WorldNetDaily Supports Intelligent Design

Buffoon Award

Tthe blaring sirens and flashing lights of the Drool-o-tron™ drew our attention to the blinking letters of its wall display, which said WorldNetDaily (WND). As you know, WND was an early winner of the Curmudgeon’s Buffoon Award, thus the jolly logo displayed above this post.

The Drool-o-tron™ had locked our computer onto an article by Joseph Farah, founder, CEO, and editor of WND. The headline is Where does information come from?, and there are comments at the end.

Wow — what a title! It sounds like something from the Discovery Institute. Has Farah become a convert to the Church of the Intelligent Designer? If so, that’s big news! Here are some excerpts, with some bold font added by us for emphasis:

We all know what information is. We know it when we see it. If we find a new website, for example, we all know someone created it – no matter how good or bad it is. We know, for instance, that it didn’t just evolve – or appear as a result of chance or a random series of viruses and electronic mutations. Think of how infinitely more complex a single, “simple” plant or animal cell is.

What a perfect analogy — a website and a living organism! This is going to be great. Farah says:

Back in the days of Charles Darwin, scientists didn’t know much about the cell. So, to many people, the idea that animals could evolve as a result of “natural selection” and random mutations seemed to make some sense.

Right — mutation and natural selection make sense, but only for creatures with simple, uncomplicated cells. That’s obvious!

Now, however, with the knowledge of the complexity of all living cells, information science and DNA, the notion of animals changing from one kind to another or, even more preposterously, that even a single-cell animal would spring to life through spontaneous generation, is considerably more difficult to imagine.

Yes — complex cells would undergo a lot more mutation, and that means — oh, wait a minute. And if he thinks it’s easy for a simple cell to “spring to life through spontaneous generation,” then why couldn’t it eventually go on to become more complicated? And why would it be easy only for organisms made of simple cells to evolve into another kind of organism? Farah is way ahead of your humble Curmudgeon. Ah well, let’s read on:

It’s why evolution in the macro sense is sometimes called “a fairy tale for adults.” I would add, “It’s a fairy tale for adults who don’t want to consider the alternative.” What is the alternative? The only alternative is the one often laughably mocked by people like Richard Dawkins – “intelligent design.”

He’s right — it’s either the fairy tale of evolution, or else it’s intelligent design — which requires the fairy tale of a magic designer. Then he gives some brilliant examples: a book requires an author, a house requires a builder, and therefore life, which is even more complex, requires even more information. After that he quotes the bible as authority. This is a powerful essay!

There’s not much point in quoting any more. We’ve seen it all before at the Discoveroids’ website — except for the bible quotes. What we’ve got here an indication that a light bulb has gone off in Farah’s head — a very dim bulb — and he’s become a convert to intelligent design. Now he’s going to lead all his drooling readers in that direction. The Discoveroids must be delighted — their movement is growing!

It’s always a thrill to see a creationist reach out from the darkness and grab a new idea. Who says they’re incapable of learning?

Copyright © 2015. 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

17 responses to “WorldNetDaily Supports Intelligent Design

  1. There’s quite a collection of creationist cheerleaders over at Worldnutdaily. Alas, if I had fewer scruples, I’d fleece them blind.

  2. Surfing around these last few days, I’ve come across bunch of creationists talking about information theory and how it’s a gigantic blow to evolution. Most of them appear to think that DNA is actually made of tiny little letters from the Latin Alphabet, put there by the intelligent stenographer.

  3. Back in the 18th century, (yes, I mean the 1700s) people had no idea of how complex life was. They thought it was comparable in complexity to a watch. And they thought that that meant that, just as a watch can be built
    up just by following a design, so too could life.
    Oh, by the way, in the 18th century people must have not realized how much more there was to making a watch than just producing a design. Those were the days when the lord gave orders, and that was all that was important. Those were the days when one thought of God as just a superior lord who gave orders.
    But even back in the days BC, an occasional person like Cicero would wonder about what brought things about:
    “Can you also, Lucullus, affirm that there is any power united with wisdom and prudence which has made, or, to use your own expression, manufactured man? What sort of a manufacture is that? Where is it exercised? when? why? how?” (Academica II (Lucullus) XXVII, 87)
    “For with what eyes of the mind was your Plato able to see that workhouse of such stupendous toil, in which he makes the world to be modelled and built by God? What materials, what bars, what machines, what servants, were employed in so vast a work? How could the air, fire, water, and earth, pay obedience and submit to the will of the architect?” (De Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods) I, 18.9)

  4. A simple phrase summarizes all of the arguments we’ve ever seen from creationists: “I don’t understand science, so a sky fairy must a done it”.

  5. Charles Deetz ;)

    Read thru the comments, its quite a potpourri, and scattered enough to not get a coherent idea some play. Even if I give them some leeway, the downright skepticism of science, no, it is arrogance of knowing better than science … is stunning. And to further my proof of arrogance, in the whole of the comments just one hyperlink to facts (by an evolutionist).

  6. Christos almighty, what a festering pit of ignorance those comments are. I posted (as Capt Stormfield) a response to some pretentious dips**t who has no idea what a code is.

  7. Dave Luckett

    Ken, those comments are not simply a festering pit of ignorance, to use your admirable phrase. If they were simply that, I wouldn’t worry too much. Fools are inevitable and omnipresent. They’re part of life; warts on the body corporate. Unsightly, yes, and wasteful of resources, true, but basically harmless if ignored. They’re more vulnerable to charletons, too, who are purely self-seeking, and form a sort of biological control.

    No, it’s not the mere simpletons who bother me. It’s the out-and-out theocrats that do. It’s not merely that they’ve got something missing in their heads. It’s that they’ve deliberately extracted reason and replaced it with malign distortions of reality that they intend to foist upon everyone. They really do wish to destroy the enlightenment, free inquiry, freedom of conscience, and democracy. If the fools are the wart, they’re the malignant cancer.

    You can see several of them on display in that column. I used to think that they were like cockroaches scuttling about under the floorboards of a free society. Now I think they’re more like rabid rats. I don’t know what’s to be done about them. If they were mere fools, education might help. But education can’t help with these. They have deliberately insulated their minds from all education. They are starting to show signs of impatience with waiting for God to appear and do their will. What will happen when they decide to prompt Him, I don’t care to think.

  8. “If we find a new website, for example, we all know someone created it .”
    Aha! Paley’s Watchmaker Analogy has become Farah’s Website Analogy!

    “The only alternative is ….”
    Kudos to Farah. It doesn’t happen that often that we meet such a crystal clear “Evolution is wrong, hence God” statement.

    TomS quotes Cicero asking “What materials, what bars, what machines, what servants, were employed in so vast a work?”
    But Farah just showed these questions are only for skeptics like me, who accept the scientific method. “Evolution is wrong, hence God” is good enough for him.

  9. The Lord Jeezus himself could descend from heaven and explain to these theocrats how evolution works and they’d call him a communist.

  10. @mnbo
    There is a problem with finding God in design.

    For design is the work of a limited being.

    To begin with, “necessity is the mother of invention”. God would never be in the situation where change is needed.

    And design is problem solving, working within parameters, such as the properties of the material one is using, or the laws of nature. God does not have any limits, so he does not resort to design.

    And design is not enough. There must also be following through on the design: production, etc. Such is the work of a finite being: going through step-by-step. God creates.

    If you look for a designer, you will find a demiurge or a magician.

  11. WorldNut Daily was crazy from the start, so why should anyone be surprised that it’s linking up with other crazies?

    It’s nothing new. Back in the fifties, some of the weirder UFO enthusiasts cozied up to crank fundamentalists. See Orfeo M. Angelucci’s The Secret of the Saucers as an example; Angelucci manages to bring in not just end-times fundamentalism but reincarnation as well, which would have gotten him burned at the stake if the fundies had ever gained the power they crave.

  12. @Dave Luckett:

    “Now I think they’re more like rabid rats. I don’t know what’s to be done about them.”

    I’m not sure how legal this is for creatards (check with your local law enforcement authorities first!), but this is how my dear departed grandfather used to deal with the occasional rat:
    1) Place rat in burlap sack
    2) Tie sack tightly closed
    3) Place sack on concrete floor (usually the garage or basement)
    4) Beat sack with a minimum 3-foot length of 2×4 for 15 minutes
    5) Tie a cinder block to the sack
    6) Drop sack off of a convenient bridge abutment into the river

  13. TomS notices? “There is a problem with finding God in design.”
    A? Like one? Mathematical symbol 1? I think that quite an underestimation. Farah just brushes the many problems aside, though.

  14. Design proponants often say that a characteristic of design is that it shows purpose. If that is so, then what is the purpose of the universe, life, and us?

    If God wanted more creatures to toy with, or amuse him, he could have simply created more supernatural beings. Why create matter and energy and “natural” forces at all? Why create a universe? God had an entire supernatural realm for work with, but he went to the trouble of inventing an all new material realm, with all it’s complications and constraints.

    God did this, then created humans with their infinitesimal lives (on the scale of God and the universe), only to then bring them into the supernatural realm when they die – either as a reward or a punishment. That makes the universe what, an incubator for new supernatural beings? Why? It makes no sense. Are we pets? Are we to be slaves in the supernatural realm, and our earthly life merely a means of selectively breeding pliant and obedient slaves and weeding out potentially resistant ones?

    I think the ID advocates who claim to see purpose in our “design” should specify exactly what that purpose is, and why they think so. I would enjoy reading that.

  15. @mnbo I thank you for calling that blunder to my attention.

  16. @Ed
    Thank you.
    We know that there is an easy response to your question, which is that
    we do not know the ways of the Lord.
    And I would be willing to let that ride, if it were not for the fact that there are those who are pretending that the existence of God is an alternative.
    There are those that say that to accept scientific accounts of the ways of nature leaves us without purpose to our design. Therefore, what does the alternative supply for a purpose? Why is the human body most closely designed to the bodies of chimps and other apes, among all of the ways that there are to actually existing life – not to mention the infinity of possible ways that God could have done it?
    If people want to intrude into the scientific study of life, complaining about supposed deficiencies in the scientific accounts, then they have assumed the burden of proposing an alternative account. Yet we all know that they have studiously refrained from taking the first step of describing an alternative account.
    How can they have the gall to say that science is deficient for having no answer, when they have no answer themselves?

  17. winewithcats

    Alas, the Curmudgeon has misread the third excerpt. Farah isn’t saying he thinks a single cell can spontaneously generate, rather the opposite: he considers the notion preposterous. (Because abiogenesis is part of evolution, dontcha know?)