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.
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.