One of our clandestine British operatives, whose code name is “Black watch,” informs us of something that is not being reported in the press. Ordinarily we’d be skeptical, but he’s never misled us before. A Scotsman wouldn’t spoof us, would he?
Our operative says that the entire city of Glasgow is wallowing in a strange and unprecedented torrent of human vomit which has flooded the subways and shut down all streets and airports. As yet there is no explanation for the ghastly deluge.
Meanwhile, we found some other Glasgow news at the blog of 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).
The Discoveroid article is titled Mike Behe Visits Glasgow. It’s a peculiar coincidence that Behe’s arrival is at the same time as Glasgow’s mass outbreak of nausea.
We previously reported on Behe’s UK tour in this post, Discovery Institute: Behe’s UK Creationism Crusade. That’s where you can go for background information on Behe and the outfit sponsoring his book tour.
In response to a Discoveroid statement that: “The tour will include lectures in Oxford, Cambridge, Glasgow, and London,” we said:
Don’t be misled by that. Behe won’t be lecturing on behalf of Oxford, Cambridge, etc. This is just a creationist book selling tour. … Presumably they’re using available space at those locations to conduct a series of revivals at which Behe can sell his wares.
But somehow, the Discoveroids continue to word their blog articles ambiguously, so that the prestige of hired premises will brush off on Behe’s creationist lectures. Here are some excerpts, with bold added by us, and with some of their links omitted:
Last night, I watched as Mike Behe presented a talk at Glasgow Caledonian University’s Carnegie Lecture Theatre. The lecture was titled, Darwin or Design – What Does the Science Really Say? The event was organized by the Centre for Intelligent Design UK [link omitted].
Glasgow Caledonian University, according to Wikipedia, is the recent “result of a merger between Glasgow Polytechnic and The Queen’s College, Glasgow.” Here’s a page at the University’s website titled Conferences & Events, where they offer information about pricing, room sizes, etc. for private groups that want to hire one of their lecture halls. In other words, dear reader, we’re rather confident that the Behe presentation wasn’t a University event.
Okay, what else does the Discoveroid blog say? Here you go:
The lecture theatre was filled almost to capacity (about 500 people). Behe was on form, presenting a powerful cumulative, yet accessible, case for design in biological systems. … If life gives the overpowering appearance of having been designed, argued Behe, then one is rationally justified in adhering to one’s intuitions unless and until a compelling reason is given to suggest that it the appearance of design is only apparent — that is, illusory.
That’s enough! We can’t continue without retching. Click over there to read the full description of the lecture, if you like. Here’s the end of the article:
All in all, an extremely successful event. ID, as an enterprise, is beginning to properly surface in the UK. This is just the beginning…
Perhaps so. In any event, we hope the suffering inhabitants of Glasgow will survive the mysterious tribulation that has curiously coincided with the Behe lecture.
Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
Meyer and Behe both push the wretched “overpowering appearance of design,” I suppose because it would be far too much effort to either define “appearance of design” or to supply any evidence for it. The trouble is, while “appearance of design” could be defined relatively easily, life would fail any meaningful test for such an “appearance.”
They never fail to win by tapping religious prejudices, however, and the “overwhelming appearance of design” is, well, designed to do just that.
The appearance of design argument is very strange when one thinks it through. To summarize; a biological organism, containing large amounts of “information”, designs something, then looking at what it designed, infers that because the thing it designed required information, the biological organism itself must have been designed. It is a circular argument.
One could, with absolutely equal validity, look at mechanical objects and infer that since they contain information, they must be biological in origin, since the most truly complex objects discovered to date are biological.
We observe the design process of mechanical things, and we observe the evolutionary process of biological organisms, and rational people conclude that information can be created both ways. Only the ID advocates seem unable to understand this fundamental truth.
Yes, and another way of saying it is that both biological and designed entities have their parts arranged in a way that allows them to function. Uh, yeah. Life, like, lives. I didn’t think that was at issue. Unsurprisingly, there are similarities between functional entities, as well, given that physics limits the number of efficient functions to a rather small number.
I like Granville Sewell’s take on entropy and life. He brings up entropy, and, since that immediately fails, he points out that microwaves and computers don’t just happen to be scattered about the landscape sans humans and their intelligent interventions. Yes, Granville, oddly enough, the only complex entities that we find scattered about the environment are those that have the requisite capabilities for evolution, such as reproduction and mutation.
Quite the coincidence, that. Yes. Some incredible intelligence is mucking around the universe, but as far as we can observe, it doesn’t make computers, microwaves, sculptures on mountains like Rushmore, or anything else that known intelligence makes. It only makes those evolvable beings, doesn’t supply them with any of the knowledge to which it is privy (unless you think genocidal instructions in the Bible, etc., count), and it oddly makes those evolvable beings with all of the blindness of evolution–look at Archaeopteryx, which indeed is no “halfway organism,” yet clearly is limited compared to modern birds because it has adapted only partway from its terrestrial dinosaurian ancestors.
The trouble for IDiots is that their magnificent intelligence never once bothered to make anything that couldn’t have evolved (well, they’ll claim the universe shows marks of design, but that’s obviously another gap). Just another of those whims of the Designer, apparently obsessed with the appearance, not of design, but of evolution.
Behe, however, can see right through the Designer’s pathetic attempts to make us think that life evolved, because he proves that it couldn’t have. By saying that life has “the overpowering appearance of having been designed.” So there.
A Scotsman wouldn’t spoof us, would he?
No true Scotsman would.
Aaarrrghhhh!!
“If life gives the overpowering appearance of having been designed, argued Behe, then one is rationally justified in adhering to one’s intuitions unless and until a compelling reason is given to suggest that it the appearance of design is only apparent — that is, illusory.”
The appearance of design is not apparent…not illusory? So design isn’t only an appearance because appearances are, by definition, apparent and illusory? Does he even speak English?
And 150 years of biological sciences pointing to evolution doesn’t count as a compelling reason, but his little crusade since the 90s does????? Where are his compelling reasons?
Whatever.
What use is design for ? Design sake ?
Evolution has a purpose. !
Survival. !
“If life gives the overpowering appearance of having been designed, argued Behe, then one is rationally justified in adhering to one’s intuitions…”
That’s tantamount to arguing:
“If the sun gives the overpowering appearance of revolving about the earth, then one is rationally justified in adhering to one’s intuitions…”
“If the earth gives the overpowering appearance of being flat, then one is rationally justified in adhering to one’s intuitions…”
etc., etc., etc. Can anyone think of some more good et ceteras?
LRA: I think the original quote from Behe may have had a set of parentheses in it, and they were omitted:
“If life gives the overpowering appearance of having been designed, argued Behe, then one is rationally justified in adhering to one’s intuitions unless and until a compelling reason is given to suggest that it (the appearance of design) is only apparent — that is, illusory.”
Not that his quote makes any sense anyway, but it seems to hold together better with the parentheses. Behe’s premise is still demonstrably false (see above).
retiredsciguy asks: “Can anyone think of some more good et ceteras?”
Sure: My fellow idiots, don’t worry about evidence. Let us surrender to our feelings!
Potassium channels. Geez Louise, there must be a billion of them.
That’s “design”?
Heh. Funny.