Another Holy Moley Post from the Discoveroids

Like all our posts lately, this one was inspired by something we found at the creationist blog of the Discovery Institute. It’s titled Klavan and Meyer on God and Science, 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 ID the Future episode [Ooooooooooooh! A Discoveroid podcast!], Stephen Meyer sits down with talk show host and bestselling novelist Andrew Klavan [Never heard of him!] to discuss Meyer’s Return of the God Hypothesis.

Groan! Yer another Discoveroid post about Meyer’s book! Then they say:

In this fast-paced conversation the pair touch on the Judeo-Christian roots of science [Clunker One] how fine-tuning in physics and cosmology point to intelligent design [Clunker Two], and how a great many scientists held out hope that the universe was eternal and therefore did not require a creator, but eventually threw in the towel as evidence mounted for a cosmic beginning. [Clunker Three]

Regarding their first clunker, it was the Greeks who originated what we know as science — see Did Science Originate with Creationists? Their next clunker, about “fine tuning,” is a “Zeus or the Multiverse” question, which is too crazy to consider. Clunker three assumes — without evidence — that literally nothing existed before the universe started expanding. We’ve only heard creationists make that claim, so we’ll ignore it. Okay, moving along, they tell us:

What about the multiverse hypothesis as an escape for atheists wishing to explain away the evidence for a cosmic designer?

Evidence for a cosmic designer? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Let’s move on and see if they say anything else. Okay, how about this:

Meyer and Klavan discuss a noted atheist philosopher who frankly admits that he doesn’t want theism to be true and yet also admits that modern Darwinism has crashed and burned [What?], and the evidence for design in various scientific fields is too powerful to be ignored. Download the podcast or listen to it here. [Link omitted!]

The final paragraph of their post is a plea for donations. If you’re interested, click over there and send ’em some dough. We’re outta here!

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

13 responses to “Another Holy Moley Post from the Discoveroids

  1. It’s dumb to pick on names but why does Andrew Klavan sound like a character from a Jerry Lewis movie. Hey laaady… Andrew Klavan Maven Schmaven…

  2. Hey, Curmie, what’s going on with the Editor and the Upgrade?

    Inquiring minds want to know!!!

  3. So, Klavan is a mystery writer with a BA in English Lit. Knows jack squat about science, i.e. the perfect Discoveroid. Right wing opinionated nut.

    File him under Who Gives a F?

  4. 1) Jesus won’t give them money.
    2) Everyone should be like Jesus.
    3) Therefore, we must abandon logic.
    4) Yet this is logic.

    “Nomad begins to analyze the implications of Kirk’s claims, a process that causes noticeable stress to its systems. Kirk and Spock carry Nomad in a rush to the transporter room and, with a final command from Kirk to “exercise your prime function,” beam it into deep space. Seconds after transport, an explosion is detected near the Enterprise and Nomad is no more.”

  5. Who is the “noted atheist philosopher who frankly admits that he doesn’t want theism to be true and yet also admits that modern Darwinism has crashed and burned”? My money is on Thomas Nagel, who admits to not having studied evolution in detail but claims it can’t account for consciousness. I think he’s bats (in-joke).

    House move imminent. I may be off here for several days

  6. Paul Braterman: Good luck with the house move. Ghastly chore,

  7. docbill1351: I’ve moved my blogging to the new computer with Windows 10, so I can log into WordPress. I still don’t know why they suddenly decided to require that. The new computer isn’t set up conveniently yet, so it’s clumsy to use — but I’m still using their “classic” editor. When they take that away, I’ll probably quit blogging.

  8. @Paul Braterman
    Let one suppose that evolution cannot account for consciousness. I’m confident that there are lots of things that evolution cannot account for – high temperature superconductivity, for example. But is there is anything which does account for that unaccountable? In particular, does Intelligent Design? (Does Intelligent Design account for anything? Does anything account for consciousness?)

  9. @TomS, Indeed. There are, IMO, real problems in thinking about a person as at once a physical system and a conscious being, but denying evolution does nothing to help solve them

  10. TomS asks if anything accounts for consciousness. I once suggested that it began as a neurological short-circuit, by which the brain senses its own activity. It was sometimes useful, so self-aware creatures reproduced.

  11. @Paul Braterman

    real problems in thinking about a person as at once a physical system and a conscious being

    I see you’ve met my mother in law. I just got back from a pleasure trip. I took my mother in law.to the airport.

  12. Our Host:
    ” I once suggested that it began as a neurological short-circuit, by which the brain senses its own activity. It was sometimes useful, so self-aware creatures reproduced.”

    So someone else has read Godel, Escher, Bach.

  13. [blockquote]Clunker three assumes — without evidence — that literally nothing existed before the universe started expanding. [/blockquote]

    There is no “before” the Universe began expanding (BB) — another failure of the science-challenged Darwin deniers to understand that time had no existence prior to the BB, in an analogous manner to how there is no point on earth further South than the South Pole. To ask what is “before” the BB is equivalent to asking what is South of the South Pole.

    It is an ill-formed question that smuggles facts not in evidence.