwinist: Wedge.
Right, we all debate like that. By the way, that “Darwinist” response of “Wedge” is an entirely rational (if inarticulate) response. It refers, of course, to the Discoveroids’ malevolent Wedge strategy, which is the road map they hope to follow in the pursuit of their goal — the destruction of science and the institution of theocracy. The Wedge Document says:
Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.
At the same time Casey presents his “Darwinist” opponents saying “Wedge, Wedge, Wedge,” his part of this imaginary dialog consists of nothing but mindlessly recited codewords, not one of which is evidence against the theory of evolution, yet Casey believes that he’s rattling off a list of powerful profundities. Amazingly, Casey fantasizes that “DNA” is one of his responses. As we all know (well, all but Casey), DNA is a relatively new and separate field of evidence, undreamed of in the days when only the fossil record was available, and DNA supports Darwin’s theory.
As the fanciful dialog continues, Casey permits his “Darwinist” opponent to grunt additional responses, including these — which Casey doesn’t try to discuss — but we won’t let you down:
Kitzmiller. This refers, of course, to Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a splendidly reasoned and clearly written opinion which is a crushing defeat for Intelligent Design.
ID has no research. This is true.
NAS rejects. AAAS rejects. Yes, and a great many more: Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations.
“Steves” reject. Indeed they do: Project Steve.
ID = Creationism. That’s exactly what it is. This is thoroughly documented in the Kitzmiller case.
TalkOrigins Quote Mine Project. Ah, yes. Casey brushes this away, but it’s a gigantic catalog of creationist and ID dishonesty: The Quote Mine Project: Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines.
Who designed the designer? An excellent question. If ID is science, as its advocates constantly claim, then this question is one which is on the table.
Progress of science. Yes, we’re always learning. Unlike the Discoveroids.
God of the gaps. That’s a good one. As Einstein once said:
To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with the natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am persuaded that such behaviour on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress… .
– Albert Einstein, Science, Philosophy, and Religion (1941)
You’re ignorant, insane, and wicked. Well, let’s not go into that.
Casey concludes this mess as follows:
Note: This was intended as a parody only, although sadly it represents the many fallacious objections to ID raised by Darwinists. If anything, this parody underestimates the amount of name-calling and personal attacks that a Darwinist would have probably leveled (in this case, the Darwinist refrains from personal attacks until the very end.)
Actually, if someone finds himself in a conversation with a creationist (or Discoveroid), it makes perfect sense to respond as Casey suggests. Hey, Casey:
Wedge. Kitzmiller. ID has no research. NAS rejects. AAAS rejects. “Steves” reject. ID = Creationism. TalkOrigins Quote Mine Project. Who designed the designer? Progress of science. God of the gaps. You’re ignorant, insane, and wicked.
Copyright © 2008. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 