Stephen Meyer Gives Advice to Politicians

We found this at the Christian Post website, which describes itself as “the nation’s most comprehensive Christian news website.” Their article is What Should Politicians Say about Evolution? The article has a comments feature. Here are some excerpts from the “news,” with bold font added by us:

Stephen Meyer, Director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, author, and a prominent proponent of intelligent design, discussed what politicians should say when questioned about evolution by an anti-creationist news media at a Faith and Law presentation on Friday, March 13, on Capitol Hill.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! As you’ll see, what Meyer spoke about wasn’t what politicians should say, but rather what the Discoveroids want politicians to say. The Christian Post article is a long one. It lovingly quotes Meyer extensively, without criticism. All we can do is hit a few of the highlights:

Meyer observed that the news media considers that there are two acceptable responses from politicians to a question as to whether or not evolution is true. First, an affirmation of materialism (that matter is all that there is, and so life must have emerged from matter), and compartmentalism (religion has its proper place, but supernaturalism is excluded as a scientific explanation, and so evolution must be postulated as unguided)

“Materialism” is the Discoveroids’ word for science, which they say is identical to atheism. Despite their revulsion for science, they claim their “theory” of intelligent design is based on science, but it’s not atheistic. Of course not — it’s creation science, but for litigation purposes they don’t use that label. Let’s read on:

Meyer observed that Republicans are given a harder time, and are put on the defensive in responding to the question. The issue is complicated by the fact that the word “evolution” has no unequivocal meaning.

Ah yes, we don’t know what evolution is. But the Discoveroids do. Brace yourself for some hard-core obfuscation as the news story continues:

It can mean: 1) Change over time, 2) Common descent, and 3) Natural selection. Darwin claimed all three, and “his core idea is that nature can do the work of the Creator.” Public school students today are taught all three meanings. Nevertheless, Meyer said that natural selection as the mechanism of evolution is increasingly questioned by evolutionary biologists.

This is an important place to pause for a moment and consider that creationists always sow confusion by attempting to invent new definitions for words — see, e.g., Ken Ham’s Historical vs. Observational Science. The Discoveroids do it too. See Discovery Institute: Their Own Version of Newspeak. And Meyer is doing it again.

Contrary to Meyer’s babbling, evolution doesn’t mean three different things. The first two items he listed (change over time and common descent) are facts, readily derived from the fossil record, from morphology, and from DNA. The third thing Meyer listed (natural selection) is a major component of the theory that explains those facts. Okay, now let’s see where Meyer is trying to go with his “three different meanings” of evolution:

There is, Meyer said, “a huge disparity in the presentation of evolution.” Scientific associations insist on Neo-Darwinism, the doctrine that natural selection acts by genetic mutation, as the indisputable cause of evolution, and thus of the apparent biological order. But the rejection of criticism is unscientific, he said. Just as a computer requires new code to perform a new function, so a species requires new genetic information for an improved function, which cannot reasonably be developed by the transmission of errors in the gene sequence.

Ooooooooooooh — information! See Phlogiston, Vitalism, and Information. Here are a few more nuggets, plucked from several paragraphs:

The issue is critically important, because evolution is the creation story of materialism. “Evolution is a surrogate for world view issues,” according to Meyer.

[…]

Belief in special creation on the other hand is conducive to creativity.

[…]

Additionally, the general public is supportive of an educational policy of “teaching the controversy.” This should cause politicians, especially conservative politicians supported by a conservative base, to be less evasive and apologetic about what they believe concerning creation and evolution.

There’s much more to the article, but we’ve seen enough. This is a good time to introduce the Curmudgeon’s First Rule for Dealing with Creationists. Imagine that you’re walking down the street, minding your own business. Suddenly there’s an underground explosion. A high-pressure sewer pipe that flows from a nearby insane asylum has ruptured, sending a ghastly geyser of goo gushing from the ground, reaching 30 feet into the air.

There will be those who joyously rush forward, eager to bathe in what they see as a wondrous fountain. You can’t stop them, you can’t argue with them, and you shouldn’t try. The Curmudgeon’s Rule for such situations is: Just get out of the way, and do it quickly!

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

13 responses to “Stephen Meyer Gives Advice to Politicians

  1. We are revisiting an era where religion dominated the scene. Denialism, (un)intelligent design/creationism, ideological new-speak, preferential treatment for christians, etc. are continuing to muddy the landscape. I expect soon that the high priests, of this nonsense, the religious right, the dishonesty institute, Ham, et. al, will soon be sacrifying animals to the great designer and from the animals’ entrails fortell the future of America, and we will all become subject to this idiotic nonsense. The Great Communicator, Reagan, the hero of the GOP, and his wife, followed the courses of the stars with astrology. ID/creationsim is just another example of this nonsense.

  2. michaelfugate

    Just as a computer requires new code to perform a new function, so a species requires new genetic information for an improved function, which cannot reasonably be developed by the transmission of errors in the gene sequence.

    I have never seen an explanation of why this can’t happen. What could a god do to a DNA sequence that a random mutation couldn’t? It is always going to be a sequence of As, Cs, Ts and Gs. I am waiting for Meyer to show me a mutation that his god did and how he knows that.

  3. Mike Elzinga

    If anybody doubts that ID/creationism is a socio/political movement, articles like this should remove that doubt. This crap has been a sectarian assault on secular society using a Trojan horse made of pseudoscience, pseudo philosophy, and pseudo history.

    These clowns set out to deliberately muck up the political process and kill brain cells. The real danger comes from the fact that there are wealthy, cynical minds who are willing to pour billions of dollars into corrupting the political process in order to get their candidates elected to office so that they can grab what they want.

  4. michaelfugate

    I know there are sane Republicans – even in Congress – why do they continue to associate with these people? What can they possibly hope to accomplish with the baggage these individuals bring with them? Look at the dysfunction of the current Congress with a supposed Republican majority.

  5. Meyer said that natural selection as the mechanism of evolution is increasingly questioned by evolutionary biologists.

    OK name three REAL biologist (not 3 DI yes men for hire) that think evilution is BS!?!?!?

  6. @L.Long
    First of all, it makes no different how many or how few, or what their credentials are, if any. What matters is what they have to say. And, if they’re IDers, they have nothing to say. If they’re YECs, they have next to nothing to say.
    Second: of course, standard evolutionary biology accepts mechanisms in addition to natural selection. That offers no solace to evolution-deniers.

  7. ID is for the many xians who cannot quite swallow the YEC dogma. They like the science-sounding explanation of how God, over eons, tweaked and tinkered all along the way, put in a new gene here, a couple of new ones there, and voila, you have that special creation – humans. Of course they were perfect when they were designed and introduced, but everyone knows that over time genes get worse, not better. Sadly they believe this cockamanie.

  8. Warning when taking Sanityphron.
    “Meyers presence in non disinfected public venues has been shown to cause outbreaks of the Discoveroidemea virus among those with a history of creationitus symptoms. If you’ve listened to a Meyers talk or read one of his
    “articles” you may be at risk of reduced reasoning capacity. Tell your doctor if your intellectual capacity decreases to zero or you suddenly find yourself
    quoting Casey Luskin. Do not expose yourself to Meyerensis or Discoveroidemea if you are easily nauseated. Extensive use may cause brain death and an irresesistable desire to quote Bobby Jindal.. Call your doctor if your mental incapacity lasts more than 48 hours.
    Do not read Jack Chick tracts if you are exposed to Discoveroidemea as this may result in uncontrollable loss of close friends and business associates. Do not attend any zoos containing primate exhibits while using Discoveridemea therapy as you may develop fear of bananas. Discontinue use if you start feeling a need to prove the earth is flat.
    Discoveroidemea is not recommended for children or those with an actual education.” In some cases taking Curmudgeonite can reverse your decline in mental health, however, Discoveroidemea has been known to decrease some patients ability to understand words with more than two syllables which makes reading difficult..
    Check with your mental health professional if you have any questions about Discoveridemea.”

  9. Ah yes, we don’t know what evolution is. But the Discoveroids do. Brace yourself for some hard-core obfuscation as the news story continues:

    It can mean: 1) Change over time, 2) Common descent, and 3) Natural selection. Darwin claimed all three, and “his core idea is that nature can do the work of the Creator.” Public school students today are taught all three meanings. Nevertheless, Meyer said that natural selection as the mechanism of evolution is increasingly questioned by evolutionary biologists.

    If you don’t “claim all three,” what do you have? At best, you have teleological (directed) evolution–(1) and (2) with a Creator guiding them instead of natural selection. It’s all downhill from there. Creationists want to claim “none of the above,” but there’s all that pesky evidence . . . !

  10. Christian Post: “Meyer said that natural selection as the mechanism of evolution is increasingly questioned by evolutionary biologists.”

    This is not true, and Stephen Meyer knows it. Therefore, he is lying. Not only is he lying, he’s lying to advance the agenda of the “Intelligent Design” proponents, the Discovery Institute. And as I mentioned here just a week ago, they’re the ones who are desperately trying to connect Darwin to Hitler, among other pariahs of civilization. How ironic that they should be following the credo of Hitler’s propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, who said, “If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.”

  11. Stephen Meyer: ” …so a species requires new genetic information for an improved function, which cannot reasonably be developed by the transmission of errors in the gene sequence“. (Bold added)

    Mutations are NOT the “transmission of errors”. They are merely a new arrangement within the DNA molecule. Changes, if you will. Some of these changes turn out to be beneficial to the individual organism, thus enhancing its chance of reproducing. These mutations, along with the myriad new combinations of genes resulting from sexual reproduction, are the mechanisms of evolution. What’s so hard about this to understand? Well, of course, the Discovery Institute will have none of it, because it doesn’t require the hand of their Grand Old Designer. But for the rational portion of the population, it explains why evolution works very well.

    “Transmission of errors”, indeed! The only “transmission of errors” here are the writings spewing forth from the Discovery Institute.

  12. SC, please do me a favor — at the end of the 2nd to last paragraph above, “…it explains who evolution works very well”, “who” should be “why”. Thank you, Great Hand, thank you!

    [*Voice from above*] It is done!

  13. Wake up loons!