Discoveroids Claim Another Nobel Prize

The latest post at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog is It’s Another Great Nobel Year for Design. The author is Michael Egnor — that’s his write-up at the Encyclopedia of American Loons. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

After more than a century of shut-outs at the Nobel Prizes, it’s understandable that Darwinists are a bit dejected. [Huh?] It’s embarrassing that the “greatest idea anyone ever had” and the “theory that explains all of biology” can’t in a century garner even one of science’s most distinguished awards. Instead, it must make do with wordplay, as we saw with last year’s Prize in Chemistry … . [He’s talking about this: Discoveroids Gripe About the Nobel Prize Again.]

That was an incredible beginning. Then he says:

It’s understandable why Darwinian scientists spend so much time in court silencing scientists and teachers who question their theory. In the arena of world-class science, Darwinism is a joke, and it wouldn’t last a day unless challenges to it were silenced by force.

Amazing, isn’t it? After that he tells us:

On the other hand, the inference to design won big again this year. [BWAHAHAHAHAHA!] The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2019 was awarded jointly to William G. Kaelin Jr., Sir Peter J. Ratcliffe, and Gregg L. Semenza “for their discoveries of how cells sense and adapt to oxygen availability.”

You can read all about it at PhysOrg: Three win Nobel Prize for showing how cells sense low oxygen. You may find this difficult to believe, but there’s no mention of intelligent design in that article.

Egnor then gives a big quote from an article about the prize in Forbes, and right afterwards he quote-mines it for us and adds his own spin:

“Think of your body as a large and complex metropolitan area with many different neighborhoods… Like a well-run city… sensing what’s going on in each of the neighborhoods and adjusting oxygen levels accordingly…” Scientists implicitly (and sometimes, quietly and explicitly) ask “How is this structure designed? What is its purpose and how does it work?” Time and again, the use of the design inference to guide the study of living systems pays enormous dividends. Most of good biological science is reverse-engineering of living systems. All of this is the design inference.

Ooooooooooooh! It’s the design inference!

In his final paragraph, Egnor really pounds away at Darwin’s theory — in his own peculiar way:

The inference to “chance and survivors survived” is worthless to science and medicine. [Yeah!] The Darwinian inference is of value only as an atheist creation myth, [Hee hee!] and for that purpose it’s had quite a run. Darwinism is a mass of just-so stories pretending to be science. Perhaps the Nobel Prize in Literature is the Darwinists’ best bet.

Go back and read that paragraph again. It really is an incredible piece of creationist prose — and it’s worthy of a hearty BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

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

14 responses to “Discoveroids Claim Another Nobel Prize

  1. Michael Fugate

    Evolutionary medicine
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/oct/09/our-inner-salamander-could-help-treat-arthritis-study-finds
    Egnor – suck on this!

    I notice Peter Radcliffe is head of the Target Discovery Institute at Oxford.
    https://www.ndm.ox.ac.uk/target-discovery-institute
    Why didn’t Egnor quote-mine the name – a little elision and you go from science to religion.

  2. Can someone explain why this Egnor guy is so anxious to show the world how ignorant he is of science?

  3. @Michael Fugate: I loved the detail in the link to the (real) Target Discovery Institute at Oxford, with its detailed listing of the lab facilities and apparatus for doing, you know, actual science. But where, I ask you where, is the green screen? Inquiring minds want to know!

    It appears that the reflection could not occur to Egnor that if the cells of a large complex living organism had no system to regulate and supply them with oxygen, there could be no such thing as a large complex living organism. That is, the advantage of cell specialisation could not have been realised. But it was realised, because there was a way to realise it. To put it as simply as possible, it could happen; therefore, given enough time, it did happen.

    Stuff as simple and ubiquitous as Murphy’s Law is apparently invisible to a mind like Egnor’s. It’s like water to a fish. They don’t think about it. But that’s because they’re fish.

  4. @abeastwood
    Why does public display of ignorance attract so much popularity?

  5. chris schilling

    I was going to suggest someone might have dropped Michael Egnor on his head as a baby — yes, he was that annoying, even then — but the more prosaic explanation is, he was probably just introduced to the Bible at a young, impressionable age.

    Later, he read Michael Denton, and…oh, who cares?

  6. Now how am I supposed to mock Mr. Egnorance if he does it himself so well? The only thing left for me is to join our dear SC with his hearty

    BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

  7. Egnor tailgates old ladies in grocery store parking lots when he’s not writing ID rubbish.

  8. Michael Fugate

    Can’t you see Kinghoffer saying that the Nobel was won by someone working at the Ta…cough, cough….Discovery Institute?

  9. Hey, Egnor — the Nobel Committee doesn’t award posthumous prizes; therefore, Charles Darwin is left out. Unfortunate, that — no one is more deserving.

  10. BTW, isn’t the cash amount of the Nobel Prize decreasing qute a bit? I seem to remember that it used to be worth about $1,000,000, and now it is about $700,000 – if I’m reading things right. You can’t get a decent football coach for $700,000.

  11. Michael Fugate

    This is an interesting story, but somehow I am not convinced about 200 meter long Komodo dragon relatives….
    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/10/giant-reptiles-once-ruled-australia-their-loss-sparked-ecological-disaster

  12. Suppose somebody came up with convincing evidence of inheritance of acquired characteristics. They would very likely get a Nobel in physiology or medicine, heralding a significant departure from Darwinian evolution. Would Egnor be happy? Of course not. He would still be kin to a monkey, and there would probably be a recognisable mechanism, consistent with the laws of physics, underlying inheritance of acquired characteristics, so still no need for his favourite sky fairy and no suggestion that the human brain, unlike the cockroach brain, is primarily a device for receiving signals from an immaterial immortal soul.

  13. As nobody has mentioned it yet – biologists don’t get Nobel Prizes; neither do for instance mathematicians. Biologists have their own prize.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Prize_for_Biology

    I’m pretty sure no IDiot or other creacrapper ever has won one.

  14. @jimroberts
    You bring up the issue of a mechanism consistent with the laws of physics.
    This poses a problem for the creationists.
    They do not recognize the need for a scientific mechanism. Indeed, they seem to insist upon there being no mechanism (especially a mechanism consistent with natural law), But, on the other hand, the concept of “design” makes sense only in the context of laws of some sort. If there is total freedom of action, this means no laws, and there is no point to desgn.
    Design does not free action from constraints. Rather design is a recognition of constraints. Without the need to obey the laws of optics, there is no problem of designing an eye.
    Intelligent Design just doesn’t make any sense.