Through a Glass, Darkly — Creative Challenge #14

Your Curmudgeon needs your help, dear reader. You know about the Discoveroids’ wondrous “design filter,” with which their “theory” can detect the existence of a transcendent designer of the universe by using William Dembski’s Design Inference.

A couple of years ago Dembski wrote Design Inference vs. Design Hypothesis, in which he said:

The design inference, as I developed it, looks to a marker of design, what I call specified complexity or specified improbability, and from there reasons to a designing intelligence as responsible for this marker.

Your Curmudgeon has been struggling to apply that master theoretician’s method to some data we’ve uncovered, which we strongly suspect points to intelligent design, but we are unable to connect the dots. We are reminded of 1 Corinthians 13:12 (King James Version, of course):

For now we see through a glass, darkly

Therefore, it’s time for another Creative Challenge. To understand the problem with which we’ve been grappling, you must consider the mountain of data we have assembled over the years.

First there was the creationist school board that suffered the judicial equivalent of a beheading in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. There were other creationist setbacks, like the David Coppedge case, the Kent Hovind case, the John Freshwater case, the John Oller case, and others we’ve written about. There were all those brave creationists who were Expelled from academia. The latest example is, perhaps, the most courageous creationist of all — Mark Armitage. And we can’t overlook the impending martyrdom which seems to be threatening yet another prominent creationist — David McConaghie.

There is a pattern here, and if only we could understand it with the aid of a powerful intellectual tool like the Discoveroids’ design filter, we feel certain that it would point to one inescapable fact: All of these seemingly random events are the result of intelligent design. Comprehension seems almost within our grasp, yet it eludes us. Therefore, we turn to you, dear reader.

The form of the challenge is that in one sentence, you must tell us:

The common consequences experienced by Hovind, Freshwater, Coppedge, Armitage, McConaghie, and the others prove the theory of Intelligent Design because _______.

You know the rules: A successful entry should be self-explanatory, but it’s quite all right to elaborate on your proposals. You may enter the contest as many times as you wish, but you must avoid profanity, vulgarity, childish anatomical analogies, etc. Also, avoid slanderous statements about individuals. Feel free to comment on the entries submitted by others — with praise, criticism, or whatever — but you must do so tastefully.

Your Curmudgeon will decide if there’s a winner, and whenever we get around to it we’ll announce who the winner is. There is no tangible prize — as always in life’s great challenges, the accomplishment is its own reward. We now throw open the comments section, dear reader. Go for it!

Copyright © 2014. 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

30 responses to “Through a Glass, Darkly — Creative Challenge #14

  1. …because intelligence has won the day.

  2. because the intelligent designer (us) is known to exist, and we are aware of many (observable) examples of this design.

  3. Charles Deetz ;)

    because lying for God pisses God off.

  4. …because it shows that Intellegent Design has been cruelly persecuted by the relentless attacks of evidence and facts.

    (Should the list say Oller, not Armitage?)

  5. Know the probability of life appearing on a world?
    Yep! 100%. Now this probability may change when we explore other worlds Thoroughly!!!

  6. Lewis Thomasonn

    GOD !

  7. Try this one:

    The odd that you, personally, would have been the offspring of your conception are 1 in 2 to the 46th power; that is, 1 in about 70 trillion, assuming random recombination of chromosomes. Therefore, it just stands to reason that a Designer must have assembled those chromosomes to create you.

    Now, creationists would probably swallow this whole. The fact is, though, that that event would have produced some individual (assuming no unfortunate prenatal events). You just happen to be the one. No Designer is needed, unless you believe that you, personally, are utterly essential to the universe and so absolutely had to exist. (You’re essential to yourself, I’m sure, but that’s not quite the same thing.) Or, of course, your imagined Designer is an idiot who made a universe that won’t work unless He, She or It turns every crank, pushes every button and pulls every lever, all the time. In which case, “free will” is a joke and so is salvation, because the fix was in from the start.

    The “design inference” basically assumes there is no natural law. It’s perfectly possible, though, to keep God in the picture while acknowledging him as a Lawgiver (no, not the talking orangutan revered by the apes in the Planet of the Apes movies) who set the rules at the start but doesn’t run every detail and didn’t need to “create” humans because natural law made it possible for life to arise and evolve without His (or Her, or Its) fiddling with the controls. This also gives us “free will” back, along with (assuming you believe in it) the meaningful possibility of salvation.

  8. … because the power of martyrdom, as a compelling argument, and the extent of the audience’s knowledge of the subject matter in question are negatively correlated with R² approaching 1, and scientific questions are settled in the court of popular opinion. That’s just the way Ol’ Grandy designed it.

  9. Answering the challenge, though: those common consequences prove the universe was intelligently designed to defeat idiocy, even if slowly.

  10. Oops, “… are negatively correlated with R² approaching 1,…

  11. “The common consequences experienced by Hovind, Freshwater, Coppedge, Armitage, McConaghie, and the others prove the theory of Intelligent Design because”
    the Grand Old Designer by definition is neither an IDiot nor produces creacrap.

  12. michaelfugate

    because trial and error would eventually get it right.

  13. michaelfugate

    because random mutation and natural selection would eventually get it right.

  14. The common consequences experienced by Hovind, Freshwater, Coppedge, Armitage, McConaghie, and the others prove the theory of Intelligent Design because those consequences look designed.

  15. The common consequences experienced by Hovind, Freshwater, Coppedge, Armitage, McConaghie, and the others prove the theory of Intelligent Design because no matter how clever they believe their own device and designs to be, there will always be someone intelligent enough to see through them.

  16. Because the Grand Old Designer (blessed be he!) is a modest designer. He doesn’t want a cheer-leading squad!

  17. The common consequences experienced by Hovind, Freshwater, Coppedge, Armitage, McConaghie, and the others prove the theory of Intelligent Design because they all have Irreducible Persecution Complexes.

  18. “The common consequences experienced by Hovind, Freshwater, Coppedge, Armitage, McConaghie, and the others prove the theory of Intelligent Design because _______.”

    Because …. hmm. Well, because …. oh, hell. Who really gives a [edited out], anyway?

  19. I have finally figured it out, but I won’t tell you yet. Let’s see if one of you can come up with the correct answer.

  20. michaelfugate

    because the designer is a trickster god – like Loki or Coyote?

  21. Because no one laments the decline of mysticism as much as the mystics who made a living off the backs of the ignorant.

  22. The whole truth

    …because ‘God’ hates IDiots.

  23. The whole truth

    …because ‘Satan’ is the designer.

  24. The whole truth

    …because yhwh-jesus-holy-ghost are not the designer and the real designer (The Flying Spaghetti Monster) is sick and tired of creationists who believe in and promote the wrong designer.

  25. … because it was objectively proven that the IDiots’ deceptions and hoaxes were the product of deliberate, intentional design and not merely strings of random errors.

  26. Because God said so, shut up.

  27. (sigh)…once again the most accurate answer won’t win. But just being able to post it is a victory of sorts. So here goes:

    “The common consequences experienced by Hovind, Freshwater, Coppedge, Armitage, McConaghie, and the others prove the theory of Intelligent Design because it’s the only ‘theory’ that can accommodate such a comical cacophony of mutually-contradictory absurd opinions.”

  28. I think a quote I took from Ron White ( Blue Collar Comedy ) suits this situation much better …. because “You cain’t fix stupid.” Period.

  29. Here’s my explanation of why the common consequences experienced by Hovind, Coppedge, Armitage, etc. prove the theory of Intelligent Design. It’s difficult to grasp, unless you can briefly think like a creationist and then return to sanity. It’s risky to attempt such a thing, but I believe I’ve got the answer here. It’s in two parts. Some of you dimly grasped one or the other, but I don’t think anyone put it all together.

    First: Because creationism is so obviously true, each of those creationist catastrophes is extremely unlikely. The entire string of them is so improbable that it’s clearly impossible. The design inference informs us that these events can only be the work of the intelligent designer — blessed be he!

    Second: The designer is so great that in this string of events he reveals his existence using irony — he has created what seems to be a sequence of creationist failures. But the irony is that the apparent failure of those creationists is an illusion which, properly understood, actually proves that they are correct. Their failure is their success!

  30. @SC: I think I understand your connection between 1 and 2. If so, it’s especially self-evident that creationism must be not only “obviously true” but also self-contradictory. So when YECs and OECs occasionally challenge each other, or complain that ID doesn’t go far enough, they are in fact attempting to violate the “one true creationism.” But as we clearly see, such perturbations are slowly going extinct, and the “one true creationism” is slowly coming together like a beautiful – uh – design. I anxiously await the day when Dembski assures us that ID – which we know as the “one true creationism” – accommodates all the results of time cube “theory.”