Discoveroids’ Top Ten for 2017— #4 and #3

The excitement is becoming unbearable, dear reader. Here are the next two entries in the Discovery Institute’s list of their Top Ten “achievements” (or “stories”) for the year now ending. They’ve been working their way up from the bottom, and we’re almost at the top. 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 six items in their impressive list — see Number 10, and then Number 9, and then Number 8, and then Number 7, and then Number 6 & 5. Now the thrilling list continues.

Yesterday they posted #4 of Our Top Stories of 2017: Wikipedia Co-Founder Blasts “Appallingly Biased” Wikipedia Entry on Intelligent Design. As with their earlier entries in this series, it’s a copy of something they posted before — only a couple of weeks ago: Wikipedia Co-Founder Blasts “Appallingly Biased” Wikipedia Entry on Intelligent Design. Klinghoffer wrote it.

As expected, it’s not about Discoveroid research revealing the identity and methods of their supernatural designer — blessed be he! — of which there is none. Instead, it’s another example of their recent campaign against Wikipedia, which began when Discoveroid Günter Bechly Has Been ‘Erased’.

The “news” Klinghoffer wrote about was that someone who had been associated with the founding of Wikipedia felt that their write-up on intelligent design was too biased. He didn’t favor that creationist “theory,” of course, but he thought the editing process wasn’t neutral. It wasn’t mentioned, but that’s probably true with their treatment of flat Earth “theory” too. It’s difficult to be neutral in such matters. The Discoveroids were ecstatic — but it won’t make any difference. Intelligent design will always be regarded as a version of creationism.

We ignored that the first time it appeared, and we see no reason to waste time on it now, so we’ll move on the next item in the Discoveroids’ Top Ten list. They posted this today: #3 of Our Top Stories of 2017: Perfect Eclipse, Coincidence or Conspiracy?

You won’t be surprised to learn that it’s a copy of an earlier Discoveroid post, this one from back in August: Perfect Eclipses: Coincidence or Conspiracy?, written by Jay W. Richards.

We didn’t post about it the first time around because a few days earlier we had posted about another Discoveroid eclipse article he had written: Eclipse Mania — The Discoveroids, Part 3. Anyway, at the end of his now-celebrated post (the one we ignored), Richards had said:

So, when you’re viewing the eclipse on August 21, remember: The One who gives us life gives us insight into the universe as well.

[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh! [*End Drool Mode*] Very scientific!

So there you are, dear reader — the next two revolutionary items in the Discoveroids’ Top Ten list. Only two more remain — and they’ll be the best of all! In case you haven’t noticed, so far we’ve seen no research, no data, no science at all — just propaganda, public relations, revival meetings, quote mining, and endless invocations of the God of the gaps, the Watchmaker analogy, and the joys of Oogity Boogity!

We can’t wait to learn about the two remaining items in their Top Ten list. What 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

17 responses to “Discoveroids’ Top Ten for 2017— #4 and #3

  1. And remember that it was scientists who told us the details of the eclipse: when and where one would see the eclipse. We trusted the scientists. Very few of us are able to do the calculations. Actually, the approximate predictions could be done by the ancient astrologers, and Wikipedia tells us about the regularities of eclipses. But the modern astronomers tell us about the timing to the second – I didn’t check the timing, but I trust that if there was a significant mistake, we would have heard about it. There was no conspiracy by the Masons and the Zionists and the Trotskyists.

  2. The conspiracy that produced the perfect eclipse was between the masses of the earth and moon and the gravitation field, with a little conservation of momentum thrown in.

  3. The conspiracy that produced the perfect eclipse also has to ensure that we live at the right time. As the moon’s orbit expands, perfect eclipses will become rarer, and eventually impossible.

  4. Michael Fugate

    Why is an event predictable? God
    Why is an event unpredictable? God
    That’s ID for you.

  5. “a copy of an earlier Discoveroid post”
    8/8!! The tension is unbearable indeed!

    MichaelF: excellent example. It applies to every single kind of evidence.
    Our natural reality can be accurately described by scientific laws? God.
    Said scientific laws are violated (the definition of miracle)? God.

  6. Ceteris Paribus

    Discoveroid Richards promises:

    “So, when you’re viewing the eclipse on August 21, remember: The One who gives us life gives us insight into the universe as well.”

    Well possibly there is “insight” in the eyes of the beholder. But most of us on most of the days when there is a clear sky do not run outside to stare at the sun hoping to see an eclipse.

    So what wisdom is Richards trying to get at? It is maybe more holy to go stare at the sun every day to look for an eclipse to proclaim; or is it better to just consult the regularly tabulated scientifically calculated dates of eclipses far into the distant future?

  7. Michael Fugate

    I see Larry Sanders – referred to in #4 – has a piece on his site about the argument from design. Not very impressive – if you ask me.
    http://larrysanger.org/

  8. Let us remember the Anthropic Principle: the important parameters of nature must be nearly as they are measured, for the existence of life. If the speed of light were different by as little as a few percent, or gravity waves, or nuclear reaction rates, then the universe couldn’t support life.

  9. Michael Fugate

    On further reflection, the problem with the Wikipedia article on ID is in it calling ID a pseudoscience. It is straight up religion – it doesn’t even try to be science – unlike say ESP or Morphic Resonance.

  10. Apologies. My posting on the Anthropic Principles belongs to ICR: Instant Starlight

  11. @Michael Fugate
    I D is best described as having no content. “There is something better than evolution”, but not describing what that something is. No

  12. MichaelF is not impressed and neither am I.

    “the argument from design or teleological argument, in one formulation compares God to a watchmaker.”
    Never mind that Sanders doesn’t recognize it’s a false analogy. What he, being an experienced philosopher, should recognize is that it begs the question. It assumes that our Universe has a purpose to argue that god is the ultimate purpose.

  13. @mnb0
    You are being too kind to the analogy of design.
    Saying “design” does not explain anything.
    We can assume for the sake of argument that life is designed, even created by God in a couple of days. That does not offer an alternative to evolution.
    We can assume that there is no possibility of a natural explanation for “why is there something rather than nothing”. The lack of a natural explanation is not a supernatural explanation.
    Does anyone have an example where saying “design” accounts for something? Why is there a smile on the “Mona Lisa”? We know that Leonardo designed it, but that does not explain the smile. We know that L. designed flying machines, but he didn’t make one. Why do flying machines fly? It isn’t because they are designed. Why do mirrors reverse right and left (and not top and bottom)? Because they are designed?
    I can go on and on about the emptiness of “design”.

  14. Rikki_Tikki_Taalik

    So, when you’re viewing the eclipse on August 21, remember: The One who gives us life gives us insight into the universe as well.

    Remember the good ol’ days (a month or so ago) when Klinkel-hiemer assured us that ID was totes not a religious argument ?

    Me too.

  15. Right, and they had the unmitigated gall – GALL, I say! – to grouse about Wikipedia opening the entry on “intelligent design” creationism thusly:

    Intelligent design (ID) is a religious argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as “an evidence-based scientific theory about life’s origins”, though it has been found to be pseudoscience.

    They ought to just give up and join Ken Hambo over at AIG.

  16. Let us remember the Anthropic Principle: the important parameters of nature must be nearly as they are measured, for the existence of life. If the speed of light were different by as little as a few percent, or gravity waves, or nuclear reaction rates, then the universe couldn’t support life.

    And let us remember that the universe could go on quite well without any life at all. We exist because conditions are right for us to do so; there is no evidence that conditions are right because our existence is necessary and decreed by some all-powerful conscious entity.

  17. @TomS: “Why do mirrors reverse right and left (and not top and bottom)?”

    Mirrors do not reverse right and left — they reverse front and back. Your brain reverses right and left on its own in reaction to and compensation for the mirror’s reversal.