Two Great Posts from the Discoveroids

The Discovery Institute started so confidently 20 years ago. They had their manifesto, the Wedge Document, with it’s grandiose 20 year goals. But like their litigation, legislation, and other programs, they were all failures — see Discovery Institute: A History of Failure.

So look what they’re dishing out now. We’ll briefly consider two new items at their creationist blog. The first is On Being Human — A Reflection, by Ann Gauger (a/k/a Annie Green Screen). Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Evolutionary biologist David Barash is a man on a mission. He wants to make sure that we all know we are only human, and that means we are only animal. We share DNA, mitochondria, organelles, our very flesh with animals, and so are animals too. We might as well give up any hope of being sons of God. That story in the Bible that we were created specially is just a story according to Barash, and a dangerous one at that.

You know the creationist Discoveroids can’t let that go. Annie says:

I find all of this sad. It is true that we share a lot in common with animals. It is true that we have DNA, RNA, and proteins in common, that we have mitochondria and organelles in common, that we have brains and bones in common. But we also have many things that we do not have in common with animals. These things Barash tends to underemphasize. For example, our ability to think abstractly about things not necessary for survival is amazing.

That’s certainly evidence for Oogity Boogity! Skipping some blather, she gives us even more evidence for creationism:

We build incredible cities. We do horrible things well beyond what animals are capable of to each other. We have language, that wonderful, marvelous, treacherous gift. We have music, that powerful, glorious, dangerous gift. And we have art, that beautiful, transcendent, painful gift. All these gifts are things that animals don’t have.

Therefore, Darwin was an idiot. Okay, that’s enough from Annie for today. Here’s another new Discoveroid post: Myth: A Big Universe Is a Problem for Christianity, by Mike Keas, a Discoveroid “senior fellow” who teaches at Biola University, a bible college. He says:

Self-appointed spokesmen for science often use the enormous size of the cosmos, with its billions of galaxies, as a club to beat up on Christianity. They say people in the Western tradition had to wait for modern science to grasp that the universe was huge, and had to shed historic Judeo-Christian views to do so. Not true.

Not true? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We begin our posts about the latest discoveries of extra-solar planets by reminding you of what the bible says — that the Earth was recently created as the only world in existence in the center of a rather limited universe, consisting of the Sun and the Moon above the flat Earth, with the stars as lights set in a presumably solid firmament rotating around us, just below the glorious realm of Yahweh. But Keas denies all that and says:

This is one of several anti-religious myths I dismantle in my new book [who cares?]

Quoting the bible is now an “anti-religious myth.” He continues:

Scientists from centuries past, including Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543) and Blaise Pascal (1623–1662), recognized that the universe is vast. They saw in this no contradiction with their Christian beliefs.

Yeah, no problems. Tell that to Galileo and Giordano Bruno. Let’s read on:

Yet celebrity TV science educator Bill Nye, the “Science Guy,” is among those who suggest that the sheer scale of the cosmos means humans are insignificant. … But Bill Nye isn’t so much the science guy as he is the scientism guy. Scientism is atheistic dogma masquerading as objective science.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! And we’re supposed to believe that the Discoveroids’ “theory” of intelligent design somehow isn’t creationism masquerading as science. Then, to discredit what Nye says, Keas cites that noted scientific authority, C.S. Lewis, a British writer known for his fiction and Christian apologetics. You can click over there to read that stuff if you like.

Keas finishes with this scientific declaration:

For both Jews and Christians, here is the situation: We believe in an omnipotent, infinite God, and modern astronomical discoveries have confirmed that we inhabit a majestic universe befitting just such a creator. The Psalmist got it right 3,000 years ago: “The heavens declare the glory of God.”

As we’ve observed from time to time, the Discoveroids and ol’ Hambo are moving ever closer in their doctrines. Not surprising, because despite what they may say about their “scientific” views, they’re all creationists.

Copyright © 2019. 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

15 responses to “Two Great Posts from the Discoveroids

  1. Michael Fugate
  2. I think, therefore I am not an atheist.

  3. Michael Fugate

    Here’s Keas’ first topic:
    Myth #1 Premodern scholars in the Western tradition thought the universe was small – a cozy place just for human benefit.
    The truth: Even ancient thinkers recognized that the earth was tiny in relation to the immense cosmos.

    In the section available on Amazon, this is not really addressed. When it came to geocentrism versus heliocentrism – both of which had been proposed by the Greeks long before Copernicus – what were the issues. Against heliocentrism, a moving earth and a lack of parallax. Parallax is solved by an immense cosmos. A moving earth is solved by inertia and gravity. If the cosmos is immense, then stars need to move at immense velocities to rotate daily around the stationary earth. So the ancients believed the cosmos to be immense enough for it to be immense, but not immense enough to account for the parallax problem? And the earth can’t move because it would be going too fast, but the stars would be moving much, much faster?

    His real conclusion, God’s love is proportional to the size of the universe and a big universe shows us God loves us even more than we previously thought.

  4. Anne of Green Screen Gables forgets that she eats and drinks; sleeps; defecates; procreates, etc. That makes her– in terms of basic physiology– an animal, like the rest of us. Why that should make her sad, necessarily, is
    a little baffling.

    All the other things things she points to — like music and poetry, and so on — as nice as they are, are products of cultural evolution; but as the article Michael F referred us to points out, don’t make us qualitatively different from closely related species.

  5. Michael Fugate

    Some humans aren’t conscious for a number of reasons – it is not a human universal, it is not an absolute. Why try to make it so? She doesn’t like abortion and euthanasia – why define humanity in terms of core characteristics? I know it is expecting too much, but why can’t religious conservatives be honest?

  6. Not everyone is able to make music or to paint or to think abstractly about things without practical consequences.
    The Bible first tells us in Genesis 4:21 only after several generations after Adam about music making. I don’t recall anything in the Bible about art or abstract thinking.

  7. Annie Green Screen boldly declares: “That story in the Bible ….”
    How satisfying. The pretense that IDiocy is not about identifying the Grand Old Designer (blessed be MOFO!) has gone. Not that anyone is surprised here. But we have to be fair – the IDiots from Seattle have finally achieved something: confirming that the line between IDiocy and Old Earth Creationism is so vague that it can be called virtual and imaginary.

    “Scientism is atheistic dogma masquerading as objective science.”
    How comforting! While I’m not a staunch atheist it’s not because of objective science. But when honest I have to admit that the stupidity of IDiots and other creacrappers has something to do with it.

  8. @Porter: rather “I repeat, therefore I am not an atheist.”

    @MichaelF: “So the ancients believed …..”
    Indeed, something like that. See, compared to your and my size the Solar System is already immense. Still it dwarves compared to the entire Universe. Basically Mykeas counts one is small, two is big, more is immense.

  9. Does this mean that ID advocates will no longer complain about being called “creationist”?

  10. I’ve never heard of music being ‘dangerous’. We need Annie to enlighten us on that one.
    And Mike Keas uses the G word. As a Senior Fellow he should know that the identity of the Designer must not be revealed.

  11. There was the time when rock and roll was considered dangerous. “Jungle music”, and it doesn’t take deep analysis to tell you what that meant, in those good old days.

  12. @hans435 I’ve never heard of music being ‘dangerous’.

    What, never heard of Michael Jackson???

    I never knew but I was
    Walking the line
    Come go with me
    I said I have no time
    And don’t you pretend we didn’t
    Talk on the phone
    My baby cried
    She left me standing alone

    She’s so dangerous
    The girl is so dangerous
    Take away my money
    Throw away my time
    You can call me honey
    But you’re no damn good for me

  13. Annie streams her “consciousness” – ( For example, our ability to think abstractly about things not necessary for survival is amazing.)

    My cat spends its life thinking abstractly and not about survival. His food is brought to him, he sleeps on a soft blanket in the sun, he gets a chin scritch without having to move a muscle. My cat is truly amazing!

  14. H.K. Fauskanger

    Annie in her full text refers to an article by David Barash that appeared in New York Times; she provides no reference beyond that, but I believe it must be this one:

    It is pretty good.

  15. “The heavens declare the glory of God.”

    …and the firmament sheweth his handiwork.

    Wait a second, there is no “firmament”. How does this prove Mike Keas’s assertions?