A few years ago we all had a good laugh at a supremely silly “scientific” argument for intelligent design put forward by the Discovery Institute — see Mt. Rushmore Is Designed, Therefore ….
Today they’re making the same argument, but this time using as “evidence” some obviously man-made monuments in the Western Sahara. Their new post is titled Where Design Explains, Darwinism Explains Away, and it has no author’s by-line. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:
Look at the photos in an article on Live Science [Hundreds of Mysterious Stone Structures Discovered in Western Sahara]. They report:
Hundreds of stone structures dating back thousands of years have been discovered in the Western Sahara, a territory in Africa little explored by archaeologists. The structures seem to come in all sizes and shapes, and archaeologists aren’t sure what many of then were used for or when they were created.
Then, without delay, the Discoveroids get right to the creationism. Here it comes:
Immediately you know these structures were designed. [Ooooooooooooh!] How should you know that? How did the scientists know that? The discoverers didn’t know who made them. They didn’t know why they made them. No obvious purpose for the structures came to their attention, yet they knew someone made them intentionally.
Isn’t this exciting? It’s the same with your DNA! They tell us:
Like the archaeologists, people living in the area intuitively knew the structures were designed. … Rocks on their own don’t arrange themselves like these ones are put together.
Right. Arrangement requires an arranger. They continue:
We’ve seen other design inferences like this in Brazil, Jordan, Israel, and Arabia. After concluding that structures are designed, archaeologists often pursue additional questions. The makers must have had the ability to mobilize many people to do the work. Perhaps powerful rulers drove their subjects to make elaborate tombs or grave markers. In some cases, structures can be correlated with rock art. A design inference does not, therefore, stop the science. It stimulates additional questions for investigation. [Design isn’t a science-stopper!] And it is falsifiable: something originally thought to be designed can turn out to be a natural phenomenon.
Are you following this? The design inference is science! It’s good science! But Darwinism isn’t. Let’s read on:
While intelligent design explains the origins of things by reference to causes known to be in operation, Darwinism usually explains things away. All Darwinians accept the appearance of design, but they have limited themselves to undirected causes by embracing methodological naturalism (MN). [“MN” is bad!] They may as well limit themselves to wind and erosion to explain the structures in the Western Sahara — or Mount Rushmore, for that matter.
Darwinists are fools! Another excerpt:
MN takes the rigor out of biological explanation. [Hee hee!] Since Darwinian scientists limit themselves to undirected causes, and MN disallows intelligent causes [like Oogity Boogity!], there’s only one category of explanation in the toolkit.
The Discoveroid article drags on and on. You can read it all if you like, but we’re quitting here. And we leave you with this important scientific principle: If Mt. Rushmore was designed, then so was your colon. Our logic is undeniable.
Copyright © 2019. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.