Discoveroids Say Scientists Are Idiots

For years we’ve been laughing at the Discovery Institute’s bizarre concept of “information.” Its some kind of imaginary pixie dust their intelligent designer — blessed be he! — injects into the genome so that DNA can do the wonderful things it does. Back in 2014 we analogized it to phlogiston — see Phlogiston, Vitalism, and Information.

Hambo liked the Discoveroids’ idea so much that he adopted it — see Ken Ham: Natural Selection Is Not Evolution. As we all know, endorsement by ol’ Hambo is an absolute guarantee that the concept is 100% pure creationism.

Why do we bring up this creationist history? Because today, dear reader, the Discoveroids are fighting back. Look what just appeared at their creationist blog, with no author’s by-line: The Modern-Day Phlogiston: Darwinism Explains Everything and Nothing.

Isn’t that title glorious? They’re saying the theory of evolution is our phlogiston. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

On a new episode of ID the Future [Ooooooooooooh! A Discoveroid podcast!], host Andrew McDiarmid reads an excerpt from Heretic: One Scientist’s Journey from Darwin to Design, by Finnish bioengineer Matti Leisola and Jonathan Witt.

We’ve blogged about that book a few times — see, e.g.: Creationist Review of a Discoveroid Book. You know it’s great science because it was published by — drum-roll, trumpets — the Discovery Institute Press.

What’s in the new Discoveroid podcast? Their post tells us:

It makes the case that modern neo-Darwinism is today’s “phlogiston,” [Gasp!] a theory that explains everything but nothing, faces mounting contrary evidence, and survives only with ever more ancillary hypotheses.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We’ve been flinging phlogiston at them, and now they’re flinging it back at us. This is jolly good fun! The Discoveroid post continues:

In the excerpt Leisola and Witt also discuss the well-documented pattern of scientists defending an existing scientific paradigm even after fresh discoveries have turned against it, with the obsolete dominant paradigm dying only very slowly.

Those scientists keep clinging to discredited theories — like evolution. What stubborn fools they are!

Here’s the end of the Discoveroids’ post:

An especially dramatic and tragic example gave the name to this all-too-human tendency — the Semmelweis reflex. Download the podcast or listen to it here. [Link omitted.]

The Semmelweis reflex? This is embarrassing, but we hadn’t heard of that before. Wikipedia describes it as: “a metaphor for the reflex-like tendency to reject new evidence or new knowledge because it contradicts established norms, beliefs or paradigms.”

Well, dear reader, it looks like the Discoveroids have got us all figured out. We’re clinging to our phlogiston and Darwinism, while they’re boldly moving forward with their dazzling new “theory” of intelligent design. We’ve been such fools!

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

12 responses to “Discoveroids Say Scientists Are Idiots

  1. If scientists are fools, where does that leave discoveroids? Certainly they cannot claim any scientific credibility nor can they identify with the science community.

  2. A bioengineer claiming to be a scientist?

  3. “defending an existing scientific paradigm even after fresh discoveries have turned against it”
    Now only if these IDiots specified what those discoveries could be …..
    It amuses me mildly how they project our objections on evolution theory. It has been several years already since I met it; it was when an IDiot start talking about “science of the gaps”. What matters here is that YEC-site creation.com has an utterly confused article about it.
    The Great Convergence is and remains heart warming.

  4. Michael Fugate

    One does wonder why beneficial mutations can’t arise through natural means – what is the barrier? Must be the same one that prevents one “kind” transforming to another.

    Interesting that Lesiola, much like Bechley, converted to Christianity because of their spouse, then accepted creationism and gave up evolution.

    Lesiola’s language is teleological- he claims enzymes can “recognize” molecules as if they had sense organs. It is not a linguistic shortcut.

  5. chris schilling

    Semmelweis reflex is new to me, too. Much more familiar is Klinghoffer reflux — that common gagging sensation which afflicts Darwinists, and which often culminates in such spectacular bouts of projectile vomiting as to make the Mr. Creosote scene from Python’s “The Meaning of Life” look restrained, and tasteful, in comparison.

  6. “Darwinism… faces mounting contrary evidence…”

    What evidence? Give me a f’rinstance, here. And that’s before I get onto “Darwinism”, mit eyeroll and giggle. They don’t even know what they’re arguing against – it’s not “Darwinism”, it’s current evolutionary theory and its immense realms of buttressing evidence. Data. Observation. Fact. Reality, bitches! It might suck, it might blow, but you can’t do without it.

    Oh, what am I saying? The Discoveroids, Ham, Hovind, Comfort, the ICR, the whole pestilential crew, have been doing without it forever. If there were a single datum that disposed me to think that maybe reality was not real, it would be something like that – that whole chunks of humanity can dispense with it and go their merry way unaffected. Prospering, even. It passes sense and reason – which is also terrifying. Maybe sense and reason are not such sovereign powers as the Enlightenment savants thought they were.

    God, it’s a step on the way towards actually reading the post-modernists. One step. Wake me up when the train gets to Alpha Centauri.

  7. @MichaelF: “One does wonder why beneficial mutations can’t arise through natural means – what is the barrier?”
    The inability of creacrappers to get rid of their circular logic.

    New information has to come from a creative mind.
    Before humans mastered the art of creating new information YHWH or an unspecified Grand Old Designer (blessed be MOFO!) was the only creative mind who could do the trick.
    Minds are supernatural (or you can’t go to heaven or hell after you die).
    Mutations are entirely natural and hence don’t come from a creative mind.
    So no mutations are beneficial.
    Hence new information comes from a creative mind.

    QED.

    @DaveL doesn’t get it either: “They don’t even know what they’re arguing against – it’s not “Darwinism”, it’s current evolutionary theory.”
    As we all know, thanks to the many reports of our dear SC, evilutionism is a religion.
    The religion christianity was founded by Jesus of Nazareth, the messias.
    So evilutionism had to have a messias-founder too – the guy who wrote the Holy Book called Origin of Species. So the correct name is Darwinism; everything afterwards is athiest commienazi theology.

    @But DaveL gets something totally right as well: “it’s a step on the way towards actually reading the post-modernists.”
    It’s indeed funny to explore how much Ol’Hambo and co have taken over from post-modern philosophy and especially its criticism of science. Had I had the proper training I might write a book on the topic. Because if anything is a post-modern social construct it’s creacrap.

  8. Karl Goldsmith

    Twenty years of The Wedge reduced to a podcast of creationism, and vanity published books.

  9. Theodore Lawry

    Interesting strategy this ID the Future podcast. In the text, which can be read quickly, they make great anti-evolution claims, but to find out more you have to listen to a long slow-moving conversation. Who has the time, especially when the ID track record tells us not to bother?

    I call Artful Dodging on ID.

  10. It (Heretic: One Scientist’s Journey from Darwin to Design) makes the case that modern neo-Darwinism is today’s “phlogiston,” [Gasp!] a theory that explains everything but nothing, faces mounting contrary evidence, and survives only with ever more ancillary hypotheses.

    What “mounting contrary evidence”? Creationists have been casting about for it desperately for generations without success. Every “proof” they’ve offered has turned out in short order to be completely bogus. Creationism survives only thanks to some people’s desire to believe the Bible in order to accept its promise that good people like them will have eternal happiness while bad people (that is, people they dislike) will burn in agony forever.

  11. Aw, crap. This is what comes of trying to work around blockquote’s italicization to make a book’s title stand out from other text.

    [*Voice from above*] Your hidden meaning has been made known to me.

  12. They try to avoid describing what they have to offer. If not evolution, then what?
    Take an obvious example: vertebrates, including humans, have a distinctive form of eye, different from all of the rest of life. Why do animals that have bones also have that kind of eye? Because they are related by common descent.