The Discoveroids’ Cambridge Conference

A month ago we wrote The Discoveroids’ Alternate Reality Conference, about an event the Discoveroids were staging in London to contrast their creation science with what was being discussed at a nearby biology conference sponsored by the Royal Society. Apparently, no Discoveroids had been been invited to discuss intelligent design at the Royal Society’s conference, so they had to arrange their own conference.

All last week, Klinghoffer was blogging from the Royal Society’s conference, and we ignored his output because it seemed to be nothing but an endless exercise in quote-mining. Now, the Discoveroids are basking in the glory of their own conference. Klinghoffer just posted ID’s British Invasion Is a Hit as We Complete the “Beyond Materialism” Conference at Cambridge U. at the Discoveroids’ creationist blog

The first thing to notice is that the Discoveroids have been referring to this as their Cambridge conference. However, it wasn’t a university event. They merely rented a hall at Cambridge for their event. Okay, here are some excerpts from Klinghoffer’s post, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

With star speakers including Stephen Meyer, Douglas Axe, Paul Nelson, Ann Gauger, and Alistair Donald, the “Beyond Materialism” conference yesterday was a big success!

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Then he says:

We hosted scientists from the U.K., Sweden, Germany, and Israel before a full house at Cambridge University’s Hughes Hall.

A full house! After that he tells us:

All of the speakers did a terrific job and the schedule was packed. Attendees were so hungry to know more about the scientific evidence for intelligent design; it was amazing.

“Terrific.” “Amazing.” Lots of adjectives, but no data. Klinghoffer continues:

The vaunted Royal Society meeting may have been short on scientific fireworks, but “Beyond Materialism” was a hit.

Wowie — it was a hit! That reminds your Curmudgeon of a long-ago experience at a science fiction convention. A booth had been rented in the middle of the hotel lobby by the Scientologists. They were hawking Hubbard’s new book, Battlefield Earth, so this must have been back in 1982. Anyway, none of the SF people had any interest in Scientology or Hubbard’s book, and their booth never had any visitors. Not one. Besides, books were never promoted like that at Worldcons. Nevertheless, after it was over the Scientologists ran an ad describing the book as “The Hit of the World Science Fiction Convention.” Similarly, we imagine the Discoveroids’ conference to have been the hit of Cambridge.

One more excerpt:

That’s all for now as we are simply “shattered” (quite tired), as our British friends say!

The Royal Society must be hiding under their desks. The Discoveroids’ “theory” of intelligent was triumphant, and Darwinism is doomed!

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

52 responses to “The Discoveroids’ Cambridge Conference

  1. Klinghoffer reports that the Discoveroid Away Team is

    simply “shattered” (quite tired), as our British friends say!

    More accurate British idiom here would be “knackered”–in its full etymological glory.

  2. That packed conference room looks like it might hold maybe 100 people at most?

    And the dynamic papers brimming with ID evidence which they presented will all be published where, when by the Dishonesty Institute’s own press?

  3. David- They say the evidence for ID is already published in peer-review. ATP synthase is elucidated in peer-review as is bacterial flagella. What is missing from peer-review is how natural selection and drift could have produced those structures.

  4. @David K
    The web site for Hughes Hall says that they have room for a conference of from 5 to 90.
    @Frankie
    Does anyone think that they have a description of how “intelligent design” could have produced anything – how design could produce anything other than a design – how anything non-material could produce anything material?
    Or why anything super-natural would be interested in producing anything natural? Why the supernatural would find something natural would satisfy their goals better than something supernatural?

  5. Charles Deetz ;)

    “Attendees were so hungry to know more about the scientific evidence for intelligent design”

    Aren’t we all? Been waiting years to get some evidence, any evidence.

  6. @Charles Deetz;)
    It didn’t take long for me to realize that it wasn’t so much a matter of evidence, but evidence for what.
    It’s like a detective story without a plot. It is not satisfying because the detective is not turning up clues to the method, opportunity and motive, or the perpetrator; but because we are not being told what is the deed: is it cattle rustling, an embezzlement, or espionage – all we are told is that it does not involve a tornado. What would count as a clue?

  7. Charlie Deetz:
    Does anyone think that they have a description of how “intelligent design” could have produced anything – how design could produce anything other than a design – how anything non-material could produce anything material?

    How is not required as that comes well after intelligent design has been determined. Meaning we don’t have to know how the design was implemented before we can say it was intelligently designed. That is how it works with forensics and archaeology so why would ID be any different?

    BTW, according to the ID leaders, ID does not require the supernatural. Behe testified to that during Kitzmiller v Dover SB.

  8. michaelfugate

    Of course, intelligent design doesn’t require the supernatural – humans do ID every day. Other than a few other animals making tools, humans are the only evidence for ID. The problems for non-human ID of the kind hawked by the DI are 1) humans don’t make living things or universes, for that matter, 2) humans don’t make things in similar ways that living things and universes are made, 3) the methods used in archaeology and forensics are predicated on humans being the makers, 4) none of the above precludes living things and universes from being non-intelligently designed – it’s a non sequitur that human design informs us as to any other design.

  9. Michael- Unfortunately we don’t have any way to test our claims. Nature cannot make nature. Nature cannot produce life from non-life. If we had the evidence and a testable methodology then ID would be a non-starter. Unfortunately all we have is your type of rhetoric.

    That humans cannot make living things (we do- it’s called sexual reproduction) or universes means it had to be some other intelligent agency. That is until we come up with something testable.

  10. “How is not required….”

    Nor is who, what, where, why, or when.

  11. Mark:
    Nor is who, what, where, why, or when.

    Very true. All of that comes after design has been determined

  12. That’s a great strategy for putting off questions indefinitely.

  13. Well Mark, that is how it works with forensics and archaeology. First design is determined and then it and all relevant evidence is studied to ascertain those other questions.

    Heck all we know about Stonehenge came from many years of studying it and its relevant evidence. And we still don’t know “who” beyond “humans” and the when keep changing. But we think we are getting to the how. And why is anyone’s guess. And Stonehenge is something tat we can reproduce.

  14. “Intelligent Design” is different from what humans do. ID is not like anything that we know of. Or so it seems, for anything that we “evolutionists” say about ID, we are told that we have a mistaken impression.
    For example, we know that necessity is the mother of invention. But it seems that ID is not necessitated by anything.
    The kind of design that we know about is not enough to produce anything. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    If one is curious about the origin of something, we are not satisfied by being told that II is designed. If one is curious about the sculptures on Mount Rushmore, we are not satisfied that they are designed, designed in the same sense that the flora and fauna are “Intelligently Designed”, for that would mean that the images of the presidents might have just grown there, like trees.

  15. Umm, TomS- saying something is designed tells us quite a bit and it is only the beginning. What does it tell us? That some designing agency did it as opposed to mother nature. That means we have eliminated an entire class of causes and settled on one. Then we study it in that light knowing there are now more questions to answer.

    No one in the ID movement says to stop after we determine it was designed.

  16. michaelfugate

    Frankie, you are clueless.

  17. Wow, Michael, that really showed me- NOT. Care to make a case against me?

  18. Frankie, Can you tell us about something that is NOT designed, and how we know?

  19. Frankie,

    I have a question. ID advocates claim that they have determined various biological structures, “irreducibly complex” processes, etc. are designed. It’s a common claim made about a broad range of specific things. So, having claimed that these various things are definitely designed, shouldn’t they be moving on to actively investigate the who, what, where, why, or when related to the design?

    Or, on the other hand, in the absence of such efforts, should we conclude that ID has not yet established that anything is designed?

  20. AR:
    Frankie, Can you tell us about something that is NOT designed, and how we know?

    Not all deaths are murders, not all fires are arsons and not all rocks are considered to be artifacts. We know this via our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.

  21. Ed:
    So, having claimed that these various things are definitely designed, shouldn’t they be moving on to actively investigate the who, what, where, why, or when related to the design?

    Wait, Ed. We evolutionists have said that al life is all related and evolved, yet we don’t know how or even if such a thing is possible. And we have way more resources than IDists do.

    Methinks we need to get our house in order first. That alone will refute ID as ID claims natural selection and drift are not up to the task.

  22. I will be brief: your noble son is mad:
    Mad call I it; for, to define true madness,
    What is’t but to be nothing else but mad?
    Hamlet ii.ii

  23. Frankie,
    I have seen a lightning sparked fire and a lava started fire as well as arson, I know of specific cases of deaths. I didn’t ask about either.

    So I’ll take your a response as a “No, you can not name something that was Not designed or even how we could know.”

    Don’t bother with semantics games until you can answer that simple question.

  24. AR:
    I have seen a lightning sparked fire and a lava started fire as well as arson, I know of specific cases of deaths. I didn’t ask about either.

    Of course you did. Murders and arsons are designed things. That you don’t understand that proves you the dolt, not me.

  25. Frankie, every creationist who blunders into this place is automatically on thin ice, and it’s cracking beneath you.

  26. Once again-
    AR:
    Frankie, Can you tell us about something that is NOT designed, and how we know?

    Murders and arsons are designed things. That we can tell murder from a natural death and an arson from a natural fire proves we can tell what is and isn’t designed.

    Also some rocks are artifacts and many are not. We can tell by looking for tool marks and things mother nature cannot do and match that against what we know mother nature can do.

  27. I am an evolutionist, SC. I don’t accept the Bible as anything but stories and I accept Darwin even though his claims still cannot be scientifically tested.

    Don’t get upset with me for correcting people. Why is it that you guys don’t already know what I am saying? Everything I have said is in writing but some ID person or another. Just because I have educated myself as to what our opponents really say doesn’t make me a creationist.

  28. Or are you saying that you don’t want to learn what ID really says and you will ban anyone who tries to tell you. That sadly seems to be our (evolutionists) way

  29. Please learn something about what you are talking about.
    Ignorant people are an embarrassment to science.

  30. I think that is Axe(?) pointing to the Alison Gopnik quote that says: “By elementary-school age, children start to invoke an ultimate God-like designer to explain complexity of the world around them–even children brought up as atheists.”

    I’ve never seen an IDer/creationist that fully comprehends the argument that Gopnik and other cognitive scientists have been making about religion for years now–the human mind has a propensity to see intentionality in every thing because of our social minds. Beliefs in supernatural agents are the natural over extension of this psychological propensity.

    So, either Axe is stupid and doesn’t realize he’s quoting an argument that undermines his position or he’s purposely misusing it for propaganda.

  31. People have a tendency to find patterns in random events. That is why casinos make money.
    People have a tendency to see intentionality behind patterns. That is why there are conspiracy theories.

  32. michaelfugate

    And people see Jesus in toast!

  33. Definitely a troll, and not even a interesting one at that. We’ve had better.

  34. The whole truth

    Frankie is actually Joe Gallien, aka Joe G, etc.

  35. Awww. I was going to ask him how he can tell an arson fire from the flame alone. You know with dealing with the Who, how, when why things, the same for a murder.

  36. Yeah, I liked that one. Murder is designed but a natural death isn’t. Hence Homo Sapiens, including the habit to die naturally if nothing else happens, is also designed. But no, Frankie is not a creationist.

  37. Instead of “Relax, don’t do it!, Frankie says

    I am an evolutionist

    Thank goodness! I was starting to worry you might be a Creationist troll attempting to infiltrate our super-secret conspiracy for global domination, The Darwintern.

    But as a card-carrying paid-up member of the vast Evolutionist Cabal, you’ll understand that we can’t be too careful. So, if you’ll just whip out your secret Evolutionist decoder ring, you should have no problem giving the secret counter-sign when I say

    The crocoducks are flying south early this year.

  38. Oh dear. It appears that Frankie has gone back to Hollywood…

  39. Frankie. Buy a science book.

  40. Let me explain some of the reactions of some of the people here. You see, many of us have ten, twenty, or more years experience with creationists, and we have met people who introduce themselves with something like, “I believe in Darwin, but a friend of mine wants to know what is the evidence for evolution and I don’t know what to tell him.”
    This experience goes back before there were things like Wikipedia and the talk.origins archive, when it might have more difficult to find answers.
    Myself, I don’t care what your personal opinion is. This is not a matter of who believes what. What I am interested in is understanding the way the world works. If you have a reason for changing my opinion, for example, if you can tell us how there is some flaw in the abundant evidence, tests even, for evolutionary biology, I’d really like to hear about it. Or if you have a suggestion for an alternative accounting for the variety of life without mentioning evolution.

  41. Well, just like all you folks, I, too, am a Heliocentrist–but there’s this friend of mine who wants to know why the world looks flat, and what holds it?

  42. Well, like everyone here, I think the Moon exists. But there is this website

    http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm

    that argues that the Moon is a hoax. I have no idea how to refute his claims. Who can help me out?

  43. There are a number of web sites which tell us that Idaho doesn’t exist.

    How do you know that you can communicate in English? Maybe you just think that you understand what you are reading, and this is really a recipe for red velvet cake in Harappan.

  44. TomS notes

    There are a number of web sites which tell us that Idaho doesn’t exist.

    Wishful thinking.

    The reality there was: 59.2% for Trump…

  45. I am an Newtonist, SC. I don’t accept the Geocentrism as anything but stories and I accept Isaac even though his claims still cannot be scientifically tested.

    Funny how we Newtonists refer to each other.

  46. I am an OrvilleandWilburWrightist like all of you, but until we can show exactly how the F-16 emerged from a Dayton bicycle shop, powered flight just isn’t supported by the science.

  47. It’s impossible, an F-16 won’t even fit inside their shop, and their are planes that are claimed to be even bigger. Utter rubbish.

  48. There is the Theory of Flight.
    Flight is only a theory. It is contrary to the Law of Gravity, and therefore requires Intelligent Design. (Intelligent Design explains all violations of laws of nature.) The Wright brothers’ plane was micro-flight, and an F-16 is macro-flight.

  49. I ran into a Frankie-like thing on another thread in another Galaxy far, far away. He said, “We will only look at ID mechanism after we determine design. Design first!” I countered that IDiots had already determined that the flagellum, etc, etc were designed, so your work there is done. Now, about that mechanism. And the Frankie-thing flounced never to be seen again. IDists don’t really think ahead. “Ahead” being superfluous.

  50. michaelfugate

    Isn’t it “a head” and everything contained within being superfluous, in their case?

  51. All of the speakers did a terrific job and the schedule was packed. Attendees were so hungry to know more about the scientific evidence for intelligent design; it was amazing.

    I’m quite sure those self-selected “attendees” felt that way; almost certainly, they already believed in Biblical creation and were eager to hear anything that gave it a nice scientific sound, as in, “See? Science, properly so called, supports Scripture in every way! That’s how we know it’s real science!”