Discoveroids Present An Interview with a Drooler

You’ve all been anxious for feedback from the Discovery Institute’s “Summer Seminar” in Seattle. The last time we posted about it was the end of February, and there was still time to sign up — see Discoveroids’ Seattle Seminar — Hurry, Hurry! But now the event is history, and we’ve been waiting for news about how things went.

The Discoveroids always follow through on such things, and today they just posted this at their creationist blog: Intelligent Design and the “Transformative” Summer Seminar: A Student Reflects. It’s very brief and it has no author’s by-line. 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 Emily Kurlinski interviews “Mary” [Hee hee, a pseudonym!], a PhD biochemistry student who tells about her experiences at the annual Center for Science & Culture’s Summer Seminar program in Seattle, and how her relationships there developed into a community of friendship, professional connection, and support.

“Mary” developed a community of professional connections. Isn’t that wonderful? Then the Discoveroids say:

Download the podcast or listen to it here. [Link omitted.]

We never look at those things, so let’s move on. The Discoveroids tell us:

What about the charge that ID is a “curiosity killer,” tempting scientists to answer every natural mystery with a shrug and a “God did it”? [Good question!] Mary says ID had just the opposite effect on her.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The Discoveroids explain why “the Designer did it” isn’t a curiosity killer for “Mary”:

Her pro-design perspective actually led her to choose a career in research, and the conviction that nature is a meaningful and purposeful affair makes her more eager and optimistic about uncovering deeper layers of order and elegance in the natural world than otherwise.

Amazing, huh? She’s going to spend her career researching why the designer did it. Hey — we’ve arrived at the end:

Why does she use a pseudonym in the interview? You may be able to guess, but listen in to hear her explanation.

Why does she hide behind that name? She’s obviously not ashamed of being a creationist. What do you think her reason is, dear reader?

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

16 responses to “Discoveroids Present An Interview with a Drooler

  1. Easy. Mary doesn’t exist. The entire story is a fable. *yawn* they never learn.

  2. @docbill1351
    She’s designed?

  3. Michael Fugate

    She watched the “Privileged Planet” with her dad when she was 13 and her intuition told her design was real. Her dad is a college math instructor and DI fanboy.

    What is hilarious is her claim she brought up ID in a biology class in which the instructor was (as one would expect) a strong supporter of evolution and not only did the instructor not retaliate he actually named her “top student” for the term. The whole fake name thing is a charade. Finding “function” in DNA is not evidence of intelligence. Naïve is probably her real name.

  4. Mary’s “going to spend her career researching why the designer did it.”
    I doubt it – according to IDiot ideology this is a topic for theologians, not for scientists. No, she’ll take a light version of the Kurt Wise road and mumble “goddiddid” everytime she’s confronted with evolution theory.
    Unless Docbill is right, of course.

  5. Michael Fugate

    https://www.discovery.org/about/directory/
    She will likely get a job at a Christian college or in industry. It seems that, for those rejecting evolution, wanting an agent God who bestows purpose to be true overpowers everything else. It is like the folks at Defending Inerrancy or Wallbuilders – they will rationalize anything that God or the US did.

  6. FrankB wrote: “… Docbill is right, of course.” Man, if I had a nickel every time I heard that!

    Another clue that the Tooters are just tooting is how vague they are. Mary? Srsly? I would have picked Emily or Madison – more hip, modern. But, Hail Mary, I get it.

    Also, “biochemistry” is pretty vague, too, but the Tooters are clueless. I was partial to physical biochemistry when I was in grad school and got to write software to analyze GC/MS data. Fairly specific stuff. You’d think the Tooters would be better at writing fiction. I mean, even the Vogons wrote poetry.

  7. chris schilling

    Since the whole podcast sounds highly scripted and rehearsed, “Mary” is possibly an acting student. Even the coy little giggles sounded rehearsed.

    I would have said “crisis actor”, but that comes over as a bit conspiracist and alt-righty. And we could never accuse the DI of anything as underhanded as that, now, could we?

  8. Dave Luckett

    Speaking of Vogon poetry, I wonder if Kunta Kinte, or whatever his/her/its/their/jer name is, will grace us with (pick a possessive pronoun) presence this thread. Always good for a laugh.

  9. If this Mary isn’t mythological, as several others here hypothesize, I doubt many of her “professional connections” from an ID conference were scientists. And, in my not terribly successful scientific career, I never met a scientist, including several Nobel prize winners, who shrugged and said “god diddit” when talking about unsolved questions. I vote with those who think this Mary is mythological.

  10. Is there any well documented example where “it is designed” was accepted as an explanation, that is, without any description how or why etc.?

  11. That would highly surprise me – in science (ie not IDiocy) the how and why etc. are the crucial questions, whether it’s a piece of furniture designed (I’m using the wide meaning of the word, so that the IDiots can’t complain) by an intelligent mind or a snowflake by natural processes.

  12. Michael Fugate

    How does claiming something has a “function” or a potential “function” provide evidence for intelligent design?

    In the audio, she infers that finding “function” in a DNA sequence previously labeled “nonfunctional” means DNA is intelligently designed.

    And her claim of “intuition” to back her skepticism of evolution lends weight to the scripted nature of the conversation.

  13. Even when people said that Jupiter causes lightning, don’t they try to explain that something made him angry?
    Kids want to know how Santa delivers the presents.

  14. Michael Fugate

    And wouldn’t any scientist want to know how an intelligence designed? Human scientists are interested in how humans designed artifacts – metalworking, glassblowing, & pottery techniques, boat, house, & monument building, food and fermentation, etc. They don’t just say it is designed and leave it at that. Hey Mikey, how is your God making “good” mutations?

  15. “In the audio, she infers that finding “function” in a DNA sequence previously labeled “nonfunctional” means DNA is intelligently designed. ”

    This just in:
    The ENCODE folks seem to be backing off from there original grandiose claims:

    https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2020/08/encode-3-lesson-in-obfuscation-and.html

  16. Politics is so fundamentally and incestuous a desire shaped by religion and the superstitious realm of suspended reality that supports the lowest of intelligence and the barnyard disquisitions of intellectual slops of failed scholars has evolved to the sapient community of tribal posturings of so-called civilized behavior, a stew of shapeless content. Your comments are a red flag raised in an impotence already realized in the bed of forfeited grandeur. It would be nice to read a contrary of the reality of the established cranks and poseurs of the people that grace your platform.