This is one of the best we’ve seen from the Discovery Institute: Any Sufficiently Vacuous Evolutionary Explanation Is Indistinguishable from Magic. It has no author’s byline, so they all get credit. Without further delay, here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:
Intelligent-design theorists including William Dembski and Stephen Meyer have produced rigorous mathematical, logical, and empirical arguments showing that the mechanism described by the “chance hypothesis” is woefully inadequate to bring about the complex genetic information found in even the simplest life. Yet that has not stopped many a Darwinian from invoking chance as a cause of biological complexity. Information, they believe, “emerges” by accident.
Multiple exclamations of Aaaargh!! The Discoveroids’ magic designer somehow exists beyond time and space, and there is no known mechanism for his miraculous activities, so there’s no observable or testable evidence to support the claims of “intelligent-design theorists.” Instead, all they ever do is nitpick the abundantly clear and oft-verified mechanism of evolution — mutations and natural selection.
Oh, the Discoveroids also claim that “information” can’t “emerge by accident.” We’re not supposed to notice that what they call “information” is nothing but imaginary pixie dust — see Phlogiston, Vitalism, and Information. We’re also supposed to be unaware of Self-organization, which gives the appearance of design. And we’re supposed to forget about observed instances of gene duplication, followed by mutation of one of the duplicates, which results in new biological features.
Okay, that was their thrilling introduction. Then they mention an article they don’t like and say:
Their reasoning seems to rely on the assumption that since evolution is an accepted fact, and intelligence is disallowed, it must have happened. But mutations, being random genetic changes, offer nothing better causally than the chance hypothesis.
Ah yes, the “chance hypothesis.” That’s their way to summarize 150 years of scientific observations — a shabby alternative to the Discoveroids’ glorious design “theory” which, in their own words, “holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” See Discovery Institute: Intelligent Design Redefined.
Skipping a bunch, we come to this:
Given that science’s job is to explain the mysterious in terms of scientific laws and evidence, it’s astonishing how governments will throw money at magical explanations. Intelligent design advocates, by contrast, have to work independently or raise private donations.
Lordy, lordy. Ah well, there’s plenty more in the Discoveroid article. Read it if you like. Their claim is that we’re the magicians and they’re the scientists. But somehow they can’t get any respect. It’s a cruel world.
Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.