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.