Günter Bechly Is Triumphant

You remember Günter Bechly, a Discovery Institute “senior fellow.” We’ve written about him a few times, but perhaps our favorite was Discoveroid Günter Bechly Has Been ‘Erased’, when Wikipedia deleted their entry on him. One of our last posts about him was Welcome to the Intelligent Design Underground.

You’ll be happy to know that Günter is back in the news — well, the Discoveroid news. They just posted this at their creationist blog: To an Italian ID Group, Günter Bechly Explains His Remarkable Journey. [Ooooooooooooh! A journey!] Their post was written by Klinghoffer. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Paleontologist Günter Bechly debated about intelligent design recently with computational biologist Joshua Swamidass — don’t miss that one [Link to Discoveroid post omitted!] — and now has a very interesting conversation with Marco Respinti of the Italian ID group, Centro Italiano per l’Intelligent Design.

Günter had a conversation with someone from an Italian intelligent design group? Wowie — that sounds like an amazing event. Klinghoffer says:

Dr. Bechly explains his change of mind about design in nature and what it cost him professionally as a curator at the State Museum for Natural History in Stuttgart.

Yeah, when he came out as a creationist — oops, intelligent design theorist — things became intolerable at his job. Klinghoffer tells us:

As he says here, the evidence for ID, as he sees it, is “cumulative.” Meaning, I think, that there isn’t one single piece of evidence that clinched the case. Rather, the summation of evidence across a number of fields, including his own, is what persuaded him. Having opened his mind to the possibility of design, he saw it everywhere.

Fascinating (as Spock would say). Klinghoffer continues:

Bechly stresses that his view is motivated solely by scientific considerations. [Only a fool would think otherwise!] Yet colleagues at his institution tarred him as a “creationist,” [Gasp!] made his work there impossible, and he ultimately resigned.

Those wicked Darwinists are so cruel! Let’s read on:

He had thought that free speech still counted for something in Germany, even if it was threatened in the United States. Wikipedia sought to make him a nonperson, too, by erasing his entry. Yet here he is, a delightful and very persuasive communicator, and a remarkable testament to following your own intellect where it leads you.

A thrilling tale of triumph over adversity! The rest of Klinghoffer’s post is a video of Günter at the Italian event. We never watch such things, but one of you might take a look. If you do, tell us about your thrilling experience.

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

2 responses to “Günter Bechly Is Triumphant

  1. We are familiar with the practice of what counts as evidence for Itelliget Design: if X, then ID. If not-X, then ID.
    So yes, wherever you look, you find evidence for ID.
    Then there are those Evilillusionists who say that there is no content to ID.

  2. Theodore J Lawry

    Bechly uses silly arguments which he must know are wrong. He says stuff like “…13 million years for the evolution of complex animal body plans like that of arthropods. This may sound like a long time but actually it is just about as long as the average lifespan of 1-2 successive marine invertebrate species (Levinton 2001). This alone renders a Darwinian scenario almost impossible.”

    Actual biologists understand that the ~5 MY duration of arthropod species just measures the speed of environmental change which is big to make a noticeable change in the animal’s fossilizable hard parts. The speed of evolution during an “explosion” is determined by the time it takes a beneficial mutation to spread throughout the species. Even mutations with survival advantages of only 1% have fixation times of the order of a few thousand generations, i.e. a few thousand years. So a few thousand years rather than a few million years is what one would expect for the speed of evolution during rapid change. Any competent, or even amateur, biologist would know that. Duh! and double duh!