Theory of Abominable Befuddlement Proved Again

The creationist brain is a never-ending source of puzzlement. We wrote the Theory of Abominable Befuddlement to explain it, in which we said:

[H]ow can a creationist brain even exist? Surely, the defects that produce such a malfunctioning organ should have been filtered out of the gene pool long ago. The continued existence of creationists among us can be cited as evidence against natural selection. Therefore, we must boldly acknowledge the Paradox of Creationism: Creationism exists; and if evolution can’t account for it, then what does?

Our breakthrough insight was the Theory of Abominable Befuddlement™ (commonly abbreviated as “AB”) which holds that certain features of the creationist brain are best explained by an Abominable Befuddler, and not by an undirected process such as natural selection.

As the world’s foremost befuddlement theorist, your Curmudgeon is always looking for evidence of irreducible befuddlement to support our theory. We found some a few years ago in a post by Klinghoffer — see Proof of the Theory of Abominable Befuddlement — and we found some more today.

But first, some background. You recall our recent post, NASA Has More Bad News for Creationists, in which we described a NASA report that “Astronomers came to the surprising conclusion that there are at least 10 times more galaxies in the observable universe than previously thought. This places the universe’s estimated population at, minimally, 2 trillion galaxies.” We concluded by saying:

The simple, Earth-centered universe of the creationists is becoming ridiculously huge, and the miracle of life is becoming increasingly less miraculous. As a result, creationism is becoming increasingly absurd. Now, let’s see if any of the usual creationist websites bother to mention these new discoveries.

Today we have the Discovery Institute’s reaction: New Research Finds Two Trillion Galaxies, written by Sarah Chaffee (whom we call “Savvy Sarah”). It’s far better than we imagined it could be. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

New research demonstrates that the previous estimate for the number of galaxies was too low — by a factor of 10. In fact, there are two trillion galaxies in the observable universe.

Yes, we know. Then she says:

Now consider, not one of these myriad galaxies would exist without the fantastically precise cosmological fine-tuning that Jay Richards, CSC Senior Fellow and co-author of The Privileged Planet, describes: [big quote from Richards].

Richards, co-author of the creationist classic, The Privileged Planet, describes a few of the physical constants, such as gravity, the electromagnetic force, the strong force, etc. It’s basic, high school stuff. After that, Savvy Sarah suddenly ends her befuddled post by declaring:

If all that’s not sufficiently jaw-dropping, add it to that you’re standing here, on one planet, in one solar system, in the Milky Way — one of two trillion galaxies. That’s pretty special, too.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Being located in one of two trillion galaxies is “pretty special.” In other words, whatever scientists discover is proof of the glorious work of the intelligent designer — blessed be he! One galaxy, two trillion galaxies, it doesn’t matter. The Discoveroids’ theory is consistent with everything, so it’s always true.

Well, dear reader, we said we had found more evidence for our Theory of Abominable Befuddlement™. As long as the Discoveroids continue to promote their “theory” of intelligent design, we will never be wrong.

Copyright © 2016. 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

18 responses to “Theory of Abominable Befuddlement Proved Again

  1. Are you sure it is a theory and not a principle, “a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning”?

  2. Curmy needs his own History Channel show – In Search of the Abominable Befuddler.

  3. I wonder whether there is something to be made of mixing Abominable Befuddlement with the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism.
    How does divine creation of human reason explain AB? (Or, on the other hand, if one thinks that evolution is false, how does divine creation of human reason explain the attraction to human reason of the evidence for evolution?)

  4. I’m speechless.

  5. michaelfugate

    So a theologian explains all?
    But ID has nothing to do with religion.

  6. You don’t even need that many galaxies to stun your brain. Our own has about 10 billion planets. First try to comprehend that: a thousand, times a thousand, times a thousand. Times ten for dessert.

    You can’t even begin to fathom that there would be a thousand of such galaxies, let alone two trillion.

    But where the brains simply shuts off is the thought that this was all created to please a small number of backward desert nomads who only came into existence a few intergalactic seconds ago.

  7. Remember that, according to the Anthropic Principle, the parameters of physical laws were fine tuned to make human life possible. Yet, according to the concept of a Plivileged Planet, without special attention not even one planet among quadrillions could accommodate human life. Moreover, by the analogy of the Tornado in a Junkyard, not even on a Privileged Planet in a Fine Tuned universe is there the probability of life without Special Creation of life. And if all of that is not enough, Homo sapiens could not evolve among the primates. Some intelligent design!

  8. michaelfugate

    But Tom, you can’t believe in an agent God and not give it anything to do.

    By the way, here is Jay Richards dissertation….

    Modal metaphysics and the Christian doctrine of God, with special reference to Karl Barth and Charles Hartshorn.
    Richards, Jay Wesley, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1999.

    In this thesis I develop and apply an essentialist model derived from contemporary modal metaphysics and possible worlds semantics to the Christian doctrine of God. Essentialism as such is neither a doctrine of God nor a doctrine of the divine perfections, but rather a proposal for how we can attribute certain things to God.

  9. @michaelfugate
    Good point!
    It gives me something to ponder.

  10. Is the Abominable Befuddler the same Person as the Evil God, discussed by Stephen Law and John Zande, among others? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_God_Challenge? Or is the AB a constituent Person of the EG, much as the Holy Spirit is a constituent Person of the Trinity?

    I need to know. I’m befuddled, and my entire hope of eternal damnation hinges on my getting the correct answer

  11. Paul Braterman says: “I need to know.”

    You need more humility! All will be revealed in due course, but only if you are worthy.

  12. The simple, Earth-centered universe of the creationists is becoming ridiculously huge, and the miracle of life is becoming increasingly less miraculous. As a result, creationism is becoming increasingly absurd. Now, let’s see if any of the usual creationist websites bother to mention these new discoveries.” [Emphasis mine]

    Let’s actually find evidence for extraterrestrial life first before you guys continue to triumphantly declare life to be less and less miraculous. Where are the one million advanced civilizations Carl Sagan guessed were in our own Milky Way galaxy and Star Trek polluted a generation’s minds with “not life as we know it”?

    With every announcement by the Curmudgeon of a new exoplanet or adjustment to the size of the universe and demise of ID, I’m reminded of that old business joke:

    “We lose money on every sale, but make it up on volume” 🙂

  13. Only Abominable Befuddlement can explain how someone is capable of labeling “new exoplanet” and “ridiculously huge universe” as a loss of money.

  14. michaelfugate

    When will KevinC come to grips with ID theology? Does he really believe there is dignity in being a machine built by someone? Does he believe that a refrigerator has dignity because it was built by intelligent design?

  15. @michaelfugate
    Is it so much better to think of oneself as being deliberately built like a chimp, rather than just related?
    If God had similar ends in mind in planning humans to be most like chimps and other apes, among all of the choices of living things – indeed, all of the things, living or otherwise – wouldn’t that give us a hint that maybe he wanted us to behave like chimps?
    But just because I am closely related to my grand uncle, the horse-thief, that does not mean that I should follow his example. I am more closely related to Torquemada than to Binti Jua,

  16. michaelfugate

    This seems to be the comparison:
    Which has more dignity a) a machine built by a human, b) an igneous rock built by a volcano?

  17. Don’t feel too bad, mnb0. A lot of people don’t get the joke.

  18. [blockquote]Let’s actually find evidence for extraterrestrial life first before you guys continue to triumphantly declare life to be less and less miraculous. Where are the one million advanced civilizations Carl Sagan guessed were in our own Milky Way galaxy and Star Trek polluted a generation’s minds with “not life as we know it”?[/blockquote]
    Well, some of them (most of them) might be undetectable by us, or unrecognizable as civilizations if we did detect them.

    We’re well on the way to becoming undetectable ourselves, at least by radio-wave astronomy, as we gradually abandon broadcast media in favor of cable and other non-broadcast technologies. And if we’re generous with our notion of “advanced,” it’s worth pointing out that 100 years ago we were ALSO undetectable by our EM emissions, because they weren’t powerful enough to be detected at interstellar distances, at least by any technology we have or are likely to have in the near future.

    And truly advanced civilizations might communicate by way of ultra-high-energy technologies whose manifestations we might mistake for natural phenomena.