The slowest news day we can remember compels us to scrape the bottom today. We found something at the creationist blog of the Discovery Institute.
As you know, they’ve been gradually recently letting it creep into their posts that their intelligent designer — blessed be he! — has all the attributes of Yahweh, although they still don’t specifically make that identification because they like to pretend that their “theory” is science; but neither they nor their fans have any doubts about who their designer really is.
For example, 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 is transcendent. That means their designer exists beyond time and space, in that inaccessible and incomprehensible realm known only to the gods. Shortly after that we wrote Klinghoffer Admits Intelligent Design Is Theism. And don’t forget their wedge strategy, which makes everything quite clear — see What is the “Wedge Document”?
God is not demonstrable by the scientific method. … His existence — his glory and wisdom and love — are manifest in creation, but his manifestation is not the same thing as his demonstration. … There are several strong demonstrations of God’s existence — Aquinas’ Five Ways, the ontological proof, and the argument from moral law, among others. These are logical proofs that depend only minimally on inferences drawn from nature, and do not depend at all on the current state of science.
There is directedness to the universe. It is the consistent directedness of change in nature — the fact that atoms and rocks and bodies and planets and galaxies and the entire universe have tendencies to do one thing and not another — that leads via reason to the existence of God.
When I think of a manifestation of God’s glory, I think of the fine-tuning of the cosmos.
Now Egnor is back again, and his theism is once more undisguised in his new Discoveroid post: Is Your Cat Logical?. We’ll give you a few excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis. First he quotes extensively from and dismisses a study about whether cats can be logical. After that he tells us:
Of course cats can’t do logic, mathematical or otherwise, and they never will. Cats can be clever, and can make inferences about things in their environment. But they don’t do logic. Because they’re cats. Logic is a system of abstract rule-based inferences. The key word is abstract.
Then he prattles on and on about logical syllogisms, and announces:
What distinguishes men from animals is this: men, but not animals, can contemplate universals, independently of particulars. Animals cannot contemplate universals. Animal thought is always tied to particular things.
Not much new there. Let’s read on:
There has never been a demonstration of an animal who is capable of abstract thought about universals, unlinked to particulars. In fact, an animal cannot think about universals, for the simple reason that animals have no language.
Okay. Again, no big deal. Egnor continues:
Men can think abstractly and have language. Language is what makes abstract thought possible. This is the root of what makes us human. We don’t have language in order to communicate with other people (contra evolutionary fairy tales about screeching monkeys and group selection), although language is certainly useful for communication. We have language in order to think abstractly.
We’re not in the mood to argue about what Egnor thinks is the purpose of language. Anyway, here comes the thundering climax of his post:
Men have spiritual souls, and we are able to contemplate abstractions like universals independently of particular things. Abstract thought is an immaterial power unique to the human soul, and language is necessary to it.
So there it is, dear reader. This is the most explicit acknowledgement we’ve yet seen from the Discoveroids. Their scientific “theory” of intelligent design is nothing but bubble-wrapped theism. It’s good that they’re admitting it. They never fooled anyone anyway.
Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.