From time to time, the Discovery Institute relaxes it’s usual self-censorship and admits that they’re just a bunch of creationists. For example, see Casey Admits the Designer Is the First Cause, and before that they emerged out of their closet, pranced around wearing ecclesiastical garb, and confessed that their “scientific” designer — blessed be he! — is transcendent. That means their designer exists beyond time and space, in that inaccessible and incomprehensible realm known only to the gods, and before that Klinghoffer Admits Intelligent Design Is Theism.
Today they’re making another admission — that their “theory” of intelligent is nothing more than Theistic evolution, about which Wikipedia says:
Francis Collins describes theistic evolution as the position that “evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God”, and characterizes it as accepting “that evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God”.
As you probably know, Francis Collins is, among other things, president of The BioLogos Foundation. The Discoveroids have always opposed BioLogos — see Discovery Institute Battles BioLogos — but now they seem to be reversing their position. That’s no problem, because contradictions never bother creationists, to whom facts and logic mean nothing.
Their latest post is Gallup Poll Is Blind to Support for Intelligent Design, written by Klinghoffer. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:
Looking at a Gallup poll we reported on back in May, Yale Divinity School communications director Tom Krattenmaker spots what he sees as good news. He writes in a USA Today op-ed [Creationism support is at a new low. The reason should give us hope] that Americans are veering from creationism, not in favor of a purely materialist evolutionary process, but rather a curious new “hybrid view”:
We discussed that 2017 Gallup Poll on Evolution back in May. Klinghoffer quotes what Krattenmaker wrote:
Not surprising, in view of our growing secularization, the percentage of Americans taking the strict evolution view — no divine role — has grown significantly since the 1980s, from 9% to 19% in the latest Gallup survey.
But the latest movement in public opinion shows one-time creationists taking refuge not in the “no-religion” zone but in “both/and” position. The percentage of people choosing the hybrid view — around 30% in 2014 — was eight points higher in Gallup’s poll.
These tea leaves tell us that more people are refusing the all-or-nothing choice between faith and science and opting instead for a third way: Acceptance of the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution while seeing a divine role in the process. “Divine evolution” is a term some use for it.
“Divine evolution”? Klinghoffer tells us:
“Divine evolution” is not a term I’ve heard before. But “intelligent design,” which Krattenmaker doesn’t mention, would seem to fit – a theory that recognizes objective evidence [Hee hee!] of guidance in human and other evolution, whether by a divine or other source of intelligence. On the identity of the designer, ID per se is agnostic.
Did you follow that? Klinghoffer is virtually admitting that intelligent design “would seem to fit” theistic (or divine) evolution. He continues:
What Krattenmaker may be picking up on is the progress of design theory in shaping the public discussion of evolution.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The Discoveroids have made no scientific progress, so all they have to brag about the occasional drooler who adopts their meaningless terminology. Klinghoffer finishes by complaining that the Gallup questions are obsolete:
That’s something, however, that the Gallup poll is unable to recognize since they’ve been asking the same questions since 1982 when the modern ID movement did not yet exist.
Actually, the poll questions are quite sufficient. Gallup has been asking:
Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings?
1. Human beings developed over millions of years, but God guided this process.
2. Human beings developed over millions of years, but God had no part in this process.
3. God created man in his present form.
Gallup’s first question is entirely sufficient for any drooler who believes intelligent design. The Discoveroids have previously admitted that their designer — blessed be he! — is a transcendent first cause, and Klinghoffer’s new post admits that intelligent design would seem to fit “divine evolution.” We see no need for Gallup to add a fourth option. Their original three are entirely sufficient.
Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.