Category Archives: Intelligent Design

A Boy Has Mastered All of Intelligent Design

Once again, dear reader, we visited the creationist blog of the Discovery Institute, and look what we found. It’s titled Watch: Kid Explains Intelligent Design to His Dad, and it was written by Klinghoffer. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Over the past weekend at our Dallas Conference on Science and Faith, YouTube video producer Joel Park [Ooooooooooooh! A YouTube video producer!] let us know about this: a video with his son Tor [That’s the kid’s name?] in which the young gentleman walks his dad through a detailed account of the arguments in Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell.

Wowie — a kid named Tor is teaching Discoveroid stuff to his father. Then Klinghoffer says:

Get ready to be impressed. [We’re ready!] The kid is 14 years old [Gasp!] and it seems clear that he’s got a future ahead of him as a communicator. The father-son rapport is very cute, too.

The kid is almost guaranteed to become a Discoveroid Fellow! Klinghoffer continues:

They cover, among other things, what distinguishes intelligent design from creationism [That’s always been a mystery!], what information is and what forms it takes [Information? See Phlogiston, Vitalism, and Information!], what that has to do with DNA, what’s the difference between a deduction and an inference, the RNA World theory, panspermia, the multiverse [Gasp!], and more.

All that in one video? Amazing! Let’s read on:

The lucidity of the younger individual’s grasp of ID, his ability to concisely explain it, is quite something. Tor could probably help out in tutoring some adult ID critics I can think of.

That’s all there is to Klinghoffer’s post — except for an embedded video which is probably Tor’s lecture to his father. Go ahead, watch the thing. The kid may convince you to become a Discoveroid.

Copyright © 2022. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

A Discoveroid’s Proof of the Existence of God

The Discovery Institute just posted something that is absolutely astonishing. It’s at their creationist website, titled Theists vs. Atheists: Who Has the Burden of Proof?, and it was written by Michael Egnor — that’s his write-up at the Encyclopedia of American Loons. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

A common refrain from those atheists who are willing to debate theists is that theists, not atheists, have the burden of proof in the debate over God’s existence. [That sounds reasonable!] Internet atheist Matt Dillahunty made this claim in our recent debate. [Links omitted.] Regrettably, it looks doubtful that Dillahunty and I will debate again. He didn’t fare well — he had no real understanding of any of the ten classical proofs of God’s existence — and in the wake of his confused and rambling attempts at exculpation he refuses to debate me again.

Then Egnor says:

His reluctance is understandable — he was clearly shaken by the revelation that his rejection of the proofs of God’s existence isn’t based on any actual understanding on his part of the arguments. Like all other Internet atheists I’ve encountered, Dillahunty is ignorant of the overwhelming evidence for God’s existence [Gasp!] and is unwilling to admit his ignorance or correct it.

Are you ignorant of that “overwhelming evidence,” dear reader? Then this post is for you! Egnor tells us:

Dillahunty said: “Normally I point out in these debates that I’m not here to defend a no because the burden of proof is on those who say there is a yes. It’s not up to atheists to prove that a God doesn’t exist.”

Does that sound reasonable to you, dear reader? Then keep reading. Egnor informs us:

Atheists’ own arguments against God’s existence are actually few and weak — for example, Dillahunty’s favorite argument against God is the argument from Divine Hiddenness, which I discuss here [link omitted]. The argument boils down to this: if God exists, He would make atheists believe in Him. Atheists don’t believe in Him, so He doesn’t exist.

By this logic, atheists could make God exist by agreeing to believe in Him, and they could make Him go into and out of existence on alternate days if they believed and disbelieved in unison.

Powerful stuff, huh? Let’s read on:

In order to elide the obvious conclusion that they don’t have any good arguments [Hee hee!], atheists claim that, in a debate, the burden of proof is always on the “yes” side, not the “no” side. Their argument is that it is difficult to prove a negative. But that is irrelevant to the question of God’s existence because both theists and atheists make positive assertions. The fundamental question is, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Theists say God is the ground of existence and atheists say Nature is the ground of existence.

That‘s the fundamental question? Okay, if Egnor says so. Here’s another excerpt:

A negative claim by atheists — “We have no idea why there is something rather than nothing” — is a proclamation of ignorance, not an immunity idol. That is, it confers no “tribal immunity” from responsibility to provide evidence and reason in support of the view that the universe exists without God. “I’m ignorant” is no substitute for a reasoned argument supported by evidence.

Egnor’s argument is looking better and better! And now we come to the end:

Ordinarily, both sides in a debate have an obligation to present evidence and logic to support their views. Under what circumstances would a participant in a debate really have no burden of proof?

If you can’t refute Egnor’s arguments, and yet you continue to reject creationism, then you, dear reader, are a fool!

Copyright © 2022. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

Creationism Requires Great Courage

The Discovery Institute is returning to something they blogged about many times before. At their creationist website they just posted Stephen Meyer on Phillip Johnson’s Courage, 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 classic episode of ID The Future [Ooooooooooooh! A Discoveroid podcast!], Stephen Meyer, director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture, honors Phillip Johnson, the UC Berkeley law professor who helped ignite the modern intelligent design movement with the publication of his important book Darwin on Trial.

The Discoveroids linked to something strange, but here’s Johnson’s book at Amazon: Darwin on Trial.

You may recall that Johnson died a bit more than years ago, referring to him as the “Godfather of Intelligent Design.” We posted Discoveroid Phillip E. Johnson Has Died.

The Discoveroids then posted about the guy almost daily. Two weeks later, when it was all winding down, we wrote Our Last Phillip Johnson Post? The Discoveroids were promoting “a brief public symposium in honor of the late Phillip E. Johnson.” The speakers were “intelligent design scientists” who were “directly impacted by Phil’s life and have since become the ID torch-bearers for our generation.”

In our Curmudgeonly way, we wrote: “Torch bearers for intelligent design — that’s like being a drum-beater for the Time Cube.” But that’s history. Here’s what the Discoveroids say in their new post:

Meyer says Johnson had the courage to speak up when others wouldn’t.

Ooooooooooooh! He had the courage. Then the Discoveroids tell us:

“The overweening dynamic of this debate is fear,” Meyer says. [Gasp!] “There are many many many people who have come up to the water’s edge, who have seen the problems with Darwinian evolution, have counted the cost, and recoiled.”

Are you one of those frightened people, dear reader? This may be your opportunity to acquire some courage. The Discoveroids end their inspirational post with this:

But one law professor did not recoil. [How wonderful!] As Meyer put it, “Johnson had the guts.” Download the podcast or listen to it here. [Link omitted!]

Verily, Johnson was an amazing man. You agree, don’t you, dear reader?

Copyright © 2022. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

The Discoveroids Are Having a Great Conference

This news is really going to thrill you. We found it at the creationist website of the Discovery Institute. The title is Emily Reeves Previews Dallas Science and Faith Conference 2022, 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 episode of ID the Future [Ooooooooooooh! A Discoveroid podcast!], host Andrew McDiarmid sits down with Emily Reeves, one of the speakers for the January 22, 2022, Dallas Science and Faith Conference.

Wowie! The Discoveroids are having another creationist conference. Isn’t that wonderful? Aren’t you excited? Then they announce the all-star list of speakers:

The two walk through the lineup of speakers for the conference (Stephen Meyer, Brian Miller, Casey Luskin [Hee hee!], Ray Bohlin, Dr. Reeves, and others), and tease some of the talks — including Dr. Meyer on the scientific vision of Isaac Newton!

Meyer is going to talk about Isaac Newton? That should be the event of the century! After that amazing revelation, we’re told:

They discuss how to join the one-day event live, either in person in the Dallas area or online.

Incredible! You don’t even need to go to Dallas. They’ll probably have a million people participating online. The Discoveroid post continues:

For more about the conference, slated for this Saturday, and to sign up, go here. [Link omitted!]

And now we come to the end:

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

You gotta admit, dear reader, that was one of the most thrilling posts you’ve ever seen from the Discoveroids. Hey — if you go to the thing, tell ’em the Curmudgeon sent ya!

Copyright © 2022. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.