Do You Have Doubts about the God Hypothesis?

This one at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog isn’t very long — for which we’re grateful. It’s titled Stephen Meyer: Is the God Hypothesis Scientific?, and it was written by 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]:

An often-heard reservation about intelligent design, and about what Stephen Meyer calls the “God hypothesis,” is that neither is “scientific.” Thoughtful people will say, “Well, as a theist — a Christian, Jew, or other — of course I accept ‘intelligent design,’ meaning that the universe somehow reflects God’s design. But I can’t accept ‘Intelligent Design’ as a scientific argument. You can’t put God in a test tube.”

That “often-heard reservation” sounds very reasonable. The entertainment value of Klinghoffer’s post will be observing how he tries to brush it aside so that the mindless reader will come away thinking that he made a brilliant argument. He begins:

Whether ID is a scientific or philosophical thesis is not the most burning question ever asked. As others have said, the real question is whether it’s true.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Yes, that’s the “real” question. One can play the same game with astrology. Who cares if it’s scientific? The real question is whether astrology is true! But let’s not spoil the fun. Klinghoffer is talking about the Discoveroids’ “God hypothesis” and he’s just getting started. Now he says:

Yet if scientific considerations compel an inference to design [Hee hee!], and more so, to a theistic conception of a transcendent creator, that’s surely important.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Yes, if that happens, it’s surely important. Then he tells us:

Stephen Meyer addresses the subject in a concise video lecture, “Who Is Nature’s Designer?,” from his DiscoveryU course, “Stephen Meyer Investigates Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design.” [Link omitted!]

Ooooooooooooh! Meyer has a video on the subject. Isn’t that exciting? Klinghoffer continues:

Watch it now and consider sharing it with those who hold the aforementioned reservation.

The video is embedded in Klinghoffer’s post, so you can click over there and watch it — if that’s your pleasure. The only thing remaining in Klinghoffer’s post is yet another plug for Meyer’s book, so this is where we’ll leave him.

But we have a question for you, dear reader. Have your doubts been answered about whether Meyer’s “God hypothesis” is scientific?

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

9 responses to “Do You Have Doubts about the God Hypothesis?

  1. Has anyone discussed the statement of Kant, that the argument for an architect of the world falls short of a creator?

  2. Either it’s true or it’s not. That’s a 50/50 chance from the get-go. Factor in Phillip Johnson and Stephen Meyer at say 25% each. That’s a 100% chance. Subtract Dembski who disappeared off the face of the earth and that leaves us with a 75% chance of being true. Casey Luskin brings us back to 100%. Which is pretty solid evidence.

  3. I never had any doubts about Meyer’s or anyone else’s god hypothesis. Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!

  4. Dave Luckett

    Indeed, TomS. The IDiots’ argument for a designer – that is, one who works with the materials and means that exist to produce a purposeful arrangement of parts that performs some desired function – seems entirely to exclude the possibility of a creator, that is, one who made the materials and ordained their interactions and governance.

    But if the materials and their interactions had been specifically ordained to make life possible – which seems to be the case, for life is manifestly possible – then given a sufficient event space, life is inevitable, and design doesn’t come into it.

    So the DI has to make up its mind: is its designer one who works with the materials and rules that there are, as a design engineer works with available materials towards the specifications s/he is handed, or is it a creator who doesn’t need to do that? Both have severe problems attached.

    The former is, by definition, a subordinate: one who works within bounds set by someone else, both as to constraints and as to objectives. The latter is perfectly consistent with the theory of evolution.

  5. Has SC gotten the covid vaccine?

  6. @Dave Luckett
    Thank you!

    And then I have another problem with design – whether of the whole universe, or of life, and even down to individual things like The Eye. I will concede that the operation of nature follows the rules set down by an originating intelligence. But that does not thereby mean design.
    I think of the P vs. NP problem as an analogy. The fact that one can verify a solution does not mean that one can solve the problem. Solving the problem is like design. The fact that a particular stretch of DNA will produce a particular protein does not mean that one can design a stretch of DNA on order to solve the problem of producing a protein.
    Maybe P is equal to NP. Maybe there is a design of life. But the fact that life operates according to pattern does not mean that there is a design. That remains to be established.

  7. Indeed Dave. As a former designer, I often described my job as problem-solving. You have a set of constraints and a goal to achieve, so you make compromises in order to achieve your goal within those constraints. What constraints did the Holy Designer face? What compromises did he have to make? What was his goal, and why did he have an unfulfilled goal in the first place?

  8. @Paul D.
    Thank you.

  9. You guys aren’t playing fair.
    Creationism is based on what we feel.
    You are bringing up irrelevancies like facts and logic.
    We can’t control what happens to be the case in the natural world. So mentioning that is not fair.