It’s Wonderful, Therefore Oogity Boogity!

This is a short one from the Discovery Institute, but it’s powerful! The title is Inside the Cell: The Closer You Look, the More Remarkable It Is.

Ooooooooooooh! It’s remarkable! This Discoveroid blog post was written by — oh, there’s no author’s by-line. We’ll give them all credit for it. 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 [Wowie, another Discoveroid podcast!] , CSC Senior Fellow Dr. Ann Gauger [a/k/a “Annie Green Screen”] talks with host Sarah Chaffee [whom we call “Savvy Sarah”] about a paper in the journal Cell, and how it seems that the more we look, the greater the order is that we find.

For the curious, this is Savvy Sarah’s bio page at the Discoveroids’ website. And 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.

What about the article published in Cell? The Discoveroids don’t provide us with a link, so we have no idea what they’re talking about. Let’s just continue with their post:

She [Annie Green Screen, presumably] discusses a critical transition in embryo development, a compound that aids this transition, and the origins of this compound.

Ooooooooooooh! A compound that aids in embryonic development! How exciting! What do the Discoveroids say about it? Brace yourself, dear reader — here it comes:

According to Gauger, this order may point beyond neo-Darwinian processes. [Gasp!]

Beyond Darwinian processes? Ooooooooooooh! Your Curmudgeon hasn’t been this excited since … we can’t remember. We’re completely overwhelmed by this evidence of Oogity Boogity!

The Discoveroids end with this:

Download the podcast or listen to it here. [Link omitted.]

We’re stopping now because we need a few minutes to recover from this emotional experience.

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

17 responses to “It’s Wonderful, Therefore Oogity Boogity!

  1. I looked at the contents of the current issue of Cell. I don’t have a subscription to it anymore, so I can’t read the full articles. But I think she’s talking about an article on the role of protein phosphatase-1 (PP1) and its role in organizing cortical myosin gradients that help synchronize cell cycles in early Drosophila embryos. PP1 is involved in lots of biological activity (including regulation of HIV-1 transcription). It’s not clear how it is involved in magic stuff “beyond neo-Darwinian processes”, but I doubt listening to Ms Green-Screen’s podcast will help much.

  2. Opps, that’s protein phosphatase-1 — proof read before hitting “post”!

  3. Unlike religious nut jobs, the closer I look at life the more I know that there is NO intelligence capable of the ‘design’ of life. There may be or has been something that kicked it all off, but the variations and changes are not by any one thing!

  4. Michael Fugate

    Ben Shapiro comments briefly on how evolution doesn’t lead to the Truth, but Christianity leads to science.

  5. @L.Long
    I have a somewhat different reaction. When I first heard about “Intelligent Design”, I thought that I had an idea what they were talking about. After reading and thinking about it for a couple of decades, I can’t imagine what they are talking about.
    “Design” seems to entaill constraints. But “Intelligent Design” seems to entail an appeal to lack of constraints: the supernatural or the omnipotent.
    As long as they do not suply a descrpton of what they are talking about, what can one say about it?

  6. Monica Lewis

    It’s Wonderful, Therefore Oogity Boogity!

    Non sequitur. But then again, creationists aren’t known for their razor sharp logic.

  7. @Monica Lewis
    Yes, indeed.
    Even if there were some difficulty posed for evolutionary biology, they do not propose an alternative.
    Even if they had proposed an alternative, they do not show how the alternative is not subject to the same – or other – difficulties. For example, it is not shown how it does not imply evolution, or that it is inconsistent with the suernatural or omnipotent, or that iit does not imply nature gods of panentheism, pantheism, deism, polytheism, animism, totemism, shamanism or paganism.
    Even if they had an alternative which is not subject to the same dificulties, , they do not exclude the possibility that there are other alternatives.
    In brief:
    It’s Wonderful, Therefore Oogity Boogity!

  8. What? Annie Green Screen didn’t make this discovery (which she is being vague about) in her very own green screen lab? I’m seriously disappointed!*

    *Totally unsurprised.

  9. “…the more we look, the greater the order is that we find.”

    Of course. Start off with a priori assumptions about anything, and you’re sure to find what you’re looking for. Is that because it was there to begin with, or did you put it there — “Oh, look, everybody! Oogity boogity!” — so you can claim the satisfaction of knowing you were right all along?

  10. RetiredSciGuy

    “…the more we look, the greater the order is that we find.”

    Of course. After billions of years of evolutionary fine tuning (sorry to burst your bubble, Ken Ham, but it is billions of years, and yes, it is evolution) what we have around us today is what works, and what works is going to display a high degree of order. otherwise it wouldn’t work. No need to invoke the Grand Old Designer to explain it.

    Life just keeps on growing and growing, getting more and more complex all the time. Let’s call it “The Grand Fractal of Life”.

  11. Michael Fugate

    “According to Gauger, this order may point beyond neo-Darwinian processes.”

    Then again it may not – more than likely it doesn’t.

  12. … may point beyond neo-Darwinian processes.
    This reminds me of the readings of an astrologer.
    A stranger may enter your life.
    Are they casting horoscopes in their secret labs?

  13. Karl Goldsmith

    So again we have creationists going on about research they refuse to do, while calling themselves research scientists.

  14. @ChrisS ao: “Start off with a priori assumptions about anything …..”
    Unfortunately we here (ie including me) tend to be guilty of the same when dealing with creacrappers. I mean, how sure can we be that we mean the same with “order” as Annie and Sarah? A step further: when Annie and Sarah talk about “order” does it have any meaning at all? I doubt it, because as TomS had made clear IDiocy is almost totally void.
    At least it has become clear what Annie produces in her ultrasecret lab: baked air.

  15. @FrankB
    Surely the point here is — as RSG alluded to — we have an entirely natural, plausible, well-attested-to explanation for this “order”, taking the latter to mean biological complexity and the appearance of “design”. Ultimately, we prefer natural causes to Annie and Sarah’s supernatural speculations/untheories (which they proffer as similarly explanatory).

    One of the points about natural selection — again, RSG noted it — is the capacity to counter, or at least regulate, nature’s tendency towards disorder. Even if the cell was “designed” as Annie and co allege, what is to stop selection kicking in, and fine-tuning the eventual outcomes? And how do we distinguish the workings of nature — which manifests chance as well as order — with the conjectured designer, or — to recall your phrase, in another context — a kind of Guiding God, when the outcomes either way appear to be so similar?

  16. @ChrisS
    What if something is really designed, what does the fact of it being designed tell us about it?

  17. When designed refers to IDiocy: nothing.

    @ChrisS: my point is exactly that the IDiot meaning of “order” deliberately is so vague and ambiguous if not void that any “natural explanation”, “plausible, well-attested” or not can be rejected at beforehand.