How To Detect Discoveroid Design

We found this one at the creationist blog of the Discovery Institute. It’s titled A New Design Inference for a New Generation, and it was written by Andrew McDiarmid — a Discoveriod Senior Fellow who also serves as their Director of Podcasting. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Is there an empirical method to determine whether a system is the product of chance or design? [Hee hee!] On a new episode of ID the Future [Ooooooooooooh! A Discoveroid podcast!], physicist Brian Miller concludes a two-part conversation with Dr. William Dembski about a new expanded second edition of his classic book The Design Inference [Amazon link].

Ah yes, a classic book. Then Andy says:

The process of design detection is founded on comparing the probability of an outcome occurring by a natural process (chance) versus occurring as the result of design.

Brilliant! After that he tells us:

In the conversation, Dembski offers an example from Star Wars to help explain the design inference. [BWAHAHAHAHAHA!] When Darth Vader tells Luke Skywalker that he is his father, it’s a life-changing moment for the young Jedi knight. From an information standpoint, the sheer improbability of the statement is extremely high. If Vader had said instead that he was his enemy or that he was also a human, it wouldn’t have made much of an impact, given that those qualities of Vader are less improbable. But what really makes it a shock for young Luke is that the statement is also specified.

Specified? What’s that? Andy explains:

While most events are improbable, far fewer are also specified, meaning they match an independently recognizable pattern. The word “father” matches an identifiable pattern in the hierarchy of relationships that all humans can recognize. Thus was born one of the biggest twists in cinematic history, and a great example of a design inference in action!

Are you following this? Let’s read on as Andy tries to sell the book:

In many ways, the second edition of The Design Inference is a brand new book. Dr. Dembski teases out what is new and updated, and he also discusses what it was like to team up with software engineer Winston Ewert on the project. He gives us a sneak preview of his next book, covering the conservation of information.

Conservation of information? Yeah, right! Here’s another excerpt:

And for those trying to wrap their heads around the process of design detection [Who isn’t?], Dembski offers this helpful analogy to the methods used in forensic science.

Here comes the helpful analogy:

“If you’re a detective, you prefer to explain a death through natural causes. If it’s not by natural causes, then you’ve got an investigation…We give chance the first opportunity…the default explanation. We eliminate it in order to get to design.”

You can easily see how that applies to the issue of evolution. Here’s the end:

Download the podcast or listen to it here. [Link omitted!] This is Part 2 of a two-part conversation. Listen to Part 1 here. [Link omitted!

Now you know what you need to know in order to understand the discoveroids’ “science” of intelligent design.

Copyright © 2023. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

Intelligent Design Is Really Really Logical

We found this gem at the creationist blog of the Discovery Institute. It’s titled Fundamentals Friday: The Logic of Intelligent Design, and it was written by Emily Sandico — a Discoveriod Senior Fellow who also serves as their Special Projects Coordinator. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Stephen Meyer and other proponents of intelligent design theory are often accused of committing the “God of the gaps” fallacy, or GOTG for short. Just what does that mean?

Wikipedia explains it quite well — see God of the gaps: “… the idea that gaps in scientific understanding are regarded as indications of the existence of God.” and yes — Discoveroids and all other creationists use it extensively. Then Emily says:

And is the accusation true? GOTG is one form of a logical fallacy called the argument from ignorance. It goes like this:

𝗣𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗲: Cause A cannot produce or explain evidence E.
𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻: Therefore, cause B produced or explains E.

After that she tells us:

Now, that’s an obvious error in logic. Does ID theory commit the same error? However often critics say that it does, it does not.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! She continues:

ID theory does not rely simply on establishing one cause as inadequate to produce a given effect. [Really?] It also establishes that a particular other cause is adequate, where no other is.

This is amazing! Let’s read on:

In reality, the logic of ID theory is this:

𝗣𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗢𝗻𝗲: Despite a thorough search, no materialistic causes have been discovered with the power to produce the large amounts of specified information necessary to produce the first cell.

𝗣𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗧𝘄𝗼: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information. [Whatever that is!]]

𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate explanation for the origin of the specified information in the cell.

Impressive, isn’t it? And now we come to the end:

This post has been adapted from Dr. Meyer’s book Return of the God Hypothesis, Chapter 20, [Link omitted!] in which Dr. Meyer explains the logic of intelligent design in depth.

She goes on a bit more, but that’s enough for us. We’re outta here!

Copyright © 2023. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

Discoveroids Wonder What You Think of Your Body

This one is very short — and that’s a good thing. We found it at the creationist blog of the Discovery Institute, and it’s titled Nancy Pearcey: Love Your Designed Body, Made for a Purpose, with 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 classic episode of ID the Future [Ooooooooooooh! A Discoveroid podcast!], host Tod Butterfield talks with CSC Fellow Nancy Pearcey about her book Love Thy Body: Answering Hard Questions About Life and Sexuality. [Amazon link!]

The Discoveroids don’t give us any information about Nancy, but from an earlier post she’s a Discoveroid fellow who is also a professor and scholar in residence at Houston Christian University. After mentioning her book, the Discoveroids say:

Who — or what — determines what we are? Why does it matter? And how should we act in light of the answers to those questions?

Stimulating, isn’t it? They continue:

Professor Pearcey explores these questions, and explains how just about everything in ethics — including sexuality — begins with what we think about whether life has a design and a purpose.

What? What??? Let’s read on:

“Once you accept a Darwinian materialist view of nature,” says Pearcey, “logically speaking you are going to end up with a low view of the body.”

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! And now we come to the end:

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

Go ahead, dear reader. Watch the podcast. Then come back and tell us what the [Bleep!] is going on here.

Copyright © 2023. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

The Difference between Hambo and the Discoveroids

This one is really essential for those who follow the work of the Discovery Institute and also Ken Ham. It clears up a lot of confusion. It’s found at the Discoveroids’ website, and it’s titled Words for Wednesday! Disentangling ID from Creationism. The thing was written by Emily Sandico — a name we haven’t encountered before, but she’s a Discoveriod Senior Fellow, and she also serves as their Special Projects Coordinator. Impressive! Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

There are so many words out there in need of definitions! Yesterday on Stephen Meyer’s Facebook page we launched the new “Terminology Tuesday” feature, with a quick read about just what we mean by intelligent design, and what we DON’T mean. We don’t mean creationism. [Gasp!]

Intelligent design isn’t creationism? Then what the flaming [bleep] is it? Emily says:

Yes, we’ve noticed that many folks are unsure how “intelligent design” and “creationism” differ. Indeed, misunderstanding (willful or otherwise) of what we mean is rampant in the comments section. [Comments section?] So on this extra-wordy Wednesday we’ll tackle both terms together.

This is going to be fun! Emily says:

1. Intelligent design (“ID”) is the theory, based on the scientific method and empirical evidence [BWAHAHAHA!], that the best explanation for the “apparent design” in the universe, which is acknowledged by most scientists, is actual design by an intelligent agent.

2. Creationism is the belief, typically based on religious scripture and tradition, that the universe has been designed and created by a divine agent.

Wowie — they’re not the same at all! After that she tells us:

Intelligent design proponents and creationists come in many flavors. Creationists certainly believe that the creator is intelligent. They might also believe that the creation account in the book of Genesis should be interpreted as six 24-hour days, and that the earth is just several thousand years old. [Sounds like good ol’ Hambo!] But some creationists interpret the Genesis account differently, and believe that the earth and universe are very old. [Blasphemy!] Others start with different religious traditions altogether. Many creationists look for scientific data that supports their religious tradition.

Emily continues:

Intelligent design proponents, on the other hand, do not necessarily subscribe to any particular view of who or what the designing intelligence is. In other words, creationism starts with the identity of the designer and works downward to the creation, while intelligent design theory starts with empirical evidence and does not, from this scientific evidence, ascribe an identity to the designing mind.

This is really tragic stuff. Let’s read on:

Do creationists believe that the universe was designed by an intelligent agent? Yes! Do intelligent design theorists believe that the intelligent agent was the creator described in the Hebrew Bible? Some do. Others don’t.

What’s she saying? The big difference between the Discoveroids and Hambo’s outfit is that some — but not not all — Discoveroids claim that the designer-creator is Yahweh. Near the end, Emily explains why that’s important:

One reason the distinction is important is that many materialists (those who believe that everything about the universe is explicable in purely material terms, apart from a mind) ridicule creationism and lump ID in with it as if the two are equivalent.

Are you one of those people, dear reader? Then pay attention to this last excerpt, from the end of Emily’s post:

Whatever you believe, it’s important to recognize that creationism and ID are not the same thing. [Hee hee!] Creationism starts with the belief in a designer and interprets data accordingly, while ID starts with [carefully selected] scientific evidence and infers [what Discoveroids claim is] the best possible explanation for that evidence.

Okay, dear reader, now you know the difference between Hambo’s outfit and the Discoveroids. See if you can explain it to us.

Copyright © 2023. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.