Clear & Convincing Evidence of Design

The Discovery Institute is always promoting their “scientific theory” of intelligent design, and you — pathetic, hell-bound Darwinist that you are — wonder when they’ll finally come up with some evidence to support their claims. Okay, dear reader, your long wait is over.

Take a look at the newest gem posted at their creationist blog: Life’s Hard Stop: Fortune? Or Foresight? It was written by Klinghoffer. so you know it’s good. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Astrophysicist Ethan Siegel points out another “incredibly fortunate” thing about the Cambrian explosion and about evolution generally. He reminds readers of his popular Forbes blog [Global Warming Will Destroy The Earth In The End] that life on Earth, at least on Earth’s surface, has a time limit as the Sun ages. That will come a long time prior to the actual death throes of our home star:

We’ve written about Siegel before. He doesn’t seem to be a creationist, but the Discoveroids like to quote-mine his blog — see, e.g.: The Discoveroids Are Encouraged, and before that Discoveroids Solve the Fermi Paradox. Klinghoffer quotes from Siegel’s new article, and he added some bold font for emphasis:

[Siegel says:] Global warming will destroy life on Earth in the end: not just human life, but all life on the planet’s surface, including in the seas. A billion or two years from now, long before the Sun becomes a red giant and starts fusing helium, the temperatures on our world will rise too high for plants, animals or any creatures we know to survive. Perhaps we’re incredibly fortunate that life took the path it did to lead to us; if the Cambrian explosion or the workings of biological evolution were just a little bit slower, intelligent life like us may have never had the time to arise. [Emphasis added.]

Ooooooooooooh! The timing was so fortunate! Isn’t that amazing? Klinghoffer tells us:

Of course we know that the explosion of diversity in the Cambrian event, the history of animal life since, and the relatively recent origin of human intelligence, display more than just fortune, incredible or otherwise. [Yes, it’s not just good luck!] Biological information, including the information that underlies our species, is not a matter of good luck but of programming [Gasp!], action by a source of intelligence working with purposeful deliberation.

Ooooooooooooh! It all happened deliberately, for a purpose!

We’ll skip some quotes from Discoveroids Stephen Meyer and James Tour, after which Klinghoffer says:

Evolutionists habitually point to the vast time available for their unguided mechanism to operate. Let’s say we grant them that time is not the enemy (Tour), nor ultimately a non-factor (Meyer), but the great friend of evolution. If you were to grant that, then the timing is, as Siegel says, “incredibly fortunate.”

Well, dear reader, you gotta admit — if it weren’t for all the events in the past, happening just when they did in the proper sequence, you wouldn’t be here. Could that be just a lucky coincidence? Let’s read on as Klinghoffer spells it out:

The Cambrian explosion happened in a hurry, geologically speaking. Evolution came together in a more rapid fashion than seems credible, even on a superficial view, given what we know now about the complexity of life. But it needed to do so, given the hard stop to terrestrial biology that will come eventually. It’s as if life, intelligent life, was looking forward to its own future needs.

He finishes with with a couple of questions that lead to the obvious conclusion:

Is that fortune? Or as chemist Marcos Eberlin would have it, is it evidence of foresight?

You probably remember Marcos Eberlin from Discovery Institute, Diarrhea, and the Designer. So there you are, dear reader. The Discoveroids say that the evidence is virtually overwhelming. We’re here, and that ain’t no accident! So give up on your silly Darwinism and give thanks to the intelligent designer — blessed be he!

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

23 responses to “Clear & Convincing Evidence of Design

  1. Mark Germano

    The idea that the designer had to make life happen on a self-imposed, arbitrary timeline is one I haven’t thought of before.

  2. So the “designer” had the foresight to build in a self destruct mechanism into the innermost planets? What awesome planning! So much for the “special privileged planet” that the “designer” created just for humans from the universe consisting only of water.

  3. It’s as if life, intelligent life, was looking forward to its own future needs.
    Does anybody have a hint as to what that means?
    Intelligent Designers looking forward to their own future needs? What future needs would there be? What constraints does the future place on Intelligent Designers?
    And, of course, once again, what materials and methods are available to Intelligent Designers to impliment their designs?

  4. Mark Germano

    “What constraints does the future place on Intelligent Designers?”

    Only those they place on themselves.

  5. Good timing , to delay the Cambrfian Explosion until beyond halfway through the Sun’s useful life?

  6. Hmmmmm ….. Klunckerduncker forgets an important detail ….. to refute evolution theory, or darwinism, as creacrappers prefer to call it.
    Look, I am totally OK with the idea that I am incredibly fortunate that just that one spermatozoön managed to fertilized the exactly right ovum. Must have been the foresight of the Grand Old Designer, blessed be MOFO! He likes my mockery of IDiots and other creacrappers too much to have given other spermatozoons and other maternal ovums (ova?) the opportunity!
    Or perhaps there is more than one Grand Old Designer? Maybe the one who created me was this one?

    Anyhow, my point is that nothing of this contradicts the simple biology of fertilisation by sex. Neither does Klunckleduncker even try to contradict evolution.

  7. Mark Germano

    Let’s not forget a handful of extinction events that only raised the level of difficulty.

  8. Michael Fugate

    It is almost impossible that someone exactly like Klinghoffer is alive today – and yet he is – did an intelligent designer manipulate human mating to ensure Klinghoffer’s parents not only existed, not only produced a child, but produced a very specific child – requiring a single sperm out of billions to unite with a single egg ovulated at a certain time. Is it more likely that Klinghoffer is here through an unguided mechanism solely by random chance or through God’s foresight and if the latter, what does that say about God?

  9. Hm, Klunckerduncker’s not-too-intelligent agent is rebellious again and has thrown my comment, with Prokofiev’s fine piece of music, into the dustbin. Fortunately my faith in the Great Hand from Above, even if I haven’t paid nearly attention to it lately, remains unshaken. Unshaken and confident I await His Mighty Intervention to save my effort from oblivion.

    [Voice from above] All is well.

  10. Michael Fugate poses an important question

    Is it more likely that Klinghoffer is here through an unguided mechanism solely by random chance or through God’s foresight and if the latter, what does that say about God?

    If it is the latter, it says that God has a diabolical sense of humour.

    And man, do I ever miss Casey!

  11. Biological information, including the information that underlies our species, is not a matter of good luck but of programming…

    Discoveroids regurgitate this mantra over and over, yet they haven’t the foggiest idea what they mean by biological information let alone how the brain interprets information. If a sequence of atoms repeats itself, does this constitute biological information? Should we not then have a kidney in our bodies wherever this sequence is repeated? What research have they actually conducted to demonstrate any truth to their nebulous assertion? A human body is subject to random mutations throughout it’s lifetime, it is not a computer, a device that simply processes the same lines of code over and over and is not subject to mutations, nor can two computers mate to give an offspring featuring an updated program. Maybe Klinghoffer can work on that one.

  12. Klinghoffer’s “Of course we know that …” reminds me of Ken Ham’s “You see, …”.
    This is always followed by some deep insight which we secular evolutionists don’t seem to be able to grasp.

  13. @Michael Fugate
    It has been pointed out, as an argument for Intelligent Storkism, the small probability of the production, by natural reproduction, of any specified human being.
    Natural reproduction requires that an individual is the result of the mating of two individuals, and their existence is the result of the mating of two pairs, and so on, back to the time of Adam and Eve. Each of those matings can be considered as having a probability of at most 1/2.
    We can then count the total number of these specified matings thus: Each generation of ancestors has twice the number of matings of the subsequent generation. And we can conservatively estimate three generations per century, or 30 generations per thousand years. This means that any individual of today is dependent on 2^30 ~ 1000^3 matings of a thousand years ago. The probability of those matings having taken place is 2^(-1000^3) ~ 10^(-1000^2)~100^(-1000)~1/(google^10).
    This is just back 1000 years! And it is true for each one of the billions of individuals of today!!
    This shows that the Theory of Natural Reproduction is dependent on huge improbabilities, and thus the only alternative, Intelligent Storkism, must provide an explanation.

  14. TomS is puzzled by a claim by this Discoveroids,
    It’s as if life, intelligent life, was looking forward to its own future needs.”
    and asks

    Does anybody have a hint as to what that means?

    Yes. It means that the evolution of the human hand was cleverly directed by the Grand Ole Designer so it could eventually play the piano.

  15. TomS correctly notes

    This shows that the Theory of Natural Reproduction is dependent on huge improbabilities, and thus the only alternative, Intelligent Storkism, must provide an explanation

    The celebrated Answers in Cabbages ministry has indeed been tirelessly refuting the pernicious Theory of Natural Conception with the compelling truths of Intelligent Delivery:

    Proponents of the TRVTH of ID or Intelligent Delivery (known as IDiots), under the sponsorship of the Dysovary Institute, have readily established the scientific fact that offspring are only ”delivered” to parents of the same Biblical baramins, or “kinds.” If, as Darwin’s Theory of Natural Conception falsely holds, that offspring resulted from the ‘fusing’ of an egg with a ”random” tadpole, then we would expect to routinely find giraffes with litters of kittens and puppies, or sharks raising baby marmosets. Such, of course, has never been observed either in nature or the laboratory.

    IDiots recognise that the means by which the delivery of offspring only to parents of its own ”baramin” is a Profound Cosmic Mystery to which one may only respond with a sense of Irreducible Perplexity. It is not given to mortal man to understand the ineffable ways of the Intelligent Deliverer.

  16. Michael Fugate

    Here is how ID works with probabilities.
    Put one billion marbles into a container – shake it up – draw one marble at random – notice it is marble 10346 – gush, “Marble 10346! My special marble – the very one I wanted. The designer obviously directed my hand to that very marble!” Fail to mention it works for any marble picked – but it makes the marble feel special – and it works as apologetics, of course.

  17. Michael Fugate

    This is an interesting explanation for ID
    Kenneth Burke notes that human language features dramatism as a fundamental characteristic. That is, all natural human communication is structured to include an agent, act, agency, purpose, and scene. Consequently, all human discourse tends to recount the world in terms that presuppose human-like agents and purposes. Thus most, if not all, so-called “primitive” tribes are animistic, attributing “spirits” (agents and agency) to natural objects. Nonliterate human groups are not alone here; all humans easily infer design from pattern. Even scientists can routinely be caught in anthropomorphic talk (I remember my physics teacher offering the following explanation: “the ball wants to get to the lowest possible energy state”). But such attribution of agency and purpose is as much about us as speakers of natural languages as it is about the characteristics of the natural world. Thus, Burke argues, whether or not there is a God, our language forces us to invent one. God is the linguistic embodiment of perfected agency, inevitably inhabiting our language because our language is hierarchical, demanding perfection, and because our language presupposes agency. In some sense, then, science is simply the process of inventing languages that wring dramatism out of our perceptions and discourse. The intelligent design advocates attempt to co-opt this scientific approach by employing quantitative measures of information in order to circumvent the possibility that specification is simply a matter of human interpretation. Their measures, however, require prior conventions embedded in dramatistic systems – specifically statistical thresholds chosen by experimenters and the covert blocking of measured units.
    The Rhetoric of Intelligent Design: Alternatives for Science and Religion
    Celeste Michelle Condit

  18. @Megalonyx offers an explanation for
    it’s as if life, intelligent life, was looking forward to its own future needs.
    “the evolution of the human hand was cleverly directed by the Grand Ole Designer so it could eventually play the piano”.
    but I am still puzzled. Why would the design of the human hand enable the Grand Ole Designer in playing the piano?

  19. @Megalony
    But why would the design of the human hand enable the Grand Ole Designer in playing the piano?

  20. @DavidK chastizes IDiots: “they haven’t the foggiest idea what they mean by biological information”
    Not having the foggiest idea is crucial for IDiocy. Would they specify what they mean their air castle would fall apart quicker than an utterly unstable radioactive atom.

    “Maybe Klinghoffer can work …..”
    Yeah and maybe water one day will be dry.

    @Mega omits a far more important and popular application of the human hand, that displays Intelligent Foresight. However the good manners required for this blog restrict me to just referring to the opening scene of History of the World, Part I, a movie intelligently designed by Mel Brooks. And no, I don’t want to follow TomS’ footsteps and contemplate what this tells us about the hobbies of the Grand Ole Designer.

  21. What I was really puzzled about
    was what these mean:
    *… intelligent life was looking forward …
    *… its own [intelligent life’s] future needs …
    Does “intelligent life” refer to the Intelligent Designer? Or to the product of Intelligent Design? Or does the pronoun “its” have some other referent?

  22. To which I happily add: does Klincklecklapper have any idea himself?

  23. The evolution of the human hand was cleverly directed by the Grand Ole Designer so it could eventually play the piano.

    And give creationists the finger.