Discoveroids’ Top Ten for the Year — 9, 8, & 7

As you know, this is that exciting time of year when the Discovery Institute reveals to a waiting world their Top Ten accomplishments for the year now ending. Number Ten was disclosed in our Christmas Eve post, and now the Discoveroids have revealed a few more.

Number Nine was announced in #9 Story of 2021: Verdicts of “Poor Design” in Biology Have a Poor Track Record. That post claims that some previously unappreciated biological features aren’t as bad as traditionally believed. First is the wiring of the vertebrate eye, which — they say — isn’t so bad after all, and then there’s the realization that “the appendix is actually a safe house for normal gut bacteria.” Verily, a triumph for intelligent design.

Number Eight was revealed in Merry Christmas! #8 Story of 2021: An ID Prediction for CRISPR Gene Editing. In that post, they say that the exciting news was originally disclosed on their creationist blog on July 28, 2021. We ignored it then, because it’s about a bit of DNA that had previously been regarded as junk, but now it seems to have a function. This happens from time to time, but our genome still contains an ark-load of junk. Nevertheless, whenever some little bit is found to be useful, the Discoveroids go bonkers claiming that the supernaturally perfect workmanship of the intelligent designer — blessed be he! — has bee conclusively been established.

But wait — there’s one more. Discoveroid triumph Number Seven is revealed in a new post today, titled #7 Story of 2021: Jordan Peterson Discovers the God Hypothesis. It’s a copy of a Discoveroid post originally published on August 15, 2021 — which we ignored. It’s so unimpressive that we’re going to ignore it again. If you like, click over to the Discoveroids’ blog and check it out for yourself.

All we can say is that if these items are among the Discoveroids’ Top Ten accomplishments for the year, it’s been a spectacularly bad year for their version of creationism. But let’s be fair — they’re working our way up from the bottom, and their greatest triumphs are yet to come. Isn’t this exciting?

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

24 responses to “Discoveroids’ Top Ten for the Year — 9, 8, & 7

  1. Theodore Lawry

    BTW the “prediction” in #8 is that gene editing with CRISPR won’t yield any great improvements because You Know Who has already Designed the best of all possible genomes in the best of all possible worlds. That is a very safe prediction since any single gene improvements will be met with a chorus of “but they are still….” Any multi-gene changes, such as re-engineering photosynthesis, are probably a safe distance in the future, so IDers can predict away.

  2. Jordan Peterson regards vaccine mandates as tyrrany, which speaks volumes for his judgment, As for Retrun of the god Hyothesis, he says “It’s not often that I encounter a book that contains so much that I did not know…”

    Ignorance as credential for endorsement. Par for the course, IM, both for Peterson and for the DI

  3. Jordan Peterson is the personification of the Chinese food cliché. After you’ve had it, 15 minutes later you didn’t know that you’ve had anything. “Man, full of emptiness.” –Friedrich Nietzsche

  4. Professor Braterman:

    I refer to Newsweek The money quote: “A herd will stampede because the most neurotic member of the herd jumps first, and then [the rest of the herd will] instantly follow them,” he added. “And that’s kind of what we did in the early stages of the pandemic. The Chinese acted first. Now, unfortunately they are a totalitarian state. And we all followed.”

    That is, “the rest of us” followed the Chinese. China is undeniably a totalitarian state. Hence, we followed a totalitarian state, although “the rest of us”, ie, the rest of the world, are distinct from China, and are not totalitarian states.

    Read the rest of his comments, and it is apparent that he is not saying “vaccine mandates are tyranny”, more something like “vaccine mandates are an over-reaction”. This is entirely in line with liberalism – government should not have powers to compel or forbid that are not very clearly necessary for the protection of the people, and clearly mandated by their will. You may disagree; but Peterson’s position is more nuanced than you make out.

    Me, I think that covid is a serious enough threat to necessitate vaccination. But I come from a generation that had compulsory salk, and later, sabin, vaccination against polio. I knew kids in calipers in elementary school. Is covid on the same level? I think maybe yes; Peterson thinks no. Ultimately, on this issue, we disagree. So? Does it mean I think his judgement is questionable?

    Of course it does. His judgement is questionable; my judgement is questionable, your judgement is questionable. Everybody’s, and every body’s judgement is questionable. We need people who are willing to question that judgement, even if they are sometimes wrong themselves. And Jordan Peterson is one such person.

  5. @Dave Luckett I don’t think nuanced is the proper word. I think Jordan’s position it is more “vague” than Professor Braterman makes out. Why do we have to guess what he is getting at? And why is he so faux-shocked that vaccinated people would be tested for COVID before travelling?

  6. If by “Top Ten accomplishments” they mean like when the high school debating teams pull anything they can think of out of their hats to say something positive because they have to, but everyone knows it’s a game they must play and who knows if they really mean it, then yeah Top Ten accomplishments.

  7. We have to consider carefully the actual values of the words used. This is not guesswork. As a standard default, any words should be taken to express their least radical and least offensive reasonable value. I think Peterson’s words mean that he doesn’t think that governments should have the power to compel vaccination, in this case, because he would only allow that power in the face of clear necessity. He doubts that covid compels that necessity. He could be wrong. On that, I think he is wrong. Yet still I see the point.

  8. Okay Dave but do you think we were “imitating” China? I think that’s kinda a bone-headed thing to say, and I think he said it because he wanted to get the “totalitarian” bit in there.

  9. China’s reaction to covid was and is severe lockdowns and mandatory vaccination. Ours, that is, Australia’s, was fairly severe lockdowns and not-quite-mandatory vaccination. Did we follow China? Not quite. The differences are ones of degree, and I think we came down on the right side. But there are hundreds of thousands (if not more) of my fellow-citizens who think we are on the wrong side of the line.

    To that, I can only point to the difference in the covid death toll between the US and Australia. About 2200 Australians have died of covid-related causes, about one in 12000. About 795000 Americans have died of the same, about one in 430. So yes, the extensions to government coercive power involved in the lockdowns and vaccination mandate were, to my mind, justified.

    As I said, I think Peterson is wrong. But still, an argument that it is dangerous to increase government powers to compel or forbid is always one I will listen to. I might reject it – in this case, I do reject it. But I will still consider it carefully.

  10. @DL, Of course every new law is an extension of Government power, and requires careful justification. But in this case,as you show, the justification is overwhelming. Considerations must somehow be weighed against each other, and to focus on one side of the matter only is folly and, in the case of a person of influence, malign.

    Here in the UK there are Conservative MPs who object even to the mild restrictions imposed by Westminster, on the grounds of liberty, yet have cheerfully supported measures to limit the right to protest and to sue the Government when it breaks the law.

    By their fruits shall ye know them

  11. O mighty Aardvaark, I humbly beseech you; transform “<emOf course" into "Of course“, and i will never doubt your miracles again

  12. Okay, but why is he throwing in the imitating the totalitarians bit if he thinks we are overreacting (the more nuanced approach) rather than being tyrannical (the more elephant tosser’s approach). Are totalitarians famous for being non-tyrannical overreactors?

  13. Nobody ever heard of quarantines before, so we imitated the totalitarians with their cool new idea. But in our haste we forgot they were totalitarians!

  14. As I said, I think Peterson is wrong, I believe what has been forbidden and mandated so far is justifiable. All right? But I am still most reluctant to concede such powers for an indefinite period. I watched videos of the cops in Melbourne body-slamming people and using tear gas on crowds merely for having assembled, and interrogating individual pedestrians: “What are you doing here? Why are you here? What lawful purpose have you? Show me your ID.” and so on. Covid or no covid, there is a close limit to how long that can go on, or how restrictive it can be.

  15. I have come upon a review of recently translated Russian novel of the 1970s:
    Just the Plague, by Ludmila Ulitskaya. It is based on a real incident in Stalinist USSR of the 1930s. A researcher on the plague bacillus accidentally infects himself and makes it necessary to use the powers of the state for quarantine. The NKVD are very efficient at doing this, but of course the subjects of the quarantine believe that they are suspect of anti-state activity, rather than “just the plague”.

  16. The ultimate reason why I’ve grown to loathe Peterson have more to do with talking about “the feminine force” as “chaos,” and “chaos” as always destructive, but sometimes necessary, but a close second is that for someone who claims to be a professional communicator, and who is frequently praised as such, he’s really bad at communicating things.

  17. That post claims that some previously unappreciated biological features aren’t as bad as traditionally believed.

    Traditional creationists must sleep better at night than ID creationists. If there is something imperfect then they can blame it on the Fall instead of worrying about blaspheming the Perfect Designer. Junk DNA? The Fall. Vestigial organ? The Fall. Genetic disorders? The Fall. Looking forward to seeing a movie and then finding out Jared Leto is in it? The Fall

  18. Sorry Dave I was poking fun at Jordan Peterson who I think is a silly person. You are correct we should be vigilant for our freedoms, what we have left anyway lol.

  19. Paul Braterman requests that we transform “Of course.“ Alas, this Jazzy new WordPress software makes it impossible to know what he’s talking about.

  20. Jordan Peterson, Canada’s answer to alright, alright, alright Texas’ Matthew McConaughy, or is it the other way around? I can see Peterson sitting in a Lincoln waxing philosophically, “Don’t be blinded by the light, be the light.”

    Oh, so true! Oh, so profound! Oh, changed my life! Please, let me have your baby!

  21. McConaughy’s morbid profundity has the advantage of brevity.

  22. @Jim R Brevity as in shallow enough to walk through without getting your feet wet.

  23. I mean … here’s Peterson explaining to us how we all instinctively know that women are chaos, based on the stories we tell one another, such as witches living in swamps:

    Yeah, they do. They do exist. They just don’t exist the way you think they exist. They certainly exist. You may say well dragons don’t exist. It’s, like, yes they do — the category predator and the category dragon are the same category. It absolutely exists. It’s a superordinate category. It exists absolutely more than anything else. In fact, it really exists. What exists is not obvious. You say, ‘Well, there’s no such thing as witches.’ Yeah, I know what you mean, but that isn’t what you think when you go see a movie about them. You can’t help but fall into these categories. There’s no escape from them.

    (Beyond the sheer lack of information communicated here, he’s also saying, as he always does that “we” all tell the same stories, based on his understanding of Jungian psychology which, we don’t. We don’t at all. I can’t get into that further, based on what he says here, because he’s not even wrong here, just incoherent.)

  24. Paul Braterman, It took a long time, but your comment has been fixed.