Six Arguments for Intelligent Design: Parts 3 & 4

The avalanche of evidence and brilliant reasoning continues to flow from the Discovery Institute. It began with Part 1, of what promised to be the first in a six-part series, followed the next day by Part 2.

They posted their third argument yesterday — see ID’s Top Six — The Origin of Information in DNA and the Origin of Life — but it was so disappointing that we didn’t bother to blog about it. Their post was nothing but a large excerpt from Discoveroid Stephen Meyer’s book, Signature in the Cell. We already debunked their imaginary concept of “information” in Phlogiston, Vitalism, and Information, and there’s not much else to say about it.

Now we move on to the Discoveroids’ fourth argument. They just posted ID’s Top Six — The Origin of Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines at their creationist blog.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Merely from their title, we already know what they have to say. It’s going to be stuff like Behe’s flagellum argument — which, by the way, was demolished at the Kitzmiller trial — see Kitzmiller v. Dover: Michael Behe’s Testimony. Anyway, let’s give the Discoveroids the courtesy of at least looking at what they have to say. It’s the best they have to offer. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Molecular machines are another compelling line of evidence for intelligent design, as there is no known cause, other than intelligent design, that can produce machine-like structures with multiple interacting parts.

[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh! [*End Drool Mode*] Even if the origin of such allegedly “machine-like structures” were not yet known, the Discoveroids’ offer nothing more than God-did-it, also known as God of the gaps. But hey — we’re going to give them a chance, so let’s stay with this for a while longer.

Then they quote-mine an article in Cell from 1998 that, unfortunately, uses descriptive language that most biologists now know should be avoided, because it’s so easy for creationists to pervert their meaning. For example, they plucked this out: “[T]he cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines …”

If quote-mining unfortunately colorful language is the best the Discoveroids have, we won’t have much else to talk about here. We’ll soon see. Next they say:

But could molecular machines evolve by Darwinian mechanisms? Discovering Intelligent Design [a Discoveroid book] explains why this is highly improbable due to the irreducibly complex nature of many molecular machines: [Big quote from the Discoveroid book, predictably including a mention of the bacterial flagellum].

Impressive, huh? After that they give another big quote from that same Discoveroid book, followed by two Discoveroid videos, and that’s it. That’s their whole post. Whoop-de-doo! That’s the fourth big reason to wallow in the slime of intelligent design “theory.”

Five and Six are sure to follow. We can’t wait! Stay tuned to this blog, dear reader.

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

3 responses to “Six Arguments for Intelligent Design: Parts 3 & 4

  1. “Molecular machines are another compelling line of evidence for intelligent design, as there is no known cause, other than intelligent design, that can produce machine-like structures with multiple interacting parts.”
    Even better – it’s a fine combination of all three creacrap pillars.
    Besides the God of the Gaps (“no known cause”) we have Paley’s False Watchmaker Analogy (“machines”) and Evolution Theory is wrong (“other than”). Yup, this is creacrap at its very best.

  2. Every single example of Imagined Complexity has been refuted. Every single one. All of them.

    Yet, like the killer in a bad horror film sequel, they keep showing up!

    So, these are the TOP FOUR “compelling” positive arguments for “intelligent design” creationism.

    What’s Number 5? Casey Luskin’s Mom gave a five star review on Amazon for his book? Why not. It’s a compelling as what we’ve seen so far.

    Don’t give up, Dense O’Dreary, you’re almost done!

  3. “Irreducible complexity” is, as noted above, unsupported by any actual evidence. Its existence is an article of faith, and believers chase from one supposed example to another, sometimes clinging to one long after it’s been discredited. And this is supposed to be one of the best arguments against evolution?

    Sadly, its utter fraudulence won’t discredit it among true believers, who are free to keep searching for a case of it which Darwinians can’t refute just as they’re free to keep searching for Noah’s Ark.