Six Arguments for Intelligent Design: Parts 5 & 6

This is what you’ve been waiting for, dear reader. It’s the conclusion of the greatest intellectual adventure of the year — perhaps of the century. It began with Part 1, of what promised to be the first in a six-part series, followed the next day by Part 2.

Then, because their third argument was nothing but excerpts from Discoveroid Stephen Meyer’s book, Signature in the Cell, we waited a day and combined that with their fourth argument and posted them together in Six Arguments for Intelligent Design: Parts 3 & 4.

The same thing happened with their fifth argument, which they presented in ID’s Top Six — The Origin of Animals. The Discoveroids did nothing but post a bunch of excerpts from Stephen Meyer’s book Darwin’s Doubt, about “the abrupt origin of animal life in the Cambrian explosion.” They’ve tirelessly promoted that book, and we’ve written about it a few times, starting with Meyer’s book, Darwin’s Doubt, Debuts Tomorrow. We won’t spend any more time discussing it, but the TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims does a good job debunking his argument in The Cambrian explosion shows all kinds of life appearing suddenly.

Anyway, that was the Discoveroids’ fifth argument. Now they’ve published the sixth, which is the last in their history-making series. The title is ID’s Top Six — The Origin of Humans. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

There are many aspects of humanity that point to intelligent design. As discussed in the book Science and Human Origins, the human body plan appears abruptly in the fossil record, challenging an evolutionary explanation:

[Quote from the book:] Hominin fossils generally fall into one of two groups: ape-like species and human-like species, with a large, unbridged gap between them. Despite the hype promoted by many evolutionary paleoanthropologists, the fragmented hominin fossil record does not document the evolution of humans from ape-like precursors.

Very impressive! Hey — we’ve written about that book before — see Discovery Institute: Casey’s New Book!, and also Casey Luskin Pretzels Himself. Yes, they’re quoting from a book by Casey Luskin, which was published by the awesomely prestigious Discovery Institute Press.

Then they provide a few other quotes from that legendary book:

• The book further explains the many unique anatomical features of humans that point to intelligent design: [quote omitted].

• But it isn’t just our anatomy that points to design: [quote omitted].

Discovering Intelligent Design similarly explains that humans have unique moral and cognitive abilities: [quote omitted].

• Some of our moral abilities cannot be explained by natural selection. On the contrary, they suggest that human life is about higher purposes, not simply survival and reproduction: [quote omitted].

That’s all they have to say, except for a link to a video (which they call a “documentary”) by Michael Denton, a Discovery Institute “senior fellow.”

So there you have it, dear reader. In six concise posts, the Discoveroids have presented their best case for intelligent design. They’ve given us such powerful arguments that the wicked house of Darwin is certain to collapse. Verily, in the annals of internet history — actually, all of human history — this Discoveroid series will rank with, if not surpass, the influence of the Time Cube.

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

16 responses to “Six Arguments for Intelligent Design: Parts 5 & 6

  1. There is no need to re-review or rehash Meyer’s dreck-filled book, essentially a rebranding of his PhD thesis that he’s been hawking (or horking up) for a couple of decades.

    Paleontologist Charles Marshall summarized it best writing that Meyer’s book displayed a “systematic failure of scholarship,” in other words, a pack of lies.

  2. Charles Deetz ;)

    Hominin fossils generally fall into one of two groups: ape-like species and human-like species, with a large, unbridged gap between them.

    Did someone just say God of the Gaps? LOL

  3. There is certainly an unbridgeable gap.
    The gap between a design and a product.
    Not that there is any description of a design. Any design, like what design there is for animals. Or for ape-like animals. Or for human-like species. Is the design for (1) human-like species (2) the species H. sapiens (3) individual modern humans?
    It is just more of the negative advertising.

  4. Michael Fugate

    …but humans are ape-like and apes are human-like – common descent does that. Like AiG they are claiming the genetic evidence shows all humans share a common ancestor, but the same evidence shows no common ancestry between humans and chimps, bonobos, gorillas and the like.

    The similarities across phyla were known long before the genetic evidence became available.

    Here’s a question, if humans are the analogy for design in nature, then why don’t they conclude there are multiple gods? Humans don’t make anything in isolation, but collaborate. The lone genius is a myth.

  5. Unfortunately, I have lost the information about the Indian philosopher of about 1000 CE who pointed out the reasons that if there is a god responsible for living things, that there would be more than one such god.
    One can point to the conflicts in life: if we reliably detect that the eyes of predators being made for assisting in predattion, and that the eyes of prey being made to escape predation: that tells us, reliably, that there is a conflict between the creators, or some interior conflict within the one god. Or the design of flight being because of the design of gravity. Or the design of the privileged planet because of the design of the overall universe.

  6. Michael Fugate

    I think the Odyssey with it multiple gods shows greater consilience with observation than modern theological maunderings…

  7. Holding The Line In Florida

    Suffering with an ear infection for a couple of weeks now that is sum bitch to get rid of, I am in hearty agreement with our SC giving the Intelligent Designer the much coveted Buffoon Award. I sure wish that the IDiot’s Grand Old Designer would have done a better job designing my body! At least She/He/It or They could have designed it so bacteria and viruses can’t cause these damned illnesses! At least the Hamster has an answer to that conundrum. It was all Eve’s fault.

  8. You don’t give the Intelligent Designer enough credit in dealing with the 2nd law of thermodynamics (or whatever impossibility it takes to overcome to come up with life). It’s like blaming the designer of a perpertual motion machine for its excessive pollution.

  9. Michael Fugate

    There are many aspects of humanity that point to intelligent design.

    Like the converting a tetrapod body to a bipedal one – badly. Why didn’t the designers scrap the old one and start fresh? Why didn’t the designers give any amniote living in the ocean the ability to extract oxygen from water? Why stick with lungs when they already knew how to do gills?

  10. “There are many aspects of humanity that point to intelligent design.”

    Design? Sure! The blind spot in the eye? The inability to make Vitamin C? 9 month gestation? Morning sickness? Painful childbirth? Gout? Need for sleep? Well designed indeed! And morality? Evil is obviously very well designed. Oh, and rejecting evidence to fit a religious belief or political position? Even better designed.

  11. “A black and white fall would not be so spectacular. (God uses those colors more in his winter decor.)”

    Like the zebra, a magnificent winter animal.

  12. “the abrupt origin of animal life in the Cambrian explosion.”
    If one those IDiots ever becomes a terrorist we will have at least 20 million years time to neutralize the effects of their bomb.

  13. Some of our moral abilities cannot be explained by natural selection. On the contrary, they suggest that human life is about higher purposes, not simply survival and reproduction

    Moral abilities? Higher purposes??? Having watched the last few months the events occurring south of the Canuckistani border…. all I can say is, in the immortal words of my late father, “Meadow muffins! Moose poop!’

  14. They are Platonists. A hominin fossil must EITHER be an ape, or a human. It would be a contradiction for it to be both, because everything is an example of a form (or, as they say, a “kind”), and can’t possibly belong to two kinds at once.

  15. Whatever their reason for assuming that about “ape” and “human” are exclusive, “froms”, “kinds”, it is something derived from mere human thought, not Biblical.
    The Bible never uses the word “kind” as category pertaining to humans.
    It was recognized by the ancient Greeks that the are categories of animals which contain humans – “featherless biped” and “rational animal” are two famous examples. I don’t think that one can blame Plato or the early Platonists for that. Maybe some modern variation.
    Did any early Bible reader ever identify the Biblical “kind” (Hebrew MIN) with Platonic forms? That would be interesting to find out, one way or the other.

  16. Michael Fugate

    Here is a chapter by chapter review of Casey’s book.
    What is interesting is that a decade earlier Luskin was wrong, corrected, and still spewed they exact same nonsense in the book. And that doesn’t even account for all the new evidence that appeared.