Casey Won’t Admit That The Designer Is Yahweh

The Discovery Institute continues to insist that they’re a science outfit, in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary — starting with their own Wedge strategy. You can read the actual document at the NCSE website: The Wedge Document. It forthrightly declares:

Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. … Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.

Here’s a scan of the original: The Wedge. It’s a pdf document which begins with a graphic of Michelangelo’s God creating Adam. We discussed the whole thing in What is the “Wedge Document”?

Aside from that, they’ve all but admitted that their magic designer is Yahweh — see Casey Admits the Designer Is the First Cause. Before that they had already emerged out of their closet, pranced around wearing ecclesiastical garb, and confessed that their “scientific” designer — blessed be he! — is transcendent. That means their designer exists beyond time and space, in that inaccessible and incomprehensible realm known only to the gods. Jeepers — who could it be?

Although the Discoveroids continue to insist that their “theory” of intelligent is scientific, no one who knows anything about science agrees with them (except for a few oddballs), and despite the Discoveroids’ endless denials — which are entirely for the purpose of slipping their dogma into the public schools — no one doubts the divinity of their imaginary designer. Yet they continue their shabby charade.

The latest from Casey Luskin — our favorite creationist — is Why Doesn’t Intelligent Design Identify the Designer? We all know the answer. If they did announce that their designer is Yahweh, they’d be in the same boat (or Ark) as ol’ Hambo, and their misnamed Academic Freedom bills would never even be considered anywhere.

Okay, you know what’s coming — an ark-load of disinformation. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us. Casey says:

A friendly scientist contacted me recently with a question about intelligent design and specifically the identity of the designer. He believed that the ID movement has “adopted a policy of carefully avoiding explicit identification of the source of ID as the God of the Bible, or any other specific deity” and that this policy “follows from the cultural state of affairs which tolerates nothing having to do with biblical religion.” He was concerned that our approach was simply a legal or political strategy, rather than one driven by the search for truth.

The “friendly scientist” is absolutely correct. But you know Casey is going to deny it. That’s his job. Here it comes:

I replied, respectfully, that his description does not accurately reflect the thinking of the ID movement. Yes, he is correct that ID does not identify the designer. But this refusal is principled, not some kind of rhetorical or legal “strategy” or politically motivated “policy.” It stems from a desire to take a scientific approach and respect the limits of scientific inquiry, rather than inject religious discussions about theological questions into science.

Does anyone believe that? Anyone? No? Well, maybe Casey will convince you. Let’s read on:

Because ID sticks to scientifically tractable questions, it stays silent on such matters. This is a crucial point to appreciate if you want to understand why ID doesn’t identify the designer: it’s not because ID takes a scientific approach and science arbitrarily avoids such questions; it’s because ID takes a scientific approach and science has no means of addressing such questions.

He lost us when he said that that they take a scientific approach. Anyway, we’ll continue:

[T]he empirical data — such as the information-rich, integrated complexity of the flagellar machine — may indicate that the flagellum arose by intelligent design. But that same empirical data does not inform us whether the intelligence that designed the flagellum was Yahweh, Allah, Buddha, Yoda, or some other source of intelligent agency. There is no known way to use such empirical data to determine the nature or identity of the designer, and since ID is based solely upon empirical data, the scientific theory of ID must remain silent on such questions.

So they remain silent. Nevertheless, every drooling idiot who encounters Discoveroid propaganda immediately knows what they’re saying. Here’s more:

The point of all this is that ID’s non-identification of the designer isn’t a “policy” or a “strategy,” but rather it’s something that just flows out of ID’s choice to take a scientific approach, rather than a theological one.

That’s enough. Okay, you’ve seen what Casey has to say. Now we’ll ask again: Does anyone believe him?

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

24 responses to “Casey Won’t Admit That The Designer Is Yahweh

  1. Saying that ID is a purely scientific question is like saying that the questions of whether whites are smarter than blacks or men are smarter than women are purely scientific. We all recognize the deadly combination of very little science and huge cultural prejudice, not to mention obnoxious political agenda. Either Casey is a idiot or he thinks we are,

  2. It’s amusing that Casey invokes Yoda, who would surely say “the ignorance is strong with this one Obi-Wan” Apparently Casey’s not up on current research. I think (I don’t have the references off hand) it’s been clearly demonstrated that Behe’s contention that the bacterial flagella arose by anything other than natural processes is wrong. Of course, I might believe Casey if he claimed my favorite sky fairy, Ganesh, did it all.

  3. From the “Wedge Document”:

    Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. … Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.

    “Leading scholars from the natural sciences”? Can they name even one such person who’s on their staff, or even one who supports their ideas?

    [T]he empirical data — such as the information-rich, integrated complexity of the flagellar machine — may indicate that the flagellum arose by intelligent design. But that same empirical data does not inform us whether the intelligence that designed the flagellum was Yahweh, Allah, Buddha, Yoda, or some other source of intelligent agency. There is no known way to use such empirical data to determine the nature or identity of the designer . . .

    In other words, not only to “we” not know who the Designer is (*snicker* Who does Casey think he’s kidding?), there is no way we can know through science. So the Discovery Institute is asking its suckers, I mean its audience, to take on faith the existence of some unidentified Creator of the universe because otherwise (so saith the Institute) there is no explanation for the existence of complex structures and there never can be.

    This is the God of the Gaps all over again. You’d think Casey & Co. would recognize by now that this is a losing argument, since questions they insist are unanswerable through godless materialistic science keep on being answered by godless materialistic science. But no.

  4. michaelfugate

    That we can detect “designer”, but not the “designer” is hilarious – does he really think he is fooling anyone? And of course, that he and his fellows are engaged in “science” is even more hilarious. All one need do is read Meyer’s book to realize that what the DI means by “science” is apologetics and what it mean by designer is the Christian God.

  5. There is no known way to use such empirical data to determine the nature or identity of the designer, and since ID is based solely upon empirical data, the scientific theory of ID must remain silent on such questions.

    That sounds like something a Cdesign Proponentsist would say.

  6. … it’s something that just flows out of ID’s choice to take a scientific approach, rather than a theological one.

    That’s true. ID promoters made a choice to parrot the scientific process rather than take the theological approach – for political expediency. The very idea that an ID apologist admits that ID had a choice to make between science and theology pretty much gives up the whole game.

    Any scientist who discovered something that he or she believed to be intelligently designed, by something other than humans, would devote the rest of their career trying to discover who or what that designer was, when the design was done, and how it was done. That would be the most important discovery in the history of science.

    But the DI, not being scientists, are apparently uninterested. That would be the charitable explanation.

  7. “Either Casey is a idiot or he thinks we are,”

    Your statement contains some errors, I would recommend the following since it more closely aligns with the copious evidence that has been provided over the years.

    “Casey is a terminal idiot who thinks no one else could be as “smart” as he imagines himself to be. I see this condition a lot in the willfully ignorant.

  8. I vote for Yoda. Or maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

  9. No, I don’t believe him

  10. “ID takes a scientific approach and science has no means of addressing such questions.”

    So the D.I. wants you to drive down a highway no one can ever hope to actually build. Well it’s really there but only they can drive on it.

  11. I sent Luskin an extract from my book proving a malevolent designer. I used all the Discovery material and arguments, including quotes from Casey himself. For some peculiar reason, he wrote a terse reply and I never heard from him again.

    Funny that

  12. @john zande
    There is also the conclusion to be drawn from the “design” analogy that there are multiple designers with conflicting purposes. If we can trust our
    detection of purpose, we can trust that there are conflicting purposes. For example, “the eye” – in a predator, eyes serve a predator in predation – in a prey, eyes serve a prey to avoid predation.
    I once came across this argument in the Indian philosopher Ramanuja (1017?-1137?).

    C. Mackenzie Brown, “The Design Argument in Classical Hindu Thought”, International Journal of Hindu Studies, vol. 12 no. 2 (2008), pages 103-151, doi: 10.1007/s11407-008-9058-8 – see page 132 on multiple designers.

  13. He states that the identity of the incompetent designer is unknowable as science cannot deal with something beyond space/time! But if it is unknowable then how can he know of it???? Other than…I’m ignorant as hell and am not from no animal, so a designer exists!!! And he then ignores…..Although if you look really close at his design the dimwit designer is incompetent!!

  14. Necessity is the mother of invention.

    Design is how one deals with the limits of the world.

    One reason not to go into the “details” of “intelligent design” is that it is embarrassing to creation.

  15. Great beginning. Everyone who aspires to criticize IDiocy should read at least the introduction of the Wedge Document. It tells exactly what we’re dealing with.

    “serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.”
    In straightforward philosophical terms: “we IDiots reject methodological naturalism ie the scientific method unless its results confirm our theology.”

    “the Discoveroids continue to insist that their “theory” of intelligent is scientific,”
    And it’s exactly at this point that I formulated (though I personally collected some empirical evidence first) my Golden Rule: “IDiots and creationists lie until proven otherwise”. See the previous quote and my comment.

  16. @TomS: “There is also the conclusion to be drawn from the “design” analogy that there are multiple designers with conflicting purposes.”
    1. We already know that the Gerbil is a liar.
    2. There is good evidence that IDiots like the Gerbil are impressed by the Fine Tuning argument. This is not science, but theology; so much for the claim that IDiocy is a scientific theory.
    3. It wouldn’t surprise me if the Gerbil wrote that ID keeps the option of polytheism open as well, especially if he sees it politically fit to reach out to hindu creationists.

  17. One of the marks of the authoritarian is lying. It doesn’t much matter whether the lie is believable. In fact, it’s a sign of one’s power to show that one can tell a lie to an audience who know that it’s a lie, but can’t do anything about it.

  18. @TomS

    Thanks for that! At the very least we can say the Hindu’s were rational in their approach to the fantastic.

  19. docbill1351

    We all know that the Gerbil is a lying sack of [edited out] because he’s paid to be a lying sack of [edited out].

    Right from the get go he’s lying:

    A friendly scientist contacted me recently with a question about intelligent design and specifically the identity of the designer.

    That’s a lie. “Friendly scientist” my [edited out]! I’m as friendly as they come but I doubt that the Gerbils “nixplanatory filter” would blink a green light for me. No, once again the Gerbil is making up his invisible Harvey “scientist” friend. What kind of “scientist” other than imaginary would pose such a naive and insipid question? You’re right, none!

    The Gerb then trots out the hoary old lie that science can’t investigate the “supernatural,” yet the Gerb goes on to lay out all the characteristics of the “supernatural” world! What a moron. There have been, in fact, many, many scientific studies of so-called paranormal phenomena including intercessory prayer and all those studies, every one, have come up negative. So negative that recently a 30-year institute to study the paranormal (at Princeton or Columbia?) shut down.

    It’s not so much ironic as sad and pitiful that the Gerb’s little cage is lined with the shredded paper trail linking creationism in all its forms to “intelligent design” creationism, a political movement specifically designed (ha ha, I crack me up!) to get around the US Constitution just like good little theocratic authoritarians are so eager to do.

    “Friendly scientist,” that still gets me!

  20. michaelfugate

    Has anyone emailed Casey with questions? Has he ever answered?
    I tried to email Wells after his “Icons” was published, but got the blackhole treatment.

  21. Has anyone ever expressed interest in what he has to say?

  22. docbill1351

    Has anyone ever expressed interest in what he has to say?

    Yes, from time to time this has happened and every time Luskin has had his [edited out] handed to him. Even yours truly engaged with the Gerb to the point where he had to wash his hair or something and dived off the discussion thread. He’s an ignorant coward and runs when cornered. He’s a pathetic little liar, but paid to be such. It’s a living, I guess, but not one a person with morals would take.

  23. Forgive me if this has been said before in this thread, but the most important point regarding the DI and designer’s identity is what Michael Behe said at Dover, almost a decade ago. Which is that the designer might no longer exist. Let that sink in, along with the fact that Behe was neither “expelled” nor publicly criticized by the DI for that “sacrilege.”

    Certainly the DI can’t admit that it’s Yahweh. But if they personally believe that it is, then they also personally think there’s a good chance that Yahweh is dead. I for one think its infinitely more likely that they privately think that they either caught no designer, or at best some hapless alien(s). But if that’s the case, they can’t admit that either, because that would get them in trouble with a different group.

    So they say and do what they must if they know that mainstream science is right, but find that truth very inconvenient to their radical, paranoid authoritarian agenda.

  24. Casey, hahaha, cough sputter, hahaha HAHAHAHAHA, cough sputter. ha ha ha HAHA HA. Wow, you had me going there. What Casey you are serious? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.