Stephen Meyer’s New Book — Soon, But Not Yet

We have astonishing, amazing, Earth-shaking news today from the Discovery Institute. This just popped up at their creationist blog: Watch: Preview Stephen Meyer’s New Book — The Return of the God Hypothesis. [Ooooooooooooh!]

The author of the post is David Klinghoffer, a Discoveroid “senior fellow” (i.e., flaming, full-blown creationist), who eagerly functions as their journalistic slasher and poo flinger. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Stephen Meyer has finished his next book, The Return of the God Hypothesis, and (here is a bit of insider information) is currently awaiting copyedits from his publisher. The wheels of book publishing do not grind hastily.

The thing isn’t available yet, but they’re talking about it anyway. Klinghoffer was hawking the thing a year and a half ago, when it wasn’t even written — see Discoveroid Stephen Meyer’s New Book. In that post, we gave you background info on Meyer and we discussed what the book was supposed to be about. We also touched on the irony of a “return” of the god hypothesis, because supernaturalism has never been absent from the Discoveroids’ endeavors. Anyway, Klinghoffer says:

I’ve read the book [Lucky you!], and it’s fantastic. If you are impatient to get your hands on it [Who isn’t?], you can get a bit of a preview in a presentation Dr. Meyer gave at the 2020 Dallas Conference on Science and Faith. You can watch that right now: [Video embedded in the Discoveroid post].

Then he wanders off point and tells us:

It’s poignant to think that the conference, on January 25, was held just a few days after the first COVID-19 case in the United States was confirmed, in a man who had visited Wuhan. That was here in Washington State. In our present surreal, locked-down virus world, such an event of course could not be planned. God willing, we’ll return to something like normalcy [Hee hee!] before too long.

We’re all waiting for the Discoveroids to return to “something like normalcy.” Klinghoffer continues:

In the meantime, you’ll find meaning and inspiration in Meyer’s words. [No doubt!] He opens by discussing the emotional response of one young woman who was present for his interview with Eric Metaxas at the 2019 Dallas Conference. She wept [Oh barf!] at realizing that there was a rational, objective, scientific response to the scientific atheism she had been fed by her professors in college.

How much more of this can you handle? And the book isn’t even out yet. Ah well, Klinghoffer then wanders off to mention a comment by “atheist philosopher” Bertrand Russell in 1945 which, if you can believe it, is allegedly favorable to intelligent design. We somehow doubt that Russell had the Discoveroids’ “theory” in mind.

Klinghoffer finishes by promising more videos — which is thrilling news indeed. Here’s what he says:

We are presenting, each Wednesday, videos of the main speeches from the Dallas event. Next week, check back here at Evolution News and watch Michael Behe on “Darwin Devolves.”

We wouldn’t want to miss that! Anyway, Meyer’s book is coming, and we haven’t yet seen even a hint of the promotional barrage to come. We’ll discuss a bit of it when it happens, but there’s a limit to how much of that stuff we can handle. Anyway, that’s the hot news today from the Discoveroids. Thrilling, huh?

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

14 responses to “Stephen Meyer’s New Book — Soon, But Not Yet

  1. Michael Fugate

    All the creationist hallmarks – a quote out of context with no source.
    Who knows if Russell said that or if he did he was referring to design. Not to mention, an argument can be logically correct and still wrong. We don’t know any more about gods today than we did 5000 years ago.

  2. chris schilling

    “He opens by discussing the emotional response of one young woman…”

    Yes, Meyer is fond of heart-warming anecdotes. He had one at the close of Darwin’s Doubt, all about his young son feeling lost and anxious on the slopes of the Burgess Shale.

    That was quite moving, too, in the colonic sense.

  3. “We’re all waiting for the Discoveroids to return to “something like normalcy.”
    Yeah, like I’m waiting for Easter and Pentecost being celebrated on the same day.

    “you’ll find meaning and inspiration in Meyer’s words.”
    You better do, because knowledge, understanding and fresh insights you will find not.

    “which, if you can believe it,”
    You did it once again, dear SC – as I totally can’t I had to check Klunkcerduncker’s crap. And of course my suspicion was justified. Russell’s quote contains ” its premises are empirical”.
    The premises (it’s doubtful that they have any that deserve the name) of IDiocy are anything but empirical.

    @MichaelF: yes, the quote is authentic and correct. It’s from History of Western Philosophy, the chapter on Leibnitz. What triggers Klunckerdunkcer’s excitement probably is what came before:

    “Leibniz’s argument, however, can be freed from dependence on his peculiar metaphysic, and transformed into what is called the argument from design. This argument contends that, on a survey of the known world, we find things which cannot plausibly be explained as the product of blind natural forces, but are much more reasonably to be regarded as evidences of a beneficent purpose.”

    Russell was steelmanning an argument of Leibniz and then finishes with the remark that the result was so far away from Leibniz’ philosophy that he needed to halt.
    So for once Klinkclekclapper’s lie was uncharacteristically a very subtle one – but a lie it is. Russell did not “made an exception to the argument from intelligent design.” The argument was not about IDiocy, but about a a god-argument in general and hence had exactly zilch to do with the evolution-creacrap non-controversy; Russell did not accept the argument and hence did not make an exception; the argument originally was not Russell’s but Leibniz’.

    In the end usurprisingly your suspicion was justified – creacrappers are lying until proven otherwise. This time it took some more work than usual.

  4. Ok, so what’s his next book, “Bride, of the God Hypothesis”? Then I guess the thrilling 4th book in the trilogy, “Son of the God Hypothesis”, or maybe “I was a Teenage God Hypothesis”?

    When you’re that deep in the goo, they’re pretty much all the same.

  5. The final remark that the @Sensuous Curmudgeon made in the prior entry cited above:
    “So there you are. Despite their constant denials over the 20 years of their existence, the Discoveroids may be finally emerging from the closet to admit that they’ve been creationists all along.”

  6. Michael Fugate

    Thanks FrankB, I assumed it was somewhere in that book.

    One does feel sorry for that poor women who went to college and still can’t think for herself.

    Teleological Evolution: The Difference it Doesn’t Make
    Stephen C. Meyer
    Excerpted from Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate over Biological Origins, January 1,1999
    “ Design theorists infer design not merely because natural processes cannot explain the origin of such things as biological systems but because these systems manifest the distinctive hallmarks of intelligently designed systems, that is, they possess features that in any other realm of experience would trigger the recognition of an intelligent cause.”

    He really is claiming that no natural process can explain anything complex. He excludes conveniently intelligence from what is natural. He also conveniently forgets that human designs are based on nature; that is where we get our ideas and materials – so no wonder there is a similarity.

  7. docbill1351

    Ah, the old student fed scientific atheism story. How many times have we heard that? (too many) How many times will we hear it again, and again, and again? (too many) Total nonsense, of course.

  8. Michael Fugate

    “Some Assembly Required
    Neil Shubin Pantheon (2020)
    As a graduate student in 1986, palaeontologist Neil Shubin was inspired by a cartoon of a fish next to an arrow pointing to an early fossil amphibian. How could fishes have evolved into land creatures? Today, many non-biologists assume that feathers originated to help animals fly, or lungs and legs to help animals walk on land. But they are “entirely wrong”, says Shubin. His four-billion-year history from ancient fossils to DNA presents the true picture to the general reader, with engaging portraits of contributing scientists past and current.l
    Nature this week.

    This defeats the purpose that the teleologists desire for the current state of living things.

  9. This from the Discoveriods website touting the Science and Faith Conference:

    Dallas Conference on Science and Faith 2020 … held on the campus of Denton Bible Church, the conference will explore exciting scientific discoveries [I’ll bet] about the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the development of biological complexity, as well as critique the scientific and cultural impact of Darwinism.
    Speakers will include
    [the usual gang of science deniers] Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, author of Darwin Devolves; Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Stephen Meyer, author of The Return of the God Hypothesis (forthcoming); Biola University molecular biologist Douglas Axe, author of Undeniable; Baylor University Distinguished Professor of Engineering Emeritus Walter Bradley, co-author of The Mystery of Life’s Origin; and Discovery Institute Senior Fellow John West, author of Darwin Day in America.

    Held at Denton Bible Church, eh? Gee — why would anyone even think the Discoveriods are touting any particular religion?

  10. Robert van Bakel

    I’ve been following these guys, like you, since at least Dover.
    These names and these book titles never change.
    Like Ham and his one book, it’s one idea, one universal concept, and absolutely no imagination, curiosity, evidence, or rationality.

  11. Formerly Holding The Line In Florida

    Change Design Theorists with Ancient Alien Theorists and the result is the same. Indistinguishable.

  12. @Formerly Holding the Line
    I wonder.
    Ancient Aliens vs. Intelligent Designers.
    They are both vague except that they can do more things in more ways than we know about things being done.
    But is there any difference?
    I think that Ancient Aliens are restricted in time, and maybe in other ways, so they are more substantive?

  13. Formerly Holding The Line In Florida

    @TomS. According to Chariots of the Gods, the Grand Daddy of them all, the God of Abraham IS an Alien. So according to them time and space are irrelevant when it comes to God. It is the aliens. If you can handle it, watch the episode of Ancient Aliens where they were responsible for the extinction of non avian dinosaurs so humans can develop. It is beyond amusing. It reaches whole levels of absurdity. For theocrats, the whole issue is moot. God is God and can do whatever it wants. Who are we to question the ways? Sorta like the aliens.

  14. Re: God, aliens, etc.–

    Is God of this planet? Answer: No.
    Then God IS an alien, right? That is, if there is a god. So then, all theists would accept that God is an alien. (One would think.)