Discoveroids Are Building on Darwin’s Strengths

The Discovery Institute has apparently given up all hope of getting their “theory” of intelligent design into secular schools and universities. Instead, they write books of dubious value, philosophize in their blog, and generate podcasts. It’s sufficient to keep their generous patrons happy, but finding stuff we can blog about is increasingly difficult.

They posted something today at their creationist blog that you may find amusing. It’s Paul Nelson: “Take What Darwin Got Right and Build That into Your Theory of Design”, written by Klinghoffer. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Something I’ve said for a long time is that the theory of intelligent design is a theory of evolution — that is, a theory that explains the origins of biological novelties over the course of the long history of life.

Does anyone remember Klinghoffer saying that before? We don’t. Anyway, then he says:

It differs from Darwinian evolution in keys aspects, but not in all ways. [Hee hee!] To call ID “anti-evolution” is just not accurate. [Can you believe this?] I find some support for that in comments from philosopher of biology Paul Nelson [a Discoveroid “senior fellow”] on a new episode of ID the Future. [Ooooooooooooh! A Discoveroid podcast!]

Here’s the Discoveroids’ bio page on Nelson. He’s a professor at Biola University, a bible college. Klinghoffer finds support for what he has “always” said in Nelson’s words of wisdom, about which he tells us:

Dr. Nelson is back from a pilgrimage to the Galápagos Islands, where a young Charles Darwin drew some conclusions that would shape his mature thinking. As Paul explains to host Andrew McDiarmid, he rejects the idea that the agenda for intelligent design should be to “punch Darwin in the nose.” Not at all.

This is a fascinating bit of historical revision, considering some of the Discoveroids’ earlier posts we’ve written about — e.g.: Klinghoffer: Darwin and Mao (Attila Next?), and also Klinghoffer: Darwinism is the Path to Putrefaction. Klinghoffer continues:

[Presumably quoting Nelson:] “Darwin got a lot of things right,” including about the role of history in shaping species. [Like the Cambrian “explosion” they’re always babbling about?] The task for ID is to “take what Darwin got right and build that into your theory of design.” In other words, while discarding the weaknesses of the competing evolutionary theory, the job is to integrate the strengths of the old with the strengths of the new.

Sounds like a nice project for the Discoveroids. Here’s how their post ends:

Download the podcast or listen to it here. [Link omitted.] And don’t miss the first and second episodes of this terrific interview series with Paul: [Links omitted.]

And so, dear reader, the Discoveroids continue their efforts to build on the strengths of Darwin’s theory. What a great bunch of folks!

Copyright © 2020. 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

15 responses to “Discoveroids Are Building on Darwin’s Strengths

  1. Answers in Genesis now accept evolution, provided it takes place inside 2000 years and is only within kinds, whatever that may mean. The Discovery Institute now admit that Darwin was right about a lot of things, including, crucially, “the role of history in shaping species.”

    Is a pattern emerging?

  2. PaulB beat me to it. The JW I had at my door a couple months ago also began with “I’m not a creationist, I accept evolution within a kind.”

    The intriguing aspect would be which parts of darwinism are still supposed to have directly resulted in the Holocaust and the Gulag Archipel. But I expect the cows coming home sooner than Klunkcerduncker specifying this.

  3. ” To call ID “anti-evolution” is just not accurate. [Can you believe this?]”

    Yes, I can believe it is not accurate because it is much worst than just “anti-evolution”. As Nelson himself was saying in 2004:
    “we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as “irreducible complexity” and “specified complexity”—but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.” (ref.: July/August issues of Touchstone*)

    In this article, Dembski was also interviewed as he was still an influent Discoveroids. He was prophesying:
    “In the next five years, molecular Darwinism—the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures at the subcellular level—will be dead. When that happens, evolutionary biology will experience a crisis of confidence because evolutionary biology hinges on the evolution of the right molecules. I therefore foresee a Taliban-style collapse of Darwinism in the next ten years. Intelligent design will of course profit greatly from this. For ID to win the day, however, will require talented new researchers able to move this research program forward, showing how intelligent design provides better insights into biological systems than the dying Darwinian paradigm.”
    Very prescient, was he not?

    More than 15 years after, Dembski has disappeared from the map, ID is still not a theory, and the DI is an advertising company at best.

    * http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=17-06-060-i

  4. Michael Fugate

    Maybe they, like many others, have come to the conclusion that one can believe in God – even Christianity – and accept science. That science builds on observation and experimentation and not wishful thinking. I am wondering where this leaves Meyer’s “The God Hypothesis”…

  5. Intelligent Design is an “intuition”, and now, finally, someone has got the idea of showing how it has something positive to offer?
    And Lucy is going to let Charlie Brown kick the football.

  6. Charley Horse X

    Wikipedia: Paul A. Nelson (born 1958) is an American philosopher of science noted for his advocacy of young earth creationism and intelligent design. END QUOTE Nelson was very active in helping the fundamentalist Muslims in Turkey to cease the teaching of evolution. In 2015 his speech topic was “Why Is the Origin of Animal Body Plans Still Unsolved?” at a Muslim conference in Turkey.
    The comments you quoted from him in the above article doesn’t sound like what a young Earth creationist would say or an old Earth creationist would say. Maybe if I listened to the source I would better understand how those quotes would fit a Young Earth creationist. I won’t waste my time with that, though.
    An interesting case to follow is a lawsuit filed by a postal worker. He claims being scheduled to work on Sundays violates his rights as a Xian. That reminded me of an old article in Mother Jones…..http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/12/original-intent
    The article mentions among many other items of interest the mail was delivered 7 days a week in the 19th century. I want quote from it…read it.

  7. Klinks creationist buddy says “The task for ID is to “take what Darwin got right and build that into your theory of design.” Ok. So more supernatural concepts will soon be explained to us. For instance, did God “poof” all those different types of finches all at once, or did he space them out over 4000 years? Was he eating pistachios when he was doing it ? I’ve been wondering about this for a long time now. So exciting that the ID specialists will soon be explaining this to us all !!! Can’t wait.

  8. Michael Fugate

    How many finches were on the Ark?

  9. @DesnievD observes: “More than 15 years after …..”
    Why, Dumbsky predicted this too: “talented new researchers” haven’t shown up and the IDiot “research program” has remained as void as ever.
    Of course TomS isn’t surprised either – the entire concept of IDiocy is void, producing void terminology including “orthogetic depht” (Pistol Paulie’s brain fart).

    @CharleyHX: “doesn’t sound like what a young Earth creationist would say”
    Thanks for saving me time and effort. Pistol Paulie (also ask PZ Myers) manages to do what many folks think impossible: be more dishonest than Ol’Hambo.and Stevie Meyer combined.

    @MichaelF: Why, just two, from there hyperaccelerated evolution within the finch kind started. Pistol Paulie apparently wants to apply darwinism from that point; I’m sure Ol’Hambo will agree.
    The IDiots from Seattle, including Klinkclekclapper have moved closer to YEC quite some more.

  10. @Desnes Diev — So Dembski predicted “a Taliban-style collapse of Darwinism in the next ten years”?

    Let’s ask him with whom he thinks the US is negotiating a peaceful withdrawal from Afghanistan.

    “More than 15 years after, Dembski has disappeared from the map, ID is still not a theory, and the DI is an advertising company at best.”

    And neither the Taliban nor “Darwinism” have collapsed.

    Turns out he was right all along.

  11. @Random – I was going to point out that, contrary to Dempski’s assertion that Darwinism would collapse like the Taliban, both are still alive and well (evolution, I think, even more than the Taliban), but you beat me to it.

  12. The primary point of ID has never been to puncture holes in the theory of evolution. It has always intended to assure the faithful that they, and only they, know the Real Truth. This is just more of the same.

  13. Michael Fugate

    I think it means they can still attack Darwin as a person – otherwise Flannery would have no raison d’être.
    Maybe they can exchange intelligent design for intelligently-directed evolution. Ham has exchanged creationism for evolution within kinds.
    God is not only selector, but mutator in chief.

  14. @Jim Roberts
    The old-time arguments referencing something like “design” were arguments for the existence of God.
    Late 20th-century ID borrowed those old arguments, and just changed the conclusion, instead olf arguing for the existence of God, the new conclusion was that there was something wrong with evolutionary biology.
    “Design”, it seems, is a very flexible concept.

  15. .
    LOL — 30 minutes?

    I’ll take it.
    .