Another Podcast About Meyer’s Creationist Book

What we have today from the Discovery Institute is so dreary that we’ll toss in something else at the end to justify your visit our humble blog. But first, lets see what the Discoveroids have for us at their creationist blog. The thing is titled Meyer: The Moral Law Within as Evidence for the God Hypothesis, 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]:

A new episode of ID the Future [Ooooooooooooh! A Discoveroid podcast!] continues the recent lively and cordial conversation between atheist Michael Shermer and Stephen Meyer, author of Return of the God Hypothesis: [Link omitted!].

It wouldn’t surprise us if the Discoveroids have posted a hundred times about that book. Here’s one of our posts about it from several months ago: Discoveroids Achieve Publishing Ecstasy. Okay, back to their blog post. They say:

In this segment of the four-part series, Shermer and Meyer discuss a fourth argument for theism, the moral law within.

Ooooooooooooh! The moral law within. Verily, that’s a powerful argument. After that we’re told:

Then they discuss the similarities and differences between inferring design for something like the Rosetta Stone [which is obviously designed] versus inferring intelligent design from the information in DNA or the fine-tuning of the universe.

Jeepers — now that we think about it, the universe looks exactly like the Rosetta Stone. Why didn’t we ever notice that before? Ah well, there’s only one more sentence to the Discoveroids’ post. Here it comes:

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

That’s all there is, dear reader, so as we promised, here’s a link to something else that you may think is more interesting. We found it at PhysOrg, and the title speaks for itself: Rhino drowns at Dutch zoo in mating mishap. Pleasant dreams!

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

10 responses to “Another Podcast About Meyer’s Creationist Book

  1. What on earth do they mean by “something like the Rosetta stone”? Exactly what common qualities are necessary? Being in writing? Being in three scripts and two languages? Being a stone? What?

    I don’t think they mean anything by it at all, except to suggest that the writer or some other Tooter is a real clever person who knows about the Rosetta Stone.

  2. Yes, what does it tell us about something, that it is designed?
    For example, these designed things:
    Utopia as described in Thomas Mores’s book.
    A flying machine designed by Leonardo Da Vinci.
    The Mars helicopter.

  3. “What on earth do they mean by “something like the Rosetta stone”?”
    Core principle of creationism: The map (the words) does not correspond to any territory (reality). The Rosetta stone is a symbol, DNA is a thing. Their analogy is incoherent.

  4. How hard is it to infer design when everything is designed? Doesn’t seem like a very impressive feat. “Oooh look at creationist me, I just inferred something was designed. Woo-hoo I’m a big shot inferrer person.”

  5. OMG
    A rhina dies, and you think that’s a pleasant diversion?

  6. @richard
    There are things which aren’t real, which don’t even exist, but are designed.
    So what does Design tell us about something?

  7. Like I keep harping on, what about New Hampshire’s late “Old Man in the Mountain”, was that designed?

  8. @KeithB
    Are not the trees and the birds designed? Are not the wind and the rain designed? And the electrons, quarks, photons and space-time, energy and mass, entropy, information, complexity, etc.?

  9. I mean, if a creationist is going to burn in hell for saying something is not designed, then a creationist is going to be doing some inferring, ASAP. Okay so that doesn’t necessarily invalidate their conclusion, but they do get there a lot quicker. That leaves plenty of time for doing other creationist things, while scientists have to spend more time on conclusions. Who got time for that?

  10. If there is anything that they have to say is designed, for sure it’s got to be entropy. If entropy isn’t designed, what is?
    But then, how is entropy intelligently designed? Isn’t entropy sort of like the opposite of intelligence in design?