Discovery Institute Claims They Discovered God

We’re shocked — shocked! Who would have imagined such a thing? The Discovery Institute’s 20 years of scientific research has brought them to an astonishingly unexpected conclusion. Check out this recent post at their creationist blog for yourself.

It’s far from being their latest. Actually, it’s two weeks old, but we were so stunned it’s taken us that long to sit down and write about it. The title is From Evidence of Cosmology and Physics, Meyer’s New Book Points to a Personal God, and it has no author’s by-line.

You know about Stephen Meyer. His Discoveroid job description has changed over the years, but as their bio page indicates, he’s one of their senior fellows and currently the Program Director of their Center for Science and Culture — that’s their creationism shop. It should not be forgotten that Meyer was a central figure in the infamous Sternberg peer review controversy. According to the Discoveroids’ 2016 Tax Return, Meyer’s salary was $250K.

Okay, now that you’re oriented, let’s dive into the Discoveroids’ post. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Readers have been asking when Stephen Meyer’s next book, Return of the God Hypothesis [link omitted], will be available. Good news! We now have a firm publication date of March 30, 2021. [Why so long?] Now, the hardcover edition of the book can be pre-ordered again on Amazon. Thank you for your patience. Order your copy now [link omitted].

We’ve written about that long-awaited book before — see, e.g.: Discoveroid Stephen Meyer’s New Book. But we certainly weren’t expecting the Discoveroids’ stunning title for their latest post about it. Let’s read on. They say:

Here’s what you have to look forward to. Beginning in the late 19th century, many intellectuals began to insist that scientific knowledge conflicts with traditional theistic belief — that science and belief in God are “at war.” [We’ve all seen articles about that.] Dr. Meyer, the philosopher of science and New York Times-bestselling author, challenges this view by examining three scientific discoveries with decidedly theistic implications.

Ooooooooooooh! This is exciting. Let’s find out where this is going. The Discoveroids tell us:

Meyer demonstrates how discoveries in cosmology and physics coupled with those in biology help to establish the identity [Gasp!] of the designing intelligence behind life and the universe.

Wowie! The identity of the intelligent designer — blessed be he! — has been established! All these years we’ve been following the Discoveroids’ research, and we never dreamed it would come to this. Who could the designer be? Let’s continue:

Meyer argues that theism — with its affirmation of a transcendent, intelligent, and active creator — best explains the evidence we have concerning cosmological as well as biological origins.

Amazing, isn’t it? All their solid scientific research leads to that conclusion. We never could have imagined that! Let’s read on:

Previously he refrained from attempting to answer questions about “who” might have designed life. [Yes, we remember!] Now he provides an evidence-based answer to the ultimate mystery of the universe. [Evidence based!] In so doing, he reveals a stunning conclusion: the data support not just the existence of an intelligent designer of some kind — but the existence of a personal God.

A stunning conclusion indeed! All these years we thought the Discoveroids were doing solid, scientific research — and now it’s led to this! As we said at the beginning of this post — we’re shocked!

The Discoveroids end with a podcast about some remarks Meyer made earlier. You can click over there to watch it if you like. Your Curmudgeon needs to take some time to think about all of this. As we said, it’s so … so unexpected!

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

25 responses to “Discovery Institute Claims They Discovered God

  1. Meyer published a paper with the same title, “The Return of the God Hypothesis,” in the Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in 1999. Res ipsa loquitur.

  2. That journal isn’t on my reading list. That’s why I’m shocked by the Discoveroids’ revelation.

  3. How did the infamous Wedge Document start again?

    “The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built.”

  4. Michael Fugate

    The comedic sputtering and defensiveness of Little Stevie on the witness stand in Kansas – always makes me laugh.

    Irigonegaray Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to prehominid ancestors, yes or no?

    Meyer I’m not sure. I’m skeptical of it because I think the evidence for the proposition is weak, but it would not affect my conviction that life is designed if it turns out that there was a genealogical continuity.

    Irigonegaray Based upon your understanding, do you have an alternative explanation for the human species if not common descent from prehominid ancestors?

    Meyer That is not my area of expertise. I work at the other end of the history of life, namely the origin of the first life in the Cambrian phylum.

    Irigonegaray Do you have a personal opinion as to the question I have just proposed to you, which is if you do not believe that human beings have a common descent with prehominid ancestors, what is your personal alternative explanation for how human beings came into existence?

    Meyer I am skeptical about the evidence for universal common descent and I’m skeptical about some of the evidence that has been marshaled for the idea that humans and prehominids are connected. But as I said, it wouldn’t bother me (unintelligible) stronger than I presently think.

    Irigonegaray What is your personal opinion at this time?

    Meyer That I’m skeptical about the Darwinian accounts of such things, but that it wouldn’t bother me if it turned out to be different. I think my– I also would tell you that humans and the rest of the non human living world, that humans have qualitatively different features that I think are very mysterious and hard to explain on any materialistic account of the origin of human life.

    Irigonegaray You think it’s wise for science without a supernatural model to attempt to answer those questions that we still don’t understand?

    Meyer You know, I don’t really work in that area, so I’m not going to venture any more opinions about the topic.

    and later

    Irigonegaray Well, it may be to you, but my question– and I’ll repeat it. Should the teaching of science– and let’s say with Kansas. Should the teaching of science curriculum in Kansas as it relates to evolution be free– completely free of supernatural causes?

    Meyer I don’t think anyone is proposing a supernatural cause.

    So know Meyer is willing to spill the beans in print – why was he so reluctant then to propose a supernatural cause? He can’t possibly have uncovered any new evidence, can he? nahhhhhh.

  5. Michael Fugate

    I know Glenn, I have read that paper several times looking for any insight, but I never find any. It is like the pseudo-predictions in his earlier books – like functional DNA or higher taxonomic levels appearing first in the fossil record.

    This is his example from the paper:
    If theism and the Judeo-Christian view of Creation are true, then we have reason to expect evidence of a finite universe,
    We have evidence of a finite universe,
    therefore, theism and the Judeo-Christian view of Creation may be true.


  6. Derek Freyberg

    Well, so much for the DiscoTute’s bungled insistence in Kitzmiller that ID and creationism were really totally make-no-mistake-about-it different, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
    But then we knew that already – they just lie whenever it suits them to.

  7. … human beings are created in the image of God …
    Who thinks that that is incompatible with “human beings result from a natural process of reproduction which can be studied by science”?*
    … human beings … that refers to individuals, not groups. To confuse reference to individuals to reference to groups is known as the fallacies of composition and division. Evolution is defined in refrerence to populatins, not individuals. Reproduction, genetics, embryology, growth, metabolism are defined in reference to individuals.
    What is the objection to evolution?

    * In the 18th century, the rejection of reproduction of the individual was considered by many students of nature who were serious, well-iformed, inteligent and scientitifc. The alternative (yes, they had an alternative!) was
    preformatinism. It is iteresting that many of the obections raised today against evolution were raised in the 81th century in favor of preformationism:
    such as the clockmaker analogy. The creationists just changed the conclusion of the argument.

  8. Michael Fugate

    I am pretty sure the working title was “Wishful Thinking”.

  9. chris schilling

    Meyer: “I am skeptical about the the evidence for universal common descent…”

    So how does he explain the fossil record? As an act of discrete, spontaneous “creative” events, in which extinct species are constantly replaced by completely new ones which just happen to resemble the old ones, anyway? It just happens to look like descent with modification, but no, that’s really a misleading impression?

    Meyer again: “That is not my area of expertise” (common descent from “prehominid” [sic] ancestors).

    You don’t need to be an expert to put two-and-two together. You can defer to experts in the field, based on their consensus. Or better yet, you can examine the fossil presentations in natural history museums for yourself.

    Any honest observer can see clear-cut differences between australopithecines and extant primates, and clear-cut similarities and intermediate features in these same australopithecine and successive hominin fossils. That’s just using your eyes and sheer bloody common sense.

    The Kansas Evolution Hearings are an object lesson in lily-livered equivocation on the part of Discoveroid creationists. There’s no need for another 500 or 600 page tome to tell us yet again that Meyer is plainly incompetent on the subject of biological origins.

  10. Dave Luckett

    The last exiguous garment flutters to the ground. All is revealed. The long, long intellectual striptease is over at last. The Designer is… God! Now you can see everything!

    I don’t know why, but it reminds me of a passage from the Goon Show, “Dishonoured”:

    Seagoon: The last veil fluttered down. The lights went out. In the darkness, I moved to her side: (Panting) Gorgeous creature! Why do you dance in this den of vice?

    Eccles: I gotta make a living, too, you know.

    Seagoon: Eccles! You’re not a woman!

    Eccles: I know dat! Don’t tell the manager, though.

    Seagoon: Why not?

    Eccles: We’re engaged.

  11. @Michael Fugate: The quote from Meyer that you present above, which concludes “…therefore, theism and the Judeo-Christian view of Creation may be true” strikes me as being incredibly sophomoric (not that I have anything against sophomores. Full confession: I was one once). There are probably hundreds of other possibilities that would lead to what we observe as a finite universe, so I have no need of Meyer’s hypothesis.

  12. @chris schilling
    You ask how they explain the fossil
    I don’t see how they explain anything.
    God is apt to do anything. We do not know his purposes, and there are no constraints on his abilities, so anything is no less (or more) likely as anything else. Why is the sky blue? God could as well made it silver with putple polka dots, or no sky at all. Why does the eye work according to the laws of optics, when God could make it work miraculously.

  13. Michael Fugate

    Meyer would state neither an alternative explanation nor a personal opinion of how humans originated. He waffled mightily, a bit like St Peter after Jesus’ arrest. Did he go home and weep? He did go to Rome with Berlinski and Gelernter, no?

    I doubt the new book has any explanation either.

  14. “We now have a firm publication date of March 30, 2021. [Why so long?]”

    SC asks, “Why so long?” Perhaps the publisher is mercifully hoping we will have a vaccine against willful ignorance by then.

  15. Little Stevie’s standpoint summarized: I don’t want to accept the scientific consensus, but if you ask me why I can’t answer because it’s not my field of expertise; I don’t have an alternative anyway and really if the scientific consensus were correct it wouldn’t matter.
    Yeah, that’s what IDiots call science.

    Does anyone still wonder how comes that “scientific materialism” hasn’t been defeated yet (from the Wedge Document)?

  16. chris schilling

    “God is apt to do anything”

    He didn’t create winged horses. In fact, no real chimeric hybrids such as the Greeks, for instance, imagined. Nothing that falls outside of the purview of what we know to be possible from descent with modification.

    Meyer, once again: “…but it would not affect my conviction that life is designed if it turns out there was a genealogical continuity.”

    Or, as Groucho put it: “These are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others.”

  17. @chris schilling
    If God is responsible for the universe, then he wants entropy to increase. He wants space to expand. He wants endless change. Are such the signature of design? It sees like lack of satisfaction. Endless change might even seem more like what chance would produce, not that I’m arguing for that.

  18. Michael Fugate

    One does wonder how God would have handled his go forth and multiply command if humans hadn’t sinned and caused death. Made the earth bigger? Contraceptives? Spay and Neuter programs?

  19. An Act of God is something that cannot be anticipated. We don’t know what he will do. Everything is possible.
    How does this differ from pure chance?

  20. Eddie Janssen

    We humans got life on earth (although we didn’t asked for it) but what’s in it for God?
    Satisfaction for a good creation? Hardly, he is perfect, all knowing etcetera and has eternal time on his hand to start over and over again if it does not please him.
    Why he did not do so after the fruit eating event looks to me the biggest theological question we have on our hand.

  21. Eddie Janssen asks: “We humans got life on earth (although we didn’t asked for it) but what’s in it for God?”

    The bible says he likes animal sacrifices.

  22. Michael Fugate

    God couldn’t open his own BBQ place? Then again, does God have a nose? Does God eat?

    God may not play dice, but how about roulette? the lottery?

  23. Meyer, like the rest of them, intellectually dishonest, deluded.

  24. “If theism and the Judeo-Christian view of Creation are true, then we have reason to expect evidence of a finite universe,”

    So, before evidence for the big bang, when the universe could have been infinite, mean that there was evidence against the Judeo-Christian God?

  25. docbill1351

    Likkle Steevie is so cute taking a “leap of faith” from a random designer a long, long time ago in another dimension far, far away to a Personal God.

    In Volume 2, Likkle Stevie will reveal the name of the Personal God …
    … are you ready for it …

    Oprah’s Gift!

    Yes, look under your seat! It’s right there! Your very own Personal God!

    You get a God and you get a God and you get a God! Everybody gets a Personal Oprah Gift ™ God!