Discoveroids Expose Darwinists’ Tricks

A few years ago we offered the world the benefits of our research when we explained How To Write a Creation Science Paper. We were soon gratified to see the Discovery Institute following our advice — see Discoveroids Learn from the Curmudgeon.

The Discoveroids are still following the plan, but today they’ve added a diabolical twist — they’re flipping the thing around and giving advice to their drooling fans about how to write a pro-evolution paper. They just posted Intelligence Is Not Magic. It’s a Cause We Know at their creationist blog. It’s absurdly long and has no author’s by-line. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Thought experiment: You are a science writer for the Land of Ozma (Ozma being a fictional queen of note in the history of SETI). Your assignment is to explain the origin of life without reference to intelligent design for your munchkin readers, who are all looking to you for enlightenment. The munchkins have a natural inclination to believe in a designer behind the life they see all around them, but they have been taught in school that life emerges naturally. Your job is to reassure them that it does.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!Isn’t that clever? They’re going to expose the “tricks” those wicked Darwinists use to create doubts about The Truth of creationism. They say to their science writer:

One big problem stares you in the face before you write. It’s the hard, cold mathematics of probability. [Hee hee!] As Illustra Media shows in their recent film [link omitted], getting one functional protein to self-assemble without design is so outrageously, mind-blowingly, inconceivably improbable that it will never happen in uncountable quintillions of universes under the most ideal conditions imaginable — and that’s an understatement!

[*Groan*] See “The odds are against evolution” in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. Moving along:

Facing this small difficulty, what do you do? The smart thing would be to quit, saying, “Take this job and shove it” as you storm out the door. Assuming this is your chosen livelihood, however, you can still get paid by using some rhetorical tricks (remember, the job is not to prove it happened, but just to reassure the munchkins it might have happened).

The Discoveroids must have been looking in the mirror when they wrote that, because (with a couple of word changes) it describes their activities perfectly. The essay continues:

If you’re looking for a master magician to show you the ropes, you can hardly do better than to follow the example of Michael Gross, a science writer in Oxford, England, who pulls multiple rabbits out of hats in a feature for Current Biology, “How life can arise from chemistry.” He tells readers that rabbits naturally emerge from hats without magic. Here are some principles extracted from his article.

Surprisingly, they actually link to Gross’ article: How life can arise from chemistry. It can’t be read without a subscription, so the Discoveroids are confident that their drooling followers won’t be affected by it. Then, in what takes up most of their long essay, the Discoveroids present what they say are the “principles extracted from his article.” We’ll list them, with minimal excerpts:

Ridicule anyone else’s position. … Gross dispenses with them right in his first paragraph, using the straw man tactic. “Life, in many people’s view, is special and different from all non-living matter to an extent that ancient cultures tended to credit its existence and astounding diversity to an almighty creator.” … In one masterful stroke, Gross equates belief in a creator with being behind the times.

Roll call some heroes. Name-dropping helps you appear to be in good company, even if the names did nothing to help solve the origin of life.

Side with science, not philosophy. Don’t let on that science and philosophy are inseparable. The munchkins need to feel that you intend to tell them about “science” as opposed to “philosophy,” which Gross lumps in with religion — a matter of faith, not fact.

Cultivate the imagination. We see Gross tickling the imagination in the previous quote, suggesting life “may have arisen” on its own.

Hide your materialism. Materialism? What materialism? I’m not doing philosophy, Gross thinks, when he says that life “may have arisen from purely chemical systems simply obeying the laws of thermodynamics.” That’s just simple chemistry, not philosophy.

Promise progress. A good rhetorician helps the audience feel they are getting warmer solving a puzzle together.

Hide your party politics. [Hee hee!]

Use jargon sparingly. Toss in a few unfamiliar words here and there to create an air of sophistication, even if they have nothing to do with the main problem of getting life by chance.

Use your enemy’s gun. Notice this trick; he discounted the idea of a “life force,” but then turns around and imagines something equivalent: “the initial spark” that ignited life.

Remain confident. … It’s OK to admit a little ignorance, as long as you keep the myth of progress going, and pound the pulpit as necessary.

As you may have noticed, dear reader, creationists use all of those techniques in their articles, but here — with a bit of crude distortion — they claim that their “materialist” opponents are the ones who use dirty tricks. They end their list with this:

We could go on with other tricks of the trade in this article, but you get the point.

Then they continue for several more paragraphs, and finish by promoting a few of their videos which claim that intelligence (i.e., Oogity Boogity!) “is the only cause we know that explains the complex specified information that is abundantly evident in this phenomenon we call life.”

This Discoveroid essay is remarkably brazen in accusing us of using their tricks. It’s worth the time it takes to read carefully.

Copyright © 2017. 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

10 responses to “Discoveroids Expose Darwinists’ Tricks

  1. Hans-Richard Grümm

    If a functional protein is so “outrageously, mind-blowingly, inconceivably improbable”, then the existence of an intelligent being which can put this “outrageously, mind-blowingly, inconceivably improbable” protein correctly together is even more “outrageously, mind-blowingly, inconceivably improbable”.

  2. “….getting one functional protein to self-assemble without design is so outrageously, mind-blowingly, inconceivably improbable …” is a flat out lie!!! As it can’t be improbable as we are here. Also he can’t say improbable as he has NOTHING to compare to to make it improbable. Just another LIAR4jesus pulling crap out of his butt!

  3. Charles Deetz ;)

    Was just reading about the ‘fake news’ and ‘alt right’, and the resulting cult and redirecting of perspective … red-pilling, they called it. The Discoveroids would like to be as powerful and controlling.

  4. michaelfugate

    “…getting one functional protein to self-assemble without design is so outrageously, mind-blowingly, inconceivably improbable that it will never happen in uncountable quintillions of universes under the most ideal conditions imaginable — and that’s an understatement!”

    Not as inconceivably improbable as the DI actually doing science or coming up with a workable definition of ID or …

  5. Klinghoffer or whoever wrote the article claims: “Intelligence is neither magic nor a miracle. It is the only cause we know that explains…”

    A partially true statement. But the intelligent causes we know of have a material medium (brains, bodies). The intelligent cause that the DI wants us to believe in is spiritual and hence magical because it lacks a material medium. Ah but to mention that little detail would be to be honest–something that the DI is not very good at.

  6. Creationists love to conflate abiogenesis with evolution. Are they saying that the intelligent designer not only meticulously separated out the chiral molecules in the first self replicating molecules and designed the first cells (abiogenesis) AND then is behind everything evolution has cooked up since then from the design of a bird’s wing to the mammalian eyeball?
    It is true abiogenesis hasn’t wrapped everything in a fairly tidy bow like evolution, and this is why creationists love to ignore the true debate for this false debate.
    The best science can do with the abiogenesis question is to demonstrate various scenarios that are workable explanations. One reason not to assume it is an intelligent agent is the lack of parsimony in such an explanation as well as a lack of proof for such an agent.

  7. Mike Elzinga

    Wow! All the fundamental misconceptions and misrepresentations of science by the ID/creationists are right there in that snarky mockery of science; everything from Hoyle, to thermodynamics, to the improbability of the instantaneous specified assemblies of inert objects acting as stand-ins for the properties of atoms and molecules, and onward to their hints that “philosophy” trumps science.

    Given the current political climate, I suspect that we will be seeing much more of this crap in the next couple of years. It’s going to be a “fun” time slam-dunking these ID/creationists in public. They flunk science miserably at the high school level; and as their second law of thermodynamics “expert,” Granville Sewell, so clearly demonstrates, they don’t even understand that they need to get units correct when plugging things into equations.

    Furthermore, the essence of Dembski’s life’s work laid bare – namely, his constant assertions that Np is less than one for the molecular assemblies of biology – has absolutely nothing to do with the chemistry and physics of biological systems. It’s all bogus high school level math that he gets wrong even on his own examples, such as the on the probabilities of the arrangements of ASCII characters in a Shakespearean sonnet.

    And this just scratches the surface of ID/creationist incompetence. Watch what happens when we debunk Behe, Lisle, Abel, Purdom, Westie, Meyer, and the rest. There is something like fifty years of ID/creationist dung heap construction that they can be humiliated with; and if they want to get feisty, it will all be done in public.

    ID/creationists should be careful what they wish for; not everyone is as ignorant or as stupid as they believe

  8. @Mike Elzinga
    Not everyone is as ignorant or as stupid.
    But there are enough.

  9. It looks like the criticism of ID, and the Disco Institute, has gotten a little under their skin.

    Every point is a “not us, it YOU that (fill in the blank)” retort.

    I love the “hide your materialism” point. Even religious people who attend a science lecture, or read a science article, expect to learn something about the material world, based on findings resulting from the scientific method. Why would a scientists hide that?

    It goes to the heart of what it means to be a creationist.

    The problem with the discos is that they are creationists pretending to do science. They attempt to hide the religious faith that prevents them from accepting, no matter what the evidence, that abiogenesis is possible or that evolution can occur without divine intervention. So, they use other words to describe their religious perspective, such as “intuition.” They make up long odds against material causes to justify their faith-based beliefs while never quoting odds on their assumed non-material cause. The list goes on.

    Of course they are called out on their pretense, and properly labelled creationists. So, in their world, and possibly they believe this, their enemies on the other side must be equally driven by some sort of religious fervor in believing that nature is, so to speak, natural. And, to a creationist this is anti-god, so scientists must hide this fact else the public would be after them with pitchforks and torches.

  10. The so-called “principles” enumerated by the DI’ers read like a laundry list of their own tactics. Projection, anyone?