Category Archives: Evolution

Discoveroids: The Cosmic Programmer

The Discovery Institute has a powerful message today, dear reader. If this doesn’t convince you to abandon your silly faith in Darwin, then nothing will. The new post (by Klinghoffer) at their creationist blog is New Science Uprising Episode: “Programming Without a Programmer”? [Ooooooooooooh! A Discoveroid podcast!] Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Two remarkable advances in science together sealed the doom of any materialist evolutionary theory. [Gasp!] They are the development of computer software, and the discovery that digital code lies at the foundation of life. That’s the theme of the new third episode of Science Uprising, “DNA: The Programmer.” [Link omitted.]

That might be the most powerful opening paragraph we’ve ever seen, and Klinghoffer is just getting started. He says:

You’d have to be pretty insensitive to watch these six minutes through to the end without getting goosebumps, even if the information argument developed by Douglas Axe, Stephen Meyer [two Discoveroids], and other design theorists is already familiar to you: [Youtube link omitted.]

After that he tells us:

Atheists Craig Venter and Richard Dawkins are famed scientists who freely agree on the analogy between software and genetic coding. Microsoft’s Bill Gates, who ought to know, ups the ante by noting that DNA stands as a far more impressive instance of coding than the software that humans are able to devise.

Wowie — if those guys are impressed by DNA code, then that settles the issue! Klinghoffer continues:

As Stephen Meyer says here, we know from having lived in and observed the world that “information always arises from an intelligent source.” [Ooooooooooooh!] Simply applying that knowledge to the biological information in DNA seems to command an inference to intelligent design.

That’s a scientific law that everyone can agree upon. And in case you’re wondering what “information” is, we recommend Phlogiston, Vitalism, and Information.

Hey, Klinghoffer has inspired us. We have another scientific law for you: A huge heap of excrement always comes from a huge colon. You can easily apply that to the Discoveroids and their scientific output. Let’s read on:

We also know [yeah, we know], as Meyer points out, that “random changes in a section of functional code or functional information is going to degrade that information long before you get to something fundamentally new. That’s the problem with the mutation-selection mechanism as an explanation for new genetic information.”

Egad! The mechanism for evolution doesn’t work. Darwin was an idiot! Another excerpt:

“So here’s the question,” asks the masked narrator [Masked?] of Science Uprising: “If our DNA code is more complex than any manmade software, where did it come from? [Wow!] Is it possible it was authored without an author? [Of course not!] Programmed without a programmer?” Materialists are forced back to such a conclusion, which common sense, or what Dr. Axe has called “common science,” tells us is absurd.

Materialists are fools! Here’s the end of it:

The episode also briefly sketches those most precious things in humans experience whose value our culture’s reigning materialism would have us deny. [Huh?] There’s a lot at stake. Please do consider sharing it widely.

Our only question is how to classify the Discoveroids’ brilliant new argument. It’s not quite the Watchmaker analogy, but it’s certainly close. They’re saying “X seems designed, therefore X is designed, therefore a designer exists.” There must be a well-established philosophical term for that. Do you know what it is, dear reader?

Copyright © 2019. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

Habitable Free Fire Zone Institute

The creationists aren’t generating any news this weekend. There was a news item they could have babbled about, but so far we haven’t seen them do it. You can read about the news at PhysOrg: New study dramatically narrows the search for advanced life in the universe.

It’s about a study published in The Astrophysical Journal: A Limited Habitable Zone for Complex Life, which you can read without a subscription. They say that it’s not enough for a planet to be in what we’ve been calling a star’s habitable zone, where liquid water can exist on the planet’s surface. The habitable zone for really complex life is far more restricted, which means that finding intelligent alien life isn’t as likely as we had been thinking.

Why haven’t the creationists been running wild with that news? One never knows. They’ll eventually get around to it.

There’s one other subject we’ll bring up. Have you noticed how common it is for creationists to call their outfits an “institute”? Think about it. Among the few we routinely visit, there’s the Discovery Institute, the Institute for Creation Research, and Jason Lisle’s Biblical Science Institute. Using the word “Institute” in their name makes them sound so … so classy!

For some reason, ol’ Hambo doesn’t use the word, but for the others, calling themselves an “institute” is an attempt to conjure up the prestige usually associated with places like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the California Institute of Technology — or the Institute for Advanced Study, where Einstein used to work.

We’re not alone in thinking there’s something special about the word. According to the Wikipedia article on Institute:

In the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man the term “institute” is a protected word and companies or other organizations may only use the word if they are “organisations which are carrying out research at the highest level or to professional bodies of the highest standing”.

Okay, enough of that. Because there’s nothing else going on, we’re declaring another Intellectual Free-Fire Zone. We’re open for the discussion of pretty much anything — science, politics, economics, or even astrology, theology, mythology, and sociology — as long as it’s tasteful and interesting. Banter, babble, bicker, bluster, blubber, blather, blab, blurt, burble, boast — say what you will. But avoid flame-wars and beware of the profanity filters.

We now throw open the comments to you, dear reader. Have at it!

Copyright © 2019. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

Creationist Wisdom #963: All Taboos Are Lifted

This is your lucky day, dear reader. We have a second letter-to-the-editor for you. This one appears in the Palladium-Item of Richmond, Indiana. The letter is titled Time to reject amoral thinking, return to God’s word, and the newspaper has a comments section.

The letter-writer may be the author of this self-published book: The Silence of Heaven. If that’s our man, this press release says he’s a retired preacher. But we can’t be sure it’s our man.

Because the writer may not be a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is Harold. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, some bold font for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]. Here we go!

When we decided to jettison God and His word as our moral authority and decided we were nothing but an accident of evolution [Gasp!] we became by nature amoral beings having no moral authority to guide us.

Evolution and atheism are the same to Harold. And if you’re one of those hell-bound evolutionists, you have no morals, dear reader. Harold says:

I once asked an atheist who was his moral authority. He replied, “The group.” “The group” who at one time thought it was moral to kill Jewish people and to enslave people of a different race. [Religious folks have done the same.] That amoral thinking believes it is a moral act to slaughter innocent unborn children. Even now they are discussing the taking the lives of some born alive.

According to Harold, no religious person — presumably also a creationist — would ever be involved in abortions. But that’s not atheists’ only depravity. In addition to that he tells us:

If one person asks another to perform a sexual act which may bring on serious illness, even death [Huh?], it is acceptable if it is done under the guise of a “loving relationship.” We redefined traditional marriage to include any who have a “consensual loving relationship.”

What kind of sex is Harold talking about? Anyway, he continues:

Now all taboos are lifted. [Hooray!] Age limits, incest, polygamy are all acceptable once the participants claim a “consensual loving relationship.” The precedent has been set. [Who set the precedent — Darwin?] However, do not be shocked by what is coming.

Egad, what’s coming? Let’s read on:

From 1974 to 1984, in the U.K. the Pedophile Information Exchange [The what?] was allowed to openly lobby Parliament for legal acceptance of pedophilia.

Anything else? Apparently so. Here’s another excerpt:

On Feb. 28, 2011, psychology experts claimed before the Canadian parliament that pedophilia is a “sexual orientation” comparable to homosexuality or heterosexuality.

Look what Darwin has unleashed upon us! Harold finishes his frightening letter with this:

Maybe it’s time to get back to God and His word.

Maybe. Or maybe not. What do you think, dear reader?

Copyright © 2019. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

Creationist Wisdom #962: The Insanity of Science

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Daily Journal of Kankakee, Illinois. The letter is titled Is evolution fact of [sic] fiction?, and the newspaper has a comments section.

Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is Ron. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, some bold font for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]. Here we go!

Evolution fills our nation’s textbooks. Its various spin-off theories dominate academic life wherever “origins” are discussed.

That’s horrible! Then he says:

“Special Creation”, “In the Beginning, God Created” is ridiculed in academia [Gasp!] and those that defend it are treated rudely by the professional atheist class as they explain not only how something appeared from nothing, but why you’re a buffoon for thinking that God could create from nothing and they aren’t because they say that matter with no “past eternity” has always existed and that life can spring forth in all its complexities spontaneously. You’re ridiculous and ignoring facts and they aren’t?

This is an outrage! What can be done about it? Ron tells us:

Time for all to read the “Devil’s Delusion”, subtitle; “Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions.” Author David Berlinski is a brilliant mathematician and thinker who is a secular Jew and only enters the discussion because of the excesses in the modern atheist movement (creation without a creator).

Berlinski? Ah yes, he’s a Discoveroid “senior fellow.” Wikipedia has a write-up on him: David Berlinski, and here’s the listing for his book at Amazon: The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions. We don’t know how he arranged it, but it was published on April First, back in 2008.

We haven’t written much about Berlinski, but we posted this last year: The Best Discoveroid Podcast Ever Made. Let’s return to Ron’s letter:

He asks specific questions of the atheistic/scientific? community.

What follows is a long list of questions that Berlinski asks, presumably in his book, The Devil’s Delusion, each one followed by an answer, but we can’t tell if it’s Berlinski’s answer or Ron’s. Probably both. Here are some of those questions:

Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close.

That’s gotta be the dumbest question ever asked. One could ask the same thing about Zeus, the tooth fairy, or the Cosmic Aardvark. Let’s move on to the next questions:

Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.

Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.

Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.

Great stuff, huh? The brilliant questions continue:

Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.

Has secularism in the terrible 20th Century been a force for good? Not even close to being close.

Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough.

Only two more questions remain:

Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even ballpark.

Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.

Amazing, huh? Ron wraps it up with this:

The book is challenging, funny at times and shows that for all the pretentiousness of modern academia, they exist on a foundation of sand.

There you have it, dear reader. Science — especially evolution — is believed in and taught by fools! Isn’t it time you accepted The Truth?

Copyright © 2019. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article