Discoveroids Present Their Scientific Evidence

After a long spell of incoherent, quasi-philosophical postings, the Discovery Institute may be returning to the stuff we always found so entertaining. Their latest is Yes, Intelligent Design Is Testable Science – A Resource Roundup. It has no author’s by-line. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

After perusing a recent article here [link omitted], a reader offers a classic challenge:

[Alleged quote from a reader:] You post lots of criticism of evolutionary biology. Have you made any advancement in formulation of your own theory? What predictive power has it shown, if any?

The Discoveroids take the bait:

The query, which is really three ways of putting the same question, is a classic because it has been asked so many times in various forms – What predictions does ID make? Is it exclusively a negative case against Darwinian theory? Is it really science? etc.

Those are all good questions. How can the Discoveroids possibly respond — other than by saying “Science? Of course not. We’re just a pack of creationists.” Stay with us, dear reader. They actually try to provide a response:

It just so happens that an excellent new ID the Future podcast features Center for Science & Culture Fellow Jonathan Witt discussing exactly this set of issues relating to design theory.

We rarely encounter Witt. The last time we wrote about one of his Discoveroid posts was nine months ago — see Discoveroids: Intelligent Design Is Testable. All he did was quote Discoveroid books like Darwin’s Black Box by Behe, and The Privileged Planet by Gonzalez and Richards. Maybe he’ll do better this time. The Discoveroid post continues:

That said, the reader asks valid questions. Intelligent design as a theory of design detection has made many scientific advances over the past few decades. In fact, while not always going explicitly by the name “intelligent design,” ID has made so many advances — often reported in peer-reviewed scientific papers — that it’s impossible to give a thorough answer to the reader’s questions in this brief format.

So they’re not going to give us any evidence? Oh, wait — they’re going to try. Here comes the Discoveroid “evidence”:

But because we’ve discussed ID’s scientific status and predictive power many times over in the past, that’s not necessary. The following links are of special interest and relevance:

What follows are eleven links to earlier Discoveroid posts, which are obviously the only source of Discoveroid “science.” We clicked on the first one, How Do We Know Intelligent Design Is a Scientific ‘Theory’?, because we assume it’s the best. It was by Casey Luskin, our favorite creationist. And whaddaya know — we posted about it back in October of 2011 — see Discovery Institute: Intelligent Designer or Zeus?

All Casey did was list a bunch of things — e.g.: biological change, complex and specified information in DNA, irreducibly complex systems found in living organisms — and claim that the intelligent designer — blessed be he! — was responsible. In response to that we said:

[C]laiming that the magic designer is the cause of those things is literally no different from claiming that Zeus caused them. If your Curmudgeon presented a long list of Zeus’ alleged accomplishments, it wouldn’t mean that our list is scientific evidence for the role of Zeus in our world. … [T]he Curmudgeon’s “Zeus theory” is every bit as good as ID. Better, really, because ol’ Zeus had an eye for the ladies. That’s a very good quality in a deity.

We’ll leave it to you to check out the other links Witt presents. We assume it’s no more persuasive than the Time Cube guy citing himself. Here’s how the Discoveroid post ends:

And that’s just for starters. Dear reader, if you’ll study these links, you will find the answers to your questions and more. Enjoy.

So there you are — a vast ark-load of Darwin-demolishing research which is found only at the Discoveroids’ creationist blog because those infernal secular scientists refuse to publish it.

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

6 responses to “Discoveroids Present Their Scientific Evidence

  1. Holding The Line In Florida

    Almost all links are by Luskin so you know they are great! Circular reasoning in its most classic form. Still don’t have the slightest clue how this junk is Science, unless you add the prefix of Pesudo to it.

  2. Mike McCants

    Luskin reviewed the “god of the gaps” book Darwin’s Doubt in 2013 and then claimed:

    “In fact, ID offers a strong positive argument, based on finding in nature the type of information and complexity that, in our experience, comes from intelligence alone.”

    Sorry, Casey, your experience of reality is sadly lacking.

    “But ID is not focused on studying the actual intelligent cause responsible for life, but rather studies natural objects to determine whether they bear an informational signature indicating an intelligent cause.”

    Riiiight. But Axe admitted last year that he believes “God did it” and no real biological scientist in his right mind thinks that one can easily determine if an evolved biological “natural object” has an “informational signature indicating an intelligent cause”.

    “All ID does is infer an intelligent cause behind the origins of life and of the cosmos.”

    In other words, this is the “intelligent cause of the gaps” fallacy without mentioning evolution???

    “Michael Behe explains that we can detect design”

    Your “detection” of design in biology is simply a failure.

    “While the empirical data allow us to study natural objects and determine whether they arose from an intelligent cause …”


  3. I picked “FAQ – Does IDiot non-theory implement the scientific method?” and found this amusing example:

    Table 3 – Examining the evidence (Experiment and conclusion)
    Line of Evidence: Fossil Record Data (Experiment): Biological complexity (i.e. new species) tend to appear in the fossil record suddenly and without any similar precursors. The Cambrian explosion is a prime example. Prediction of Design met: Yes. Underlined by me.

    According to the IDiots a time period of at least 20 million years (the lowest I could find) equals “suddenly”.

  4. Oops. The Grand Old Designer (blessed be His/Her/It name) wants to punish me again for criticizing the IDiots from Seattle – “Cambrian explosion” is not underlined and once again I look like the fool I am.
    Fortunately I have my faith in and put my fate into the always correcting hand of the Great Voice from Above, who no doubt is the Mightiest One.

    [*Voice from above*] Sorry, underlining seems not to be possible. Bold is the best that can be done.

  5. Rather than provide any specificity to the questions, they’ll let the reader go off and hunt through their nebulous and irrelevant references. Then when the reader tires of this wild goose chase, they’ll forget about the whole affair, either their questions never resolved or that the Dishonesty Institute is just a bunch of creationist phonies.

  6. I got as far as the bibliography which included a fair number of articles whose topics and authors have been shown to be wrong and/or incompetent respectively.
    Must be nice to just ignore everything and everyone demonstrating how wrong you are.