Discoveroids Say Darwinists Are Afraid

As it was a week ago in Discoveroids Present a Brain-Bending Argument, so it is today. At the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog they are once again praising Brazilian chemist Marcos Eberlin. Klinghoffer has just written Marcos Eberlin on Debating Evolutionists. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Do you ever wonder what Darwin proponents would say if they ventured to address arguments for intelligent design in detail? Do they ever?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Do Darwin proponents ever dare to address the Discoveroids’ arguments? Think about it, dear reader. Who would ever attempt such a thing? We can’t think of anyone. After that stunning beginning, Klinghoffer says:

I asked Brazilian chemist Marcos Eberlin to comment based on his own experiences. He was in Seattle to speak about his new book, Foresight: How the Chemistry of Life Reveals Planning and Purpose. [Published by the Discovery Institute!]

Ooooooooooooh! The great man was in Seattle. How did he answer the question? Klinghoffer tells us:

Of course, sometimes evolutionists do debate about specifics. [They gotta be crazy to do that!] But remember what happened when they came after Michael Behe on polar bear genes and other matters in his book Darwin Devolves. [Link omitted.]

Actually, we don’t remember what happened. No problem — Klinghoffer informs us:

Find the archives of that debate here, [Link omitted.] including Behe’s exchanges with Richard Lenski, Nathan Lents, and others. As Eberlin observes, for Darwinists, the “devil is in the details” and they fear the devil.

Ooooooooooooh! We don’t want to mess with that ol’ devil! Klinghoffer continues:

Come to think of it, that metaphor may not be the very best, but you get the point.

Yeah, we get it. Let’s read on:

They greatly prefer to argue at the level of generalities, insults, or empty claims of “consensus,” because when you get down into the finer points, they sense that they can’t win.

He’s right. We know when we’re whipped. And now we come to the end:

Eberlin recalls here [podcast embedded in Klinghoffer’s post] the story of how one seemingly robust scientific “consensus” dissolved, revealing how fragile it always was.

We haven’t looked at the Eberlin podcast, but there’s been no shortage of Superseded theories in science. Evolution isn’t one of them, however.

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

20 responses to “Discoveroids Say Darwinists Are Afraid

  1. They can’t even get their quotes right. The quote is “God is in the details.” I guess that didn’t occur to them because they are always looking in the gaps instead.

  2. Derek Freyberg

    People do remember what happened when “they came after Michael Behe on polar bear genes” – Lents, Lenski, and others trashed Behe’s claims, regardless of what Klinklepooper would like his readers to think. The information is all on-line, and you can draw your own conclusions.

  3. Derek Freyberg

    And, I should add, don’t rely on the link Klinklepooper has provided to the “archives of the debate” – go to the blogs of Lenski et al.

  4. Mark Germano

    It is difficult to address the specifics of intelligent design when there aren’t any intelligent design specifics to address.

    I thought the lack of specifics was a feature of intelligent design.

  5. Michael Fugate

    What was the consensus that was debunked? Spontaneous generation. A single experiment Eberlin claims debunked it – so if the DI ever do an experiment, then it will debunk evolution. The question is, will they ever do one? He blathers on about details and claims evolutionary biologists ignore them only talking generalities and ID doesn’t – the irony meter exploded on that one – it is a wonder he wasn’t hit by shrapnel.
    One does laugh at their great-man whiggish science history, but why would you expect their history (Weikart is their go to historian) to be any better than their science or philosophy?

  6. debunkijg spontaneous generation
    A little more of the complexities about the debunking of spontaneous generation.
    Spontaneous gneration, strictly speaking, is the generation from non-living matter. There is also the concept of unquvocal generation, where one living ting is generated from a different living thing. A Billbical example of equivocal generation is the bees being gnerated n=in the body of the lion slain by Sampson.Biblical examples of sponteneous generation are in the Plagues of Egypt, where frogs and flies were geerated from the water. It was commonly believed that metamorphosis was equivocal generation. There was also the folklore whch said that the Barnacle Goose was generated from barnacles.
    In the 18th century, Spalllanzani debunked the concpet of equivocal generation in insects.
    ANd there were other experimenters wh debunked spontaneous generation is the case of non-microscopic iving things. They thought that this debunking also was evidence fior preformation, for some reason or other. But in the 18th century, it was still left as an open question whether microcopic things could be generated soptaneously. What Pateur did was to shut the door on that possibility.

  7. docbill1351

    This is the way creationists roll whether it’s old Hambo, the Tooters, Behe in particular, ICR or even professional apologists like WL Craig. They simply ignore counter arguments and present their schtick again.

    Lents and Lenski mopped the floor with Behe, but no matter, Black Knight Behe will merely shrug it as a scratch, a slight scuff, not even a bruise.

    My favorite of all time, though, was when sharp-as-a-tack Abbie Smith pointed out that the evidence that disproved Behe’s argument was an illustration in his book they were discussing, and Behe walked away refusing to engage further because Abbie was “mean.” Poor widdle boo-boo.

  8. Michael Fugate

    It is never one experiment, but a body of work – it took centuries of experiments to change the consensus on spontaneous generation. It did on heliocentrism, the age of the earth, common descent, natural selection, etc.

  9. “Discoveroids Say Darwinists Are Afraid”

    Like all right wingers (see Trump and his GOTP supporters) creationists are always projecting their fears onto people that they disagree with.

  10. “Look! Up there in the sky!”
    “It’s looser than a stool!”
    “It’s holier than a fool!”
    “It’s the opposite of cool!”

    Yes, it’s Diarrhea Man, back to save the universe from the evil of Darwinist consensus and generalities!

  11. Strange, I remember “Richard Lenski, Nathan Lents, and others” going into far, FAR more detail than sloppy and superficial Mikey Behe. They went back to the original research articles (including talking their authors) to demonstrate how Behe misrepresented and cherry-picked what they said.

  12. Hrafn, your memory is clouded by your evilutionist prejudices. That’s what you, like me, are a darwinist materialist naturalist commienazi for.

  13. Karl Goldsmith

    “address arguments for intelligent design in detail?” What arguments? The polar bear was them saying evolution couldn’t do something, which was shown to be utter rubbish.

    They even say “The theory of intelligent design simply says that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause” So god of the gaps.

  14. @Karl Goldsmith
    Of course, without anything.being said about what such an explanation might be. Let alone what might make it good, better, or best.

  15. If philosophical nothingness is possible then IDiocy comes pretty close.

  16. @FrankB
    Does anyone have an alternative example?
    I am not asking for perfection, just one that could serve as an alternative.
    I have suggested Walt Whitman’s “When I Heard the Learn’d Astronomer”.

  17. No Darwinists are afraid, as there are no such thing, except in the delusional minds of creatards! And as a follower of evilution I still would not debate them, not from fear but battling lies & LIARs is too much a waste of time.

  18. @Anonymous
    Please describe the mechanism of the design. What are the rules that it follows? Give an example (hypothetical, if need be) of something which would not, or is not, or could not, be a product of design.

  19. “Do Darwin proponents ever dare to address the Discoveroids’ arguments? Think about it, dear reader. Who would ever attempt such a thing? We can’t think of anyone. After that stunning beginning, Klinghoffer says:”
    Terrific theater SC !!!

  20. Eric Lipps

    Creationists love to cite Pasteur, in particular, as proving that life cannot arise spontaneously from nonliving sources–except, they argue, by supernatural means. But Pasteur’s experiment only proved that complex life (flies) can’t do so. It proved nothing about the cell, let alone pre-cellular life.

    This is what comes from assuming that high-school biology classes offer cutting-edge science. (Especially since, owing to budgetary constraints, many such classes rely on decades-old textbooks.)