Discoveroids Say Darwinists Are Brainwashed

This is a good one at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog: Cognitive Conditioning and the Distortion of Reality. It was written by Brian Miller. The Discoveroids’ bio page for him says:

Dr. Brian Miller is Research Coordinator for the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute. He holds a B.S. in physics with a minor in engineering from MIT and a Ph.D. in physics from Duke University. He speaks internationally on the topics of intelligent design and the impact of worldviews on society.

Like the last time we wrote about one of his posts — see Discoveroids Explain Why Scientists Are Fools — his new post is also concerned that evolutionists have a perverted worldview which prevents them from appreciating intelligent design “theory.”

This seems to be the Discoveroids’ own version of the “worldview problem,” often discussed by ol’ Hambo — see, e.g., Ken Ham: The Battle of Worldviews. Here are some excerpts from Brian’s latest, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

After following the discussion about evolution versus design for the past few decades, I have noticed a common trend. Criticisms of design arguments and literature often seem to ignore many of the most persuasive arguments or they distort them almost beyond recognition. They then present counterarguments that seem less designed to honestly engage the evidence and more to mislead and misdirect the public.

Great, huh? Then he says:

The appearance is one of propaganda rather than a genuine desire to understand the truth. Yet I have since realized that my assessment was completely inaccurate.

Huh? It’s not propaganda? Brian explains

Many design critics are competent scientists who have every intention of honestly and fairly evaluating scientific claims. Their challenge is often not their knowledge or integrity but the lens through which they have been taught to see the data. Most scientists are educated to view science through a materialist framework where no force has ever acted in the universe except for the blind forces of nature. They are also taught to assume that all appearance of design is an illusion.

Jeepers, he’s right! Scientists have been conditioned so that there’s no room in their thinking for Oogity Boogity! Brian tells us:

More specifically, they are mandated to believe that every feature of life resulted from natural selection, mutations, and other undirected mechanisms. Further, these processes have unlimited creative power to engineer any innovation of any complexity and ingenuity in any amount of available time. Such training conditions the mind to resist any argument for design before it is even considered.

Admit it, dear reader. You’ve been programmed to think that way, and you have a problem. Brian continues:

In addition, young scholars are often told something along the lines of, “If you believe that life looks designed, you will be ridiculed by your colleagues, and you would not want that.” This cognitive reinforcement driven by fear of rejection results, at both the emotional and intellectual levels, in one’s being habituated to resist design arguments.

Wow — that is really brutal conditioning! Let’s read on:

The human mind is engineered to immediately detect the features of design seen throughout life. This ability is even demonstrated by children raised by atheists, as Doug Axe observes in his book Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed. Unfortunately, much of science education inculcates students with the materialist framework which incapacitates the brain’s design-detection machinery in a type of culturally induced psychosis. In such a state, a person can no more see the evidence for design or grasp design arguments than someone who is colorblind and near-sighted can discern the subtle differences in pastels in an impressionist painting. They have simply lost the capacity.

Egad — we’ve been brainwashed and we lost our natural gift for design intuition!

We’re only about a third of the way through Brian’s post, but we’re going to skip a large chunk of it because he keeps saying the same thing over and over. This is his final paragraph:

However, increasing numbers of top scholars have discreetly told members of the intelligent design community that the description of our arguments they heard from their colleagues were completely inaccurate, and they were shocked at the strength of what we were actually saying. Therefore, I can affirm with great confidence that the bias I describe here is real. What, then, do I hope? Only that those studying science should guard their minds against the forces that would ensnare them, and that our critics should recognize that their perceptions of nature and our work might not be as objective as they believe.

Ooooooooooooh! There may yet be hope for you, dear reader. You can shake off the conditioning you’ve experienced, and open your mind to the glory of the intelligent designer — blessed be he!

Copyright © 2018. 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

21 responses to “Discoveroids Say Darwinists Are Brainwashed

  1. Still desperately pushing their creationism.

  2. “The human mind is engineered to immediately detect the features of design seen throughout life.”

    Or to put it more accurately, the human mind is evolved with a protective reflex to see agency where there is none.

  3. “Most scientists are educated to view science through a materialist framework where no force has ever acted in the universe except for the blind forces of nature.”
    Here’s Brian Miller demonstrating the type of spectacles one needs to understand ID.
    https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=nBnF%2bXwC&id=187BFEE4A514E18AC749A0C0AC46160AC285765F&thid=OIP.nBnF-XwCN5Q9N4dpW_P0YAHaGU&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fwww.askideas.com%2fmedia%2f22%2fFunny-Child-In-Big-Glasses.jpg&exph=1024&expw=1200&q=funny+glasses+pictures&simid=608033273898469494&selectedIndex=8

  4. Michael Fugate

    More specifically, they are mandated to believe that every feature of life resulted from natural selection, mutations, and other undirected mechanisms. Further, these processes have unlimited creative power to engineer any innovation of any complexity and ingenuity in any amount of available time. Such training conditions the mind to resist any argument for design before it is even considered.

    Speaking of straw men – this is a perfect example.
    None of this matches with what scientists actually do nor the evidence that they accept nor how evolution works. It is one big lie.

  5. “increasing numbers of top scholars”
    Who just happen to work at the DI and for a suitably loose definition of “top”?

  6. Michael Fugate

    I think he meant to say scientists who are both Christians and biblical-literalists. No wonder they agree with the DI; both parties are creationists.

  7. Ross Cameron

    ‘This cognitive reinforcement driven by fear of rejection results, at both the emotional and intellectual levels, in one’s being habituated to ACCEPT design arguments’. Fixed it.

  8. And what is the description of ID?
    Who, what, when, where, why, how?

  9. DI has a research coordinator? Must be working late hours and holidays, for sure.

  10. “his new post is also concerned that evolutionists have a perverted worldview”
    What else should we expect? From Darwin to Hitler and Stalin. We darwinists are all athiest materialist evilutionist nazicommies. And I’m so happy Brainy Brian gives me the opportunity to practice my favourite perversion again.

    “Many design critics are competent scientists”
    How competent must you be to repeat ad nauseam three mantras?
    1. Evilution is wrong.
    2. God because Gaps.
    3. Pailey’s False Watchmaker Analogy.

    It seems to me a not too smart ten years old can do this.

    “Their challenge is often …. the lens ”
    Ol’Hambo totally agrees. Thanks for confirming that IDiocy is just creacrap, Brainy Brian.

    “The human mind is engineered to immediately detect the features of design seen throughout life.”
    Of course it is! The Grand Old Designer (blessed be Him/Her/It) engineered the human that way Him/Her/Itself! How else could it be? Circularity is valid, of course.

    “increasing numbers of top scholars have discreetly told”
    I miss Aaaarggghhhh! Those pesky IDiot have organized secret conspiracy cells, modelled after the communist movement before the revolution! We need the Okhrana!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okhrana

  11. @KarlG is attentive: “Still desperately pushing their creationism.”
    Even these IDiot have to “work” for their money.

    @It’s not clear whether MichaelF rejoices or not: “It is one big lie.”
    As we should expect.

    @TomS keeps on searching: “And what is the description of ID?”
    Goddiddid – something, sometime, somewhere, because he loves you, somehow.

  12. I take it by the term ‘ other undirected mechanisms’ he is referring to nature? How very inconvenient it must be, to see that reality doesn’t fit your creationist agenda. Oh well! Just ignore it.

  13. @FrankB
    I know that ID is changing, but have they openly said that the designer is God?

  14. @mnb0
    Here I go again.
    Necessity is the mother of invention.
    I took a look at the Wikipedia article on design. It points out that there are different concepts – which concept does ID use? But “constraint” does occur in a couple of them. What does it mean for non-natural design?

  15. Ceteris Paribus

    It is not a secret that in the field of Human Psychology there are several branches of study centered on the concept of “projection”. Which focuses on the concept that some people manifest a world view in which their own fears or, rejected tendencies, become displaced on to another person or concept. Which results in their own inability to understand that the actual problem they see is in their own hands, rather than the hands of “the other”

    Probably not all of the Discoveroids are afflicted with a need to repeatedly parrot their insane mantra of a “Young Earth”. But for those who do, we can in good conscience wake up each morning with a prayer to consign their clap-trap insanity to the darkest room in Hell.

  16. “However, increasing numbers of top scholars have discreetly told members of the intelligent design community…” How does he know? Was he there?

  17. Michael Fugate

    Doesn’t detecting design require materials? Where exactly does the non-material come into play? The only designers we know are physical entities – constrained by matter and energy. That we can discover patterns in no way implies design let alone intelligent design.

  18. The only designs that I can think of are recognized by their constraints.
    I think of an example of design like a blueprint, or a recipe, or a script. It takes account of what is possible. But what would that mean for an agent which is not constrained by space and time, let alone nature, matter and energy?

  19. Stephen Kennedy

    The humans did not evolve with the tendency to look for and to recognize design, it evolved with the tendency to search for patterns. Recognizing certain patterns that are found in the natural world would have been an important trait for survival.

  20. The appearance is one of propaganda rather than a genuine desire to understand the truth. Yet I have since realized that my assessment was completely inaccurate.

    Of course, his assessment is wrong. He’s failing to acknowledge that humanity’s original propaganda was religion and he is doing little more than attempting to proselytize to the masses. .

  21. However, increasing numbers of top scholars have discreetly told members of the intelligent design community that the description of our arguments they heard from their colleagues were completely inaccurate, and they were shocked at the strength of what we were actually saying.

    Who are these “top scholars”? I’ve heard such claims before, and almost always, as in this case, they remain anonymous. When actual names are given, they turn out to be those of people who are “top scholars” or “top scientists” only within the Bible-bubble of creationism, which means they’re either unknown to the general scientific community or recognized as cranks.