Discoveroids Have Evidence of Intelligent Design

It’s amusing — and also tragic — to watch the long and reluctant retreat of creationists from their biblical fantasyland. First, they had to ignore the numerous scriptural declarations that The Earth Is Flat. How did they do that? Simple — they deny that the bible makes such a claim.

Then they had to give up the bible’s Earth-centered universe and acknowledge the reality of the solar system, in which the Earth was just one of several planets that orbit the Sun — see the Galileo affair. More recently, they’ve been forced to give up the belief that ours is the only planetary system in the universe.

In spite of those catastrophic setbacks, hard core creationists still cling to their denial of evolution and the claim that the Earth (and the whole universe) is only 6,000 years old. Others (old-Earth creationists) have dropped that, but like all creationists, they insist that life is a miracle — although the more astute among them grudgingly allow that some kind of microbial life may be found on extra-solar planets.

When you clear away the nonsense, what remains of their supernatural wonderland is the alleged impossibility of life — although they know that life will be created in the lab before too much longer. When that happens, they’ll claim that it was done “by design,” which somehow leaves their supernatural claims intact — but no one with any sense will accept that.

So what else do they have? It seems to us that all they’re left with is nit-picking the evidence for the evolution of specific features of living organisms, and of course, the existence of wondrous creatures like ourselves, which only the intelligent designer — blessed be he! — could have created.

In their blundering way, the Discovery Institute is moving in that direction. We can see this in the newest post at their creationist blog: Mammals Compute Sound Timing in the Microsecond Range, which has no author’s by-line. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

At a basic level, we all know that two ears give us the ability to detect the direction of a sound. Cover one ear, and it’s hard to tell. Uncover; we hear in stereo. But when you look into the physics of sound localization, the requirements are stringent.

[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh — stringent requirements! [*End Drool Mode*] Then they say:

Sound waves coming from the left hit your left eardrum only microseconds (millionths of a second) before they hit the right eardrum. Your ears must not only be able to capture that tiny difference in arrival time, but preserve the information through noisy channels on the way to the brain. And they must be able to do that continuously. Consider an ambulance siren moving left to right; the inter-aural time difference (ITD) is constantly changing. Your ears need to keep up with the microsecond-by-microsecond changes as they occur, without the prior information getting swamped by the new information.

[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh — how is that possible? [*End Drool Mode*] They tell us:

Two neurobiologists from the Ludwig-Maximilian University of Munich, appreciating the problem of maintaining sound localization information, decided to run experiments on mice and gerbils.

Gerbils? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We all miss Casey Luskin. The Discoveroids continue:

Think how much closer together those ears are than human ears! The smaller inter-aural distance compounds the problem, tightening the requirements even more. Under the news headline “Auditory perception: where microseconds matter,” Drs. Grothe and Pecka announce what they found.

If you want learn about the gerbil’s auditory perception, here’s the paper, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS): Input timing for spatial processing is precisely tuned via constant synaptic delays and myelination patterns in the auditory brainstem . You can read it on-line without a subscription.

Okay, back to the Discoveroids. After several paragraphs of details we don’t need, they say:

Our brief look into the complexity of auditory localization in mammals provides a good example of not only Behe’s irreducible complexity [Hee hee!], but also what [Discoveroid] Douglas Axe calls functional coherence, “the hierarchical arrangement of parts needed for anything to produce high-level function — each part contributing in a coordinated way to the whole” [link to Axe’s book omitted].

Gasp — they have evidence for their theory of intelligent design! Here’s how the Discoveroid article ends:

Functional coherence is not just beyond the reach of chance (Axe, p. 160), it provides positive evidence for intelligent design. [Hee hee!] In all our uniform human experience, only minds are capable of engineering complex, hierarchical systems exhibiting functional coherence. The complexity of this one circuit — sound localization — makes that loud and clear.

So there you are, dear reader. The Discoveroids have evidence. What do you have? You got nothin’! Evolution is a theory for fools!

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

14 responses to “Discoveroids Have Evidence of Intelligent Design

  1. Wow! He says “Functional coherence is not just beyond the reach of chance (Axe, p. 160), it provides positive evidence for intelligent design.”

    Talk about cognitive dissonance. They are still hanging onto the type of change that is described in the story of the junkyard, the windstorm, and the airplane. Another straw-man failure of “logic”.

  2. “Functional coherence ….. provides positive evidence for intelligent design.”
    Like the functional coherence of my computer provides positive evidence for a computer designer, they mean. Ie variation 1 385 323 of Paley’s False Watchmaker Analogy.

  3. They keep banging the same eardrum.

  4. Michael Fugate

    Isn’t that the problem – everything is evidence of intelligent design if you belief in God? God is an argument for design, but design is not an argument for God.

  5. I believe in design because I believe in God; not in a God because I see design.
    [Blessed] John Henry [Cardinal] Newman (1801-1890)
    letter to Brownlow, April 13, 1870

  6. Michael Fugate

    Ah if only the DI were that honest.

  7. The Discoveroids blather:

    In all our uniform human experience, only minds are capable of engineering complex, hierarchical systems exhibiting functional coherence.

    Gotta love the introduction of “engineering” in place of “designing”!

    So OK, Discotooters, let’s just look at a ‘hierarchical system exhibiting functional coherence’, and one which we can all agree involves ‘minds’: just tell us, please, who ‘engineered’ the Anglo-Saxon language into modern English?

    Anglo-Saxon was an inflected language (like Latin), with a radically different grammar from modern English. I want the Discotooters to pick up a copy of Beowulf and tell me how the over millennium of changes which the language has undergone since that was written can reasonably be described as the actions of conscious ‘design’ or ‘engineering’ by ‘minds.’

  8. Michael Fugate

    In all our uniform human experience, minds can’t do anything without bodies. So does God have a body?

  9. Also, a design takes account of the properties of the material being used, and the laws of nature. A miracle is something which does not depend on nature.

  10. What I find really quite bizarre is why are all of the believers in “Intelligent Design” so intellectually unendowed? Is this some form of strange mental compensation for their quite severe mental shortcomings?

  11. Ross Cameron

    Still waiting for an answer to the most puzzling of all questions–If we are made in god`s image, does he have to cut his own toe-nails?

  12. Ross Cameron. God’s perfect, toe-nails don’t grow, but if they to there are probably angels that specialize in pedicure. But continuing your question. Does god eat, drink? And do what comes after that? How about sex, and with whom?

  13. Eric Lipps

    Our brief look into the complexity of auditory localization in mammals provides a good example of not only Behe’s irreducible complexity [Hee hee!], but also what [Discoveroid] Douglas Axe calls functional coherence, “the hierarchical arrangement of parts needed for anything to produce high-level function — each part contributing in a coordinated way to the whole” [link to Axe’s book omitted].

    Is it just me, or does it sound to anyone else as though “irreducible complexity” and “functional coherence” are synonyms, rather than two different concepts as the DI’ers seem to be saying?

  14. Charles Deetz ;)

    We also feel the slightest touch of a mosquito, but nothing when we smash it. The skin is so amazing, it never could have evolved, blah blah blah.

Make a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s