Today we have yet another example of the Great Creationist Coalescence (the GCC) of various creationist outfits. The last time we wrote about this was Discoveroids Adopt a Ken Ham Doctrine, and that links to several earlier examples.
This time the Discovery Institute is embracing a modified version of another of Ken Ham’s bizarre notions — that logic is impossible without the bible because “The laws of logic flow from the biblical worldview” — see Creationism and Logic, Part 3.
At the Discoveroids’ creationist blog we find Lawyer, Scientist, or Animal? Choosing Between Evolution and Human Reason. It’s by Sarah Chaffee, a new Discoveroid staffer. We’ve been calling her “Savvy Sarah.” Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us.
In a post for the NPR [National Public Radio] blog 13.7, UC Berkeley psychologist Tania Lombrozo asks, Is the Mind’s Approach More Like a Scientist or a Trial Lawyer? She praises advances toward greater scientific objectivity, suggesting this holds promise that humans can overcome their natural biases. But the case for scientific objectivity only makes sense in a context where we can trust our reason. And guess what? That’s an assumption more compatible with intelligent design than with an evolutionary framework.
The NPR article doesn’t mention intelligent design, but like all Discoveroids, Savvy Sarah sees evidence for their “theory” everywhere they look. She says:
Lombrozo asks whether we tend to reason like scientists — that is, examine the evidence and draw conclusions based on it — or more like trial lawyers — cherry-picking data to fit our case.
Actually, a good trial lawyer knows how to think, and he recognizes when he has a weak case, but it’s his job to present what little evidence he may have in the best way possible. In that sense, he might behave like an apologist, but he knows what he’s doing and will admit that he does it. Anyway, let’s read on:
Lombrozo places her confidence in science — a human endeavor — to reveal truth about the universe. Is that confidence justified? Well, it depends. Judging from her earlier blogging, Lombrozo seems to be in favor of materialistic evolution, but that same viewpoint undermines our trust in reason, or ought to do so if you’re consistent.
What? Evolution “undermines our trust in reason”? What madness is this? Savvy Sarah quotes a couple of Discoveroids — always a smart thing to do — and then tells us:
Darwinism, in other words, undermines itself as a scientific idea. It asks that we trust the theorizing done by human minds, yet tells us those minds are a step away from irrational animals. How did trustworthy reason “evolve” ex nihilo? Materialists sidestep that conundrum.
Yes, dear reader — if you ignore the scientific method of gathering data, proposing and testing hypotheses, and rejecting demonstrably false ideas, then (and only then) you’re a fool to believe that your monkey brain is capable doing any useful thinking. Savvy Sarah continues:
But if study of the universe reveals evidence of intelligent design, we may have reason to trust our minds after all.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Here’s her conclusion:
Under materialistic evolution, we are neither scientists nor trial lawyers — but animals. Under ID, at least there is the chance of human beings exercising right reason and, on that basis, making real scientific progress.
So there you are, dear reader. The Discoveroids have adopted another of Hambo’s arguments. The Great Creationist Coalescence is continuing.
Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.