Discoveroids’ Top Ten for 2017— #8

Look what Santa brought us — it’s the next entry in the Discovery Institute’s list of their Top Ten “achievements” for the year now ending. As is usual in such a series, they’re working their way up from the bottom, and they’ll probably reach their Number One creationist news story on New Year’s day. These are the momentous accomplishments that have thrilled the Discoveroids and their generous patrons this year.

We’ve already written about the first two items in their impressive list — see Discoveroids’ Top Ten for 2017— #10 and also Discoveroids’ Top Ten for 2017— #9. Now they just posted Merry Christmas! #8 of Our Top Stories of 2017: Theorist Concedes, Evolution “Avoids” Questions.

As with the first two entries in their list of accomplishments, this one is merely a copy of something they posted before. It appeared four months ago, back in August: Evolutionary Theorist Concedes: Evolution “Largely Avoids” Biggest Questions of Biological Origins, without an author’s byline. It begins by saying:

At this past November’s Royal Society meeting, “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology,” the distinguished Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd B. Müller gave the first presentation. As we’ve noted before, it was a devastating one for anyone who wants to think that, on the great questions of biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out. Instead, Müller pointed to gaping “explanatory deficits” in the theory.

And it ends with this:

Evolution has only “strengths” and no “weaknesses,” you say? Darwinian theory is as firmly established as “gravity, heliocentrism, and the round shape of the earth“? Really? How can anyone possibly maintain as much given this clear statement, not from any ID advocate or Darwin skeptic, not from a so-called “creationist,” but from a central figure in evolutionary research, writing in a journal published by the august scientific society once presided over by Isaac Newton, for crying out loud? To maintain at this point that “All Is Well” with evolution you have to be in a state of serious denial.

We ignored it at the time because it was merely about the undisputed fact that there’s more work to be done, and it didn’t have anything to do with the Discoveroids’ “theory” about an intelligent designer — blessed be he! — who allegedly created the universe, the laws of nature, life, and you.

But shortly thereafter we wrote Hot News: Evolutionist Admits Theory Is Wrong! That was about an article from the Baptist Press which discussed the same thing, and referred to the Discoveroids’ interpretation of events. As we said then:

We’ll be charitable and avoid saying that the Baptist Press is deliberately giving us a gross distortion of Müller’s remarks, but their article is clearly the result of their misunderstanding, or perhaps wishful thinking, which isn’t uncommon when creationists discuss science. So don’t be misled, dear reader. The latest reports about the collapse of evolution are, shall we say, somewhat exaggerated.

And so, dear reader, that’s the latest Earth-shaking development in the Discoveroids Top Ten list. We can’t wait to learn about the next seven items. What further wonders await us? Stay tuned to this blog!

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

5 responses to “Discoveroids’ Top Ten for 2017— #8

  1. You’ve got to hand it to the Dicoveroids. I thought after Kitzmiller vs Dover that they might scurry away with their tail firmly between their legs. But I forgot DI is a business, and no-one wants to give up a cushy job and some hearty cash flows. So on switch to Plan B.

    Not surprisingly, Plan B is not a lot different than Plan A. Forget substantive alternate theories (yes, Michael Behe, I mean you) or, good heavens, original scientific research that stands up to independent scrutiny. No, it has adopted the weak-kneed cynic’s approach of simply opposing everything and anything evolutionary and/or scientific.

    Somewhere/anywhere in the world, if someone (anyone!) speaks out about this or that theory, we can rely on the Discoveroids to trumpet it as the beginning of the end, a fatal flaw in science that only they have the gumption to recognise and announce to the world. And, of course, anything that they say once, is always grist for the mill to drag out and repeat whenever news is in short supply.

    And what was this year’s earth-shattering scoop? At its essence it was an argument between scientists about needing to expand the formal scope and range of coverage of the theory of evolution. Rather than “the end is nigh” proclamation trumpeted by the Discoveroids, this was a discussion (one of many) by scientists about strengthening evolutionary science.

    It’s not surprising, I suppose, that the Discoveroids should take this approach. It’s pretty clear that they have little understanding of science, the scientific method, and the role of theories and evidentional data in science. But it also shows how truly pathetic is their paucity of ideas and leadership. If this paper can be touted as one of the highlights of their year, then surely the end is nigh.

  2. ID has nothing to offer. These three major accomplishments show this. They are simply quote mining. Reports of what someone had to say. Not something that has been discovered about ID. ID remains empty as ever.

    We’ll see how vacuous the remaining top ten will be. More quote mining?

  3. Charles Deetz ;)

    Must be a slow build up to that #1 ‘When DI found a non-sequential DNA generation that wan’t attributable to a mutation.’ I’ll hold my breath … not.

  4. @TomS: quote mining is the correct definition of IDiot research. It’s what IDiots do to make their money.