Discoveroids Achieve Publishing Ecstasy

The Discovery Institute has been blogging about Stephen Meyer’s new book for months — actually for years — since September of 2018, long before it was published. Way back then we wrote Discoveroid Stephen Meyer’s New Book.

We don’t know how many times they’ve posted about the thing since then, but it’s gotta be several dozen. Our most recent post about it was A Podcast That Will Change the World.

Well, today the Discoveroids are at it again. They just posted this at their creationist blog: Great News — Stephen Meyer’s Return of the God Hypothesis Is a Bestseller! [Ooooooooooooh! A bestseller!] Like so many of the other posts about the book, this one was written by Klinghoffer. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Congratulations to our colleague Stephen Meyer! His new book, Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe [Amazon link], is not only an important new work, making the case for a personal God from the scientific evidence of cosmology, physics, and biology [Amazing!], and opening a fresh frontier for intelligent design. It’s also a bestseller [Gasp!], hitting both the USA Today and Publishers Weekly bestseller lists!

Can you believe it? They say Meyer’s book literally proves the existence of Yahweh! Isn’t Discoveroid science amazing? And in case you’re new around here, we’ll give you some background information about Stephen Meyer. Regular readers can skip this:

His Discoveroid job description has changed over the years, but as their bio page indicates, he’s one of their senior fellows and currently the Program Director of their Center for Science and Culture — that’s their creationism shop. It should not be forgotten that Meyer was a central figure in the infamous Sternberg peer review controversy. According to the Discoveroids’ 2016 Tax Return, Meyer’s salary was $250K.

Okay, let’s get back to Klinghoffer’s post. There’s not much more to it, but here it is:

That means that Dr. Meyer’s message is reaching not just the scientists (see the list of scientific endorsers here, including Nobel Prize-winning physicist Brian Josephson) [Links omitted!] but the greater reading public. This is awesome news.

Yeah, it’s awesome. Well — have you bought the thing yet? We won’t, because it would clash with our faith in the Cosmic Aardvark, but if you’re looking for something else, maybe the Discoveroid deity is just what you want. Go for it!

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

Ghastly Weather Free Fire Zone

This won’t be a difficult question, but we’re obliged to ask it as an introduction: What do you get when you have: (a) a total lack of amusing creationist news; and (b) an approaching ark-load of ghastly weather that may last for several hours and keep us off the internet?

Give up? Okay, we’ll help you out. The answer is: another Intellectual Free Fire Zone!

To get you started, consider this: Biden’s wide-open border policy is flooding the US with immigrants who are almost entirely creationist. Isn’t that wonderful? Don’t like that topic? Okay, come up with another.

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 © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

Darwin Was Ignorant and You’re a Fool!

You have probably heard of irreducible complexity before. It’s a fancy phrase conjured up by the Discovery Institute. Wikipedia says it’s:

… the argument that certain biological systems cannot have evolved by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems through natural selection, because no less complex system would function. Irreducible complexity has become central to the creationist concept of intelligent design, but the scientific community, which regards intelligent design as pseudoscience, rejects the concept of irreducible complexity.

We used to write about it. For example, see Peer Review of Behe’s Irreducible Complexity, and then Rev. David Rives Explains Irreducible Complexity.

After a while there was nothing left to say — but creationists never abandon any of their arguments because there are always new droolers who haven’t heard them before. So it is with Jason Lisle — the creationist astrophysicist. After previously working for the Institute for Creation Research, and then ol’ Hambo’s Answers in Genesis, he’s now running his own show — the Biblical Science Institute.

Jason just posted Irreducible Complexity. Would ya believe it, there’s a picture of a mousetrap above Jason’s article. Ironically, it’s the same picture appearing in the Wikipedia article, at the section titled The mousetrap example.

Jason’s article is long, but it’s old stuff so we’ll skip a lot of it. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

One of the many scientific lines of evidence against neo-Darwinian evolution involves the concept of irreducible complexity. [BWAHAHAHAHAHA!] … The different parts of a biological cell are interdependent. That is, each part of the cell depends on all the other parts of the cell in order to function properly. Remove any one essential part, and the cell dies. Hence, the cell is not just complex; it is irreducibly complex. That is, it cannot be reduced to a simpler functioning cell by removing any essential component. Yet, neo-Darwinian evolution requires that all life came about from simpler forms, with new components added over the course of time by mutations. Hence, neo-Darwinian evolution is incompatible with irreducible complexity

Jeepers, he’s right! Without your head — you’re dead. Why didn’t our teachers tell us about this? Jason says:

Irreducibly complexity is the mark of intelligent forethought. [Yes, it’s obvious!] Manmade machines almost always exhibit irreducible complexity. Consider an automobile. It has many interdependent parts that work together to accomplish a goal – in this case to provide transportation for people and property. If you remove any essential part (the engine, the wheels, the drivetrain, the transmission, the steering wheel, the fuel tank, etc.) then the vehicle will not be able to do what it was designed to do.

No doubt about it — Darwin was a fool! After that, Jason devotes several paragraphs to giving us all of Behe’s arguments. We’ll skip that stuff because Behe’s arguments were discussed at length in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, and we quoted that part of the court’s opinion extensively — see Kitzmiller v. Dover: Michael Behe’s Testimony.

To avoid a bunch of ancient clunkers, we’ll skip most of Jason’s post and jump right to his final paragraph. Here it is:

A functional self-replicating cell requires all these systems to be in place simultaneously. Therefore, a cell cannot have evolved in a neo-Darwinian stepwise fashion. The complexity of living cells was unknown in Darwin’s day. And we didn’t know nearly as much about the complexity of biological organs and systems. So, Darwin’s ignorance of the many examples of irreducible complexity is somewhat understandable given the time in which he lived. But today there is no excuse. [No excuse!] We now understand much about how biological systems operate, and we have countless examples of irreducible complexity. [Hee hee!] Knowledge is the enemy of evolution. [Aaaargh!!] But all of this science only serves to confirm what Christians have known for millennia. Biblical creation is true.

Powerful stuff, isn’t it? Well, dear reader, whatcha gonna do — continue to be a hell-bound Darwinist, or fall to your knees and accept The Truth™?

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

Arkansas Creationism Bill: A Giant Leap Forward

Things are crazier in the Arkansas legislature than we could have imagined. It was only yesterday that we wrote Arkansas Creationism Bill Creeps Forward. The House Education Committee had approved House Bill 1701, sponsored by the freakishly demented Representative Mary Bentley.

We thought it would be a while before there would be more news about her creationist bill, but wow — were we mistaken! In today’s Arkansas Democrat-Gazette we found this headline: House advances bill to let schools teach creationism. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

A bill to allow public schools to teach intelligent design as a theory of how the Earth came to be gained the approval of the Arkansas House on Wednesday [The whole House!], despite a 1980s court ruling that bars schools from teaching creationism in science classes. House Bill 1701 by Rep. Mary Bentley, R-Perryville, was sent to the state Senate on a 72-21 vote.

Aaaargh!! Ninety three people voted, and 72 voted for the thing. That’s 77% of the House of Representatives who voted for creationism. This is truly crazy! Then the newspaper says:

The legislation would apply to kindergarten-through-12th-grade public and charter schools. Bentley [the crazy lady] said permission to teach creation is something she’s had teachers ask her for since she became a lawmaker. [Is that possible?] “Scientists have been on both sides of the issue for thousands of years,” she said, noting that Isaac Newton and Galileo believed in “God and biblical creation.”

Darwin’s first book about evolution wasn’t published until 1859, so neither Newton nor Galileo knew anything about it. Aside from that, Bently probably wouldn’t cite Galileo as evidence for her position if she knew he was convicted of heresy for writing that the Earth orbited the Sun, which is contrary to scripture. Indeed, it’s doubtful that she knows anything about anything.

The newspaper then tells us that Bently mentioned earlier litigation ruling that creationism couldn’t be taught in the public schools. That doesn’t discourage the crazy lady: “Arkansas was really the beginning of not allowing creation to be taught in the classroom, so I thought it was important for us to make this first step,” Bentley said.

The woman is flat-out bonkers. Then the newspaper quotes a sane member of the legislature:

Rep. Deborah Ferguson, D-West Memphis, brought up the 1982 court decision. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the state’s ban on teaching the theory of evolution in 1968. “Why would we do this when the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that it is illegal to do that?” Ferguson asked.

Good question. But Mary Bentley had an answer:

“We have seen the Supreme Court change their mind 200 times,” Bentley replied, noting that the high court’s makeup has changed since then. She said later that prior to the legislative session, she had discussed the bill with the state attorney general’s office, which was confident such a law could be successfully defended in court. Bentley said HB1701 is different from the previous laws.

Ah, she has a friend in the attorney general’s office. Very slick! The newspaper continues with a bit more back-and-forth between the two legislative ladies:

Ferguson [the sane one] said the bill violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment and could open the door for every religion’s creation story to be taught as science. Bentley [the drooler] said classrooms should be open for debate that includes creation among scientific theories.

Now we wait for the state Senate to make their wishes known. And here’s how the newspaper article ends:

A spokeswoman for Gov. Asa Hutchinson said Wednesday that he had not reviewed the bill.

This story has a long way to go, dear reader, so stay tuned to this blog!

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