Everyone knows the identity of the mysterious, magical intelligent designer promoted by 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 Discoveroids gave away their whole game in their nefarious wedge strategy, which declares that their goal is to “reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.” The full text can be read here: The Wedge Document. It also says:
Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. … [T]he 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.
The Discoveroids desperately hope that by publicly refusing to identify their designer, their mumbo-jumbo “science” will somehow slip by the barrier of the First Amendment, allowing their theological dogma to be legally taught in public schools. Their hope is absurd. Every primitive creationist instinctively understands that the Discoveroids are fighting their fight, and therefore any honest judge can easily see through the Discoveroids’ facade.
But it’s always amusing to watch the Discoveroids play their childish denial game. They’re doing it again today in a new article by Casey Luskin, everyone’s favorite Discoveroid creationist. Casey’s latest is The Identity of the Designer: How to Avoid an Incoherent Criticism of Intelligent Design. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us and Casey’s links omitted. He begins by saying he has an “ID-friendly” correspondent who sent him an email saying the following:
In short, the ID deniers try to engage us in a game where heads they win and tails we lose. If we affirm, for example, that the God of the Bible is a very good and logical fit for the agent whose obvious power and intelligence is manifest in the universe they accuse us of “dragging” religion into the scientific realm where it has no place! And if we studiously avoid any reference to who the designer is they accuse of venal dishonesty.
That sounds just about right. How does Casey respond? It’s fuzzy, but it’s fun:
This is dead-right. You can’t attack ID for identifying, but also for not identifying, the designer. Both criticisms can’t be valid.
We disagree. Both criticisms are indeed valid. If the magic designer is the deity described in the bible, then there’s no escape from what’s obvious to everyone anyway — the Discoveroids are hawking that old-time religion. And if they refuse to acknowledge what everyone already knows, then they’re lying about the purpose of their shabby enterprise. If one is going to be a creationist, it’s far better to be forthright than deceitful. Let’s read on:
I remember first encountering this incoherent way of criticizing ID during the Dover Trial in 2005 when I was answering incessant, poorly framed objections from reporters. It was there that I also realized there are simple and correct answers readily available to be given to such objections:
Yeah, incoherent. What he probably means is that he found himself babbling incoherently because he was trapped by the reporters’ clever questions. Then he says:
ID proponents do not refuse to say who we think the designer is. For example, I’m very open that I believe the designer is the God of the Bible, and if you read the writings of many other leading ID proponents, it isn’t hard to discern their personal beliefs either.
We know, Casey. We have always known. But it’s good to see it on the Discoveroids’ blog. The article continues:
But nobody who understands ID would say that such claims about the identity of the designer are the conclusions of ID. My belief that the designer is God is my own personal religious viewpoint, and not a conclusion of the scientific theory of intelligent design.
Right! The “scientific theory” of ID could lead one to believe that the magic designer is Zeus, or maybe a giant jellyfish from Uranus. The “theory” of ID leads anywhere, and it leads nowhere. But we all know where it’s supposed to lead. Here’s more:
So when ID theory itself declines to try to identify the designer, it isn’t a matter of being coy. Rather, ID limits its claims to what can be learned from a scientific investigation the data. [sic] The data may allow an inference to an intelligent cause, but specifying the identity of the designer may go beyond what a scientific investigation can reveal. Thus, ID stays silent on such questions.
“Scientific investigation [of] the data.” BWAHAHAHA! Moving along:
So what does ID claim? ID claims we can scientifically detect the prior action of intelligent causes, and it makes those claims using the scientific method. Since we have observation-based experience with the causal abilities of intelligent causes, we are scientifically justified in inferring intelligent causation when we observe the known-effects of intelligent causation in nature. … But if you go further and try to specify the identity or precise nature of the designer, you might be going beyond what the data can tell you. Thus, ID respects the limits of science and only infers intelligent causation.
Yes, Casey. We believe you. Everyone believes you. All of you guys think the magic designer is Yahweh, but as good creation scientists, you recognize that it could also be a giant spider from the planet Dorko. Sure, Casey.
Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.