We confess to being completely baffled by the newest post 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).
This is their title: If a Puddle Woke Up. There is no author’s name assigned to it, so it’s the thinking of all of them. Virtually the entire post consists of this quote from Douglas Adams:
Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, [it] must have been made to have me in it!”
What do the Discoveroids say about Adams’ words? Not much, really. This is the rest of their post:
Well, if a puddle actually woke up and thought anything, it would be entitled to that opinion.
So what are the Discoveroids saying? To us, it’s obvious that Adams is spoofing a certain style of defective reasoning. We’ve done it ourselves (see Intelligent Design: The Dung Beetle’s Tale). Such “thinking” is at the heart of geocentricism, the anthropic principle, and yes — creationism and intelligent design. The whole universe was created for a purpose, and that purpose is us!
Did the Discoveroids post about Adams’ ego-maniacal puddle to ridicule themselves? Not intentionally, yet that’s exactly what they’ve done. They’re literally presenting Adams’ jocular parable as a great bit of reasoning that supports intelligent design. You think we’re imagining things? Not at all.
At the end of their post they mention that it’s cross-posted at their “research” shop, Biologic Institute, It’s right here. And there, next to the Adams quote, they say:
The more we learn about life, the more clearly it reveals design.
They’re serious! And they have no clue that their post is a stupendous demonstration of institutional lack of self-awareness. What’s their next move — promoting William Paley’s watchmaker analogy? Why not? If they can unknowingly make fun of one of their core arguments, why not the other too?
Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.