Discoveroids Say You Don’t Know X, Therefore Y

As our title suggests, today we have an absolutely dazzling example of cutting-edge thinking from the Discovery Institute. It appears at their creationist blog, but there’s no author’s by-line: Inside the Cell: DNA as a Library.

Ooooooooooooh! DNA as a library — that’s a brilliant analogy! Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

On a classic episode of ID the Future [Ooooooooooooh! A Discoveroid podcast!], Discovery Institute biologist Ann Gauger discusses DNA, the library of the cell.

You’re in for a treat, dear reader. Ann Gauger (a/k/a “Annie Green Screen”) is a “senior research scientist” at the Discoveroids’ Biologic Institute. Annie’s work is so sensitive that the interior of her lab must never be seen by outsiders. You can read all about that in Klinghoffer Defends Photo Trickery. The Discoveroids’ brief post about Annie’s podcast then says:

Download the podcast or listen to it here.

There’s a link at the Discoveroids’ post. If you want to experience the intellectual and spiritual thrill of viewing the podcast — and we know you do! — you can click over there and find the link for yourself. The Discoveroids’ post continues:

Dr. Gauger delves into transcription and translation and the speed with which these processes take place. Listen in to learn more about the fantastic workings of the cell!

Ooooooooooooh! To prepare yourself for Annie’s podcast, you might start with the Wikipedia articles on Transcription and then Translation. Wait — don’t do that. It might be better not to begin by consulting a Darwinist source. Just watch the Discoveroid podcast and surrender to Annie’s wisdom.

Their brief post ends with this fascinating zinger:

And just think, it all arose by chance, blind, mindless processes alone, didn’t it?

So there you are, dear reader. How much more proof do you want? If your godless Darwinism can’t explain the library of the cell, then it had to be the work of the intelligent designer — blessed be he! Case closed!

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

9 responses to “Discoveroids Say You Don’t Know X, Therefore Y

  1. IMHO it should be made clear that even if there were something troubling about evolutionary biology, that does not automatically make “intelligent design” plausible.
    Yes, I know that all of the readers of this blog are aware that not-X does not imply Y. But we still find that rhetoric being used by the creationists.
    And there are good reasons not to let the creationists get away with blunders about supposed difficulties about evolution. After all, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. But the correlate of that is that intelligent design provides no understanding of anything in biology: It doesn’t have the prospect of shedding light, in particular on any supposed dim corner of evolutionary biology.
    I think that we need a little PR. Can we make it so that the anti-evolutionists become a bit embarrassed about the fallacy of the false dichotomy? I’m not expecting a whole lot: they’re not going to stop using it; but at least they might feel the need to attempt to justify their rhetoric. A little speed bump.

  2. Michael Fugate

    I would suggest Dennett on intentionality – especially sections of “Intuition pumps and other tools for thinking “ – as he discusses how we use short cuts in our language ascribing agency when we do not mean it is a product of a rational mind. Words like function, translation, need, etc.

    A short comment is his reply “evolution, teleology, intentionality”

  3. Karl Goldsmith

    This sounds so much like the suff Ray Comfort says.

  4. @TomS
    I am not sure that embarrassment or PR will have much effect on any but the undecided (and ridicule may not be the best recruiting tool). From what I can tell, the only people who change their minds are people who decide to look at the evidence for themselves. Apparently this works both ways as the “born agains” seem to convert by willfully ignoring secular input. So reaching the uninterested seems a hopeless endeavor to me.
    However, recent evidence suggests rational thinking is winning, however slowly. And as an aside, I just heard an evangelical type discussing the positive opportunity Christians have because they have historically flourished when in the minority. Was a strange argument but tacit confirmation that they are losing ground.
    Science communicators such as our dear SC (amongst others) should take heart and keep up the good work. JMO

  5. “And just think, it all arose by chance, blind, mindless processes alone, didn’t it?”

    A surprisingly accurate description of creationism. You can’t get more mindless than that!

  6. @Zetopan
    “Act of God” means “unpredictable”. We cannot rule out anything if all we know is that God wills it. If God wills it, why would he, or not, resort to design, or to chance, or both, or neither, or to nature, to magic, etc.?

  7. @TomS kicks another open door (because criticizing IDiocy is hardly anything but): “IMHO it should be made clear that …..”
    Yeah, but what IDiots should do and actually do differs more than a microbe from me.

    “I think that we need a little PR.”
    Compared to other branches (historians regarding JMs, climatologists regarding “skeptics”) I think biologists do a fairly good job.

    “Can we make it so that the anti-evolutionists become a bit embarrassed about the fallacy of the false dichotomy?”
    With the Grand Old Designer (blessed be MOFO!) at their side nothing can embarrass them.

  8. @FrankB
    “open door”
    That isn’t what it looks like to me. It is more like they’re standing outside in the weather, criticizing the structure of science for being vulnerable to a possible earthquake. There is no door, open or otherwise, to kick open.

  9. Michael Fugate

    Tour reminds me of another creationist chemist Phil Skell
    I had an email exchange with him after the Kansas School Board hearings. Apparently he would show up to biology seminars at Penn State and ask ignorant questions.