The Discovery Institute has been silent about the upcoming debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham … until now. Look what just appeared at their creationist blog: Regarding that Creationism Debate Pitting Bill Nye Against Ken Ham, Here’s My Guilty Admission.
It’s by David Klinghoffer, the Discoveroids’ journalistic slasher and poo flinger. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:
OK, I’ll confess. I’m going to watch the debate on February 4 matching creationist Ken Ham versus “Science Guy” Bill Nye. I’ll do so with eagerness and pleasure. Well, I’ll watch part it anyway. I’ll probably watch a few minutes of the Super Bowl too, the Sunday before, since everyone here in Seattle is going nuts about it. …
Colleagues to whom I’ve confided this — the part about the debate — have sought to perform an intervention. They say: “Why waste your time?” It’s simple.
Okay, David. We’re all waiting to hear your reason.
This will be entertaining. I know how much leaders in the Village Atheist movement like Jerry Coyne and the Richard Dawkins Foundation have urged against it. It will make them squirm, seeing someone like Nye who is kind of their guy but, they fear, not outstandingly articulate in live performance put up against Mr. Ham, who I assume is well practiced at what he does. That in itself is enjoyable.
He expects Nye to get trounced, and he’s eagerly looking forward to it. We agree that Nye could get clobbered — not on the merits, but because he’s unprepared for the tactics which will be unleashed by his opponent, a hard-core professional creationist. That’s one reason why your Curmudgeon won’t be watching it. Let’s read on:
More seriously, I would like the world to get a good look at a genuine creationist: what he says, how he argues, what questions animate him. It’s been among the more dishonest tactics of ID’s critics to paint intelligent design as just another shade of “creationism.” The more people watch Ham debate Nye, the better they will be able to appreciate the stark contrast between advocates of intelligent design and those of creationism.
Ah, yes. Ol’ Hambo is a primitive creationist. The Discoveroids are much more sophisticated. But as we’ve said before, the Discoveroids’ “Who me, creationist?” charade is no more convincing than the simulated innocence of a flasher who lurks around schoolyards exposing himself to children, and then swiftly closes his coat when any adult looks his way. Klinghoffer continues:
Creationists themselves are honest about saying what that distinction is. As Mr. Ham’s “Answers in Genesis” colleague Georgia Purdom has candidly said, the main difference is that creationists insist on faith’s directing the conclusions that science reaches.
Yes. It’s an absurd way to do “science,” but at least ol’ Hambo and his creation scientists are honest about putting their religious faith ahead of the evidence. The Discoveroids, on the other hand … well, you know. Here’s more:
Devout materialists, while reaching opposite conclusions, come at the question of life’s origins in much the same manner. Naturalism demands an answer to the mystery of evolution that excludes intelligent direction. So that’s what it gets and what it offers.
Aaaargh!! No, David. There’s nothing about the scientific method that “excludes” your supernatural explanations — other than a lack of verifiable evidence that such phenomena are involved in the things that science investigates. It’s the Discoveroids who approach all questions with a presumption — that their never-named intelligent designer lurks behind everything. The world is still waiting for actual evidence of such influences. We’ve explained all that — see Bring Me An Angel Detector! Moving along:
ID advocates follow the evidence where it leads. That, more than the age of Earth, is I think the distinction that drives everything else.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! He concludes by taking a swipe at some of the Discoveroids’ favorite targets:
This serious, open-minded engagement with the actual evidence of science is the reason that while the “Science Guy” at least was all too willing to debate a creationist, Coyne and Dawkins have consistently chickened out when invited to engage us in debate, whether live or in print.
That really was a tangled mess. But it’s from the Discoveroids, so there was no reason to expect anything else.
Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.