Intelligent Design Is Science: Cryptology Uses It

In their never-ending but increasingly laughable quest for scientific respectability, the Discoveroids sometimes make the absurd claim that other branches of science are already using their “theory” of intelligent design.

A couple of examples are: (1) archeology, in Rock Mounds Are Designed, Therefore …, and also (2) Discoveroids: SETI Uses Intelligent Design Theory.

Now they give us their latest example of the scientific use of their “theory” — Intelligent Design in Action: Cryptology. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

Critics of intelligent design keep saying it isn’t science. Explain that to many scientists who routinely use ID principles in their work. Here’s another one: cryptology.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Yes, the military is full of code-breakers who study intercepted communications so they can look for the magical designer who created the universe. Don’t leave now, dear reader, the Discoveroids are just getting started:

There are professors of cryptology. Cryptology involves theories, data, experimentation, and testing. It has all the accouterments of science — and is entirely based on intelligent design principles.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Yes, cryptology has the accouterments of science because it is science. As we’ve said before in Discovery Institute’s “Peer Reviewed” Literature:

The obvious failure of the Discoveroids’ “theory” to qualify as science (it’s an untestable, unfalsifiable concept) has goaded them into erecting a Potemkin village that simulates the appearance of scientific activity, complete with their own captive “peer reviewed” journal (BIO-Complexity), and their own creation science lab (Biologic Institute), and their own “peer reviewed” vanity press operation (Discovery Institute Press). Their imitation of the accouterments of science has caused intelligent design to be described as a cargo cult.

So why don’t the Discoveroids behave like cryptologists? If they use the same science that cryptology uses, why don’t the Discoveroids have data, experimentation, and testing? All they have is their blog, backed up by their Potemkin village of make-believe science, and their bizarre claim that the intelligent designer — blessed be he! — is responsible not only for designing wonders like your uvula, but the whole universe.

Skipping over their description of an actual development in cryptology — which has nothing to do with the Discoveroids — they say this:

ID critics might argue that we know about human minds, so this provides no support for the idea of unspecified intelligent agents creating natural phenomena. But intriguingly, there are examples of secure communications in nature, too.

Secure communications in nature? Like what? Are the asteroids secretly communicating with Uranus? They give us some examples:

Trees, for instance, emit specific volatile compounds that notify other trees when an attacker is present. Crows use a complex vocabulary to signal the flock.

We’re getting impatient. This thing is just too stupid. We want entertainment! Maybe we’ll find some if we read on:

This is not to suggest that plants, animals and cells use mental power to accomplish such feats. In human cryptology, the protocols are automated once devised. Dr. Smart [Nigel Smart, a professor of cryptology at the University of Bristol] doesn’t have to calculate every function when given new inputs. No, all his team did was design the protocol, and computers do the rest. Similarly, it seems increasingly evident that an intelligent cause provided the living world with protocols that are employed instinctively by creatures.

Aaaargh!! So because someone in Al-Qaeda designs a new code and his followers use it for planning their attacks, that means it’s “increasingly evident that an intelligent cause provided the living world with protocols”? What’s going on in Discoveroid headquarters in Seattle? Are they all afflicted with some kind of brain-eating amoeba?

Fortunately, there’s only one more paragraph. We’ve come this far, so let’s go all the way:

From our uniform experience, we know that when a message appears in a string of bits — even if encrypted — a mind with a purpose played a role in its creation. That is true even if we can’t read the message (think of the Rosetta Stone), and even when we don’t know the identity of the designer (think of SETI). ID is alive and well in science.

That was tragic. Well, maybe not. Perhaps the Discoveroids will study cryptology, and then search for the messages that the magic designer has hidden in our DNA. What wonders will they find? We look forward to their results.

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

23 responses to “Intelligent Design Is Science: Cryptology Uses It

  1. Beat me to the punch line!

  2. It was more fun when they pretended to be sane.

  3. Ceteris Paribus

    Oh there the ID goes again. If they can’t quote mine something they just plagiarize it, or in this case both.

    The “Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything”
    is “42”

    It only took Douglas Adams’ computer “Deep Thought” 7 million years to decode and verify it.

  4. It doesn’t appear that anyone at the dishonesty institute wanted to take credit for penning that pulp fiction, or did I miss the credit roll at the end?

  5. Of the Discoveroids, anevilmeme notes

    It was more fun when they pretended to be sane

    I agree. In articles such as this latest specimen, they’re actually sounding psychotically creepy.

    Creationists start with their a priori insistence of some sort of deity (and there are zillions to choose from, it doesn’t matter which one) that poofed the cosmos into its present form by some oogity-boogitish means (and the details of that don’t matter either). From this unchallenged axiom, they are obliged to see the hand (or tentacle, or noodly appendage) of that deity in every object in the cosmos, and think thereby that their perceptions are a q.e.d.

    But how (here’s a challenge for any creationist willing to take it on) does this differ in the slightest degree from, say, a deluded young stalker of a pop star who, from a groundless assumption that Pop Idol X cherishes some secret regard for the stalker and has thereby inserted thinly-veiled messages for that fan to interpret? Mental hospitals have many exemplars of the type.

    And it hardly stops there. From that same deluded axiom, it’s a woefully easy step to seeing ‘signs from God’ in the patterns of clouds, or the freak birth of a two-headed calf, or in the arrangement of the entrails in a sacrificial goat.

    Stick to that path, and before you know it you’ve painted up your very own “GOD HATES FAGS” placard and joined Westboro Baptist…

  6. how (here’s a challenge for any creationist willing to take it on) does this differ in the slightest degree from, say, a deluded young stalker of a pop star who, from a groundless assumption that Pop Idol X cherishes some secret regard for the stalker and has thereby inserted thinly-veiled messages for that fan to interpret?

    My thoughts exactly. They just happen to know that the Intelligent Designer loves them best and really wants to be with them. They know the Intelligent Designer’s true wants, needs, and purposes.

  7. The IDiots state:

    Trees, for instance, emit specific volatile compounds that notify other trees when an attacker is present. Crows use a complex vocabulary to signal the flock.

    Except those are not examples of encryption. Neither the trees nor the crows are trying to hide what they are saying or doing. It’s simply a case of we do not understand their fundamental language. And how much do you wanna bet that, if we were to read the actual paper that Nigel Smart wrote, there would be zero / zilch / nothing / nada related to anything even remotely ID-like.
    When I was in high school, I learned of an art movement known as “Dada”. One of the things I remember was one of their mantras: “To speak of Dada is to speak of Dada. To not speak of Dada is to speak of Dada.” The Tooters have the exact, same mantra, only they’ve replaced “Dada” with “ID”. Doesn’t matter what you’re talking about, it’s about ID because ID is about everything.

  8. In an intriguing inundation of irony, I’ve often encountered the “argument” put forward by cretinists/IDiots that if ID is not science then SETI is similarly not science, essentially because both presuppose mind and intentionality behind the possible patterns they are seeking. Conversely, the “argument” goes, were we to detect a complex radio signal, say a repeating sequence of the first 100,000 prime numbers, we could not be sure that we’re not being misled by some unknown natural phenomenon and that our inference of intelligence behind such a signal is mistaken. Now in a mind-boggling reversal, they’re saying it is science based on prior IDiotology principles when SETI uses aspects of cryptology and cryptology predates IDiotology by several millennia.

    The rank absurdity of the above “argument” blunts Occam’s razor and seriously tests your Turing. It seems then that one of the Discorrhoids’ many basic faulty assumptions is that they and their Oogity-Boogity designer are the only intelligent life in the universe, and possibly outside of it, too.

  9. Wait – so when humans use secured communication it proves that they have mental power, but if crows and trees do it it doesn’t but they need the help of some supernatural entity?
    Great work, IDiots.

  10. Cardinal Gary observes

    Neither the trees nor the crows are trying to hide what they are saying or doing. It’s simply a case of we do not understand their fundamental language.

    I dunno. At this rate, it’s only a question of time before the Creationists will claim they can regularly converse with trees.

    And for my part, I think it likely one could hold a more rational conversation with a crow than with a creationist….

  11. After-thought correction to my post above:

    I think it likely one could hold a more rational conversation with a crow than with a Robert L. Crowther…

  12. As long as they refuse to describe what “intelligent design” is, or does (or does not), or when, where, why or who (or what) does it, then any claims about it are just as valid as any other claims.

  13. Off-topic, but timely: the BBC is reporting the following headline

    US wakes up to government shutdown

    Man, those Discoveroids are really giving the works to ole Ball State U!

  14. If encrypted messages are evidence of Intelligent Design, then crows and trees must be intelligent, rational and have souls and free will.

    The IDiot believes 10 impossible things before breakfast.

  15. The comment above, like all my most pithy anti-creationist comments, was tweeted from DiogenesLamp0.

  16. Trees, for instance, emit specific volatile compounds that notify other trees when an attacker is present.

    This is true. When a tree sees a lumberjack walking by, it sends a signal to the other trees so they know to flee or defend themselves. Well, that’s how it worked in The Lord of the Rings anyway.

  17. If a cryptographer used “Intelligent Design” in his work, he would look at an email or text message or personal ad or whatever and conclude that it was designed and was not a product of natural causes. He would do this by applying the ID method of looking at it and saying “by golly, that looks designed”. Then he would go home.

    That’s it. He would not proceed further, since ID deliberately avoids any inferences into why something was designed, who did it, or what hidden message or meaning it conveys. The cryptographer would leave those less important matters to theologians and philosophers.

  18. Megalonyx said:

    At this rate, it’s only a question of time before the Creationists will claim they can regularly converse with trees.

    Here’s my suggestion. Let’s forget about the Toilet-Cam and put up some Tree-cams around the DI’s building. Let’s see how often we find Klinghoffer or Westie or any of the others talking animatedly to the trees. I’ll bet it happens.
    I’ll bet.

  19. Cardinal Gary suggests

    Let’s forget about the Toilet-Cam and put up some Tree-cams around the DI’s building. Let’s see how often we find Klinghoffer or Westie or any of the others talking animatedly to the trees.

    That’s a ghastly idea, utterly appalling! Would anyone, under any circumstance, ever want to know if Klingy or Westie had wood? Yeeeeuuuucccchhhhhh!

  20. BREAKING NEWS!

    This could be the proof of Intelligent Design the DI has been longing for: Cassini probe sees plastic ingredient on Titan moon

    When you come across an empty plastic bottle in a forest, you know two things:

    [1] It was made by an intelligent being, and
    [2] It was discarded by a thoughtless jerk

    Let’s face it, now that the Cassini probe has found firm evidence of extraterrestrial plastic, we godless Darwinists are whupped.

    Unless, of course, it turns out the plastic of Titan is from the activity of an evolutionary path resulting in extraterrestrial litterbugs…

  21. True, but if they did twig that someone was about to pith on their parade, it might plant a seed in their head. After emitting a disapproving bark, they might leaf and branch into something more fruitful.

  22. Con-Tester, you have penetrated to the root of the matter.

  23. @Con-Tester: You’re in quite a larch. I think your problem stems from a lack of understanding how fir the DI has sunk. Maple if yew look at a bit differently, the answer will ring out.