Discoveroids Say: Follow the Evidence

This post will be uncharacteristically brief, but there’s really not much to say about the latest at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog: Listen: “Follow the Evidence Wherever It Leads.” Really?

That title alone earns a hearty BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Their article is very brief, but it’s pure gold. Here it is — omitting their links:

Yes, really. On a new episode of ID the Future, Nate Herbst and Casey Luskin continue their conversation (find earlier segments here and here).

We didn’t listen to Casey’s earlier tapes, and we’re not going to listen to this one either. Moving along:

They discuss the commitment of intelligent design to “follow the evidence wherever it leads.”

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! What evidence? As we’ve said so often before, they have absolutely no evidence for the existence of their transcendental designer. Instead, they have questions, and they declare that their designer — blessed be he! — is the answer. That’s what Discoveroids call evidence, but the rest of us know that it’s only the God of the gaps.

This is the rest of it:

Unlike materialism, which MUST find a naturalistic explanation for everything in nature, ID is without bias, making no prior to commitment as to whether any given phenomenon should be explicable in natural or design terms.

Ooooops — they misspoke there. They say “materialism” — their term for science — must find a natural explanation because of bias. Well, what else can be found? Science can only work with detectable, verifiable data. The designer is always careful to leave no footprints, so there’s nothing about him that science can investigate.

Oh, they misspoke again — the alternative to a natural explanation isn’t “design” — it’s a supernatural explanation. Everyone knows that’s what they mean when they use the word “design.” The Discoveroids certainly know it, because they invented their jargon in order to pretend that they’re not a bunch of flaming creationists.

Anyway, if you want to hear Casey’s undoubtedly thrilling tape, the link is at the Discoveroids’ website. Go ahead, listen to it. If you learn anything new, please tell us about it.

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

12 responses to “Discoveroids Say: Follow the Evidence

  1. Ah Casey, kindly tell us which leprechaun did all this designing stuff…

  2. michaelfugate

    That’s just a repetition of the penultimate chapter of Meyer’s book before he finishes with the straight-up apologetics chapter. It is pretty funny – complaining about 19th century materialism while hawking 17th century or even earlier anti-materialism. Back in the day, these guys would have been badmouthing Descartes and Spinoza and declaring Aikenhead guilty of blasphemy.

  3. As has been said often before, when you call the plumber, you expect that there will be a material cause for the leak. You would not be favorably impressed by a plumber who is open to finding leprechauns.

  4. michaelfugate

    Meyer’s last two chapters in summary:
    Science needs God.
    And you do too.

  5. I am pretty sure it is a typo in the Discoveroid’s article, which was meant to be entitled: Swallow the Evidence

  6. Megalonyx: “Swallow the Evidence”

    They’d choke on it.

  7. And just like that I lost my faith in God. Again!

  8. docbill1351

    I would have thought that the Gerb would Spit the Evidence.

    Swallow or Spit? Teach the controversy! Let the students decide.

  9. How does one follow the evidence wherever it may lead when you have already identified the end point of the journey?

  10. ….ID is without bias, making no prior to commitment as to whether any given phenomenon should be explicable in natural or design terms.

    I’ll believe they mean this when they give even one example of the former (natural) phenomenon.

  11. ID is less a “theory” than it is a legal maneuver intended to get around prior court decisions overturning anti-evolution laws and establishing that the teaching of creationism as science in public schools is an unconstitutional merger of church and state.

  12. @Eric Lipps
    Or an advertising “concept”. “Sell the sizzle, not the steak.”