Tuesday, May 29, 2007

One More Creationist Cookie: Top Misconceptions about Intelligent Design

You know that feeling you get after a string of friends birthdays, or the winter holidays, when youve just eaten so much cake and cookies and drank so much booze, the only thing that sounds appetizing is a nice salad with a glass of water? Youve just had so much junk food, you cant stomach it anymore?

Thats kinda how Im feeling after this weekends Creationism Museum Carnival. It is going to take me weeks to get through all those posts! And though Im really excited about reading everyone contributions... I dont know if I can take any more Creationists. I want some real food-- some real science. Ive got some sweet science posts lined up (hint-- find out what these words have in common: marsupials, retrotransposons, immune system, sharks, YAY!!!).

But theres just one more cookie at the bottom of the Creationist jar this week, and I gotta eat it.

I mean I CANT let it go to waste!!! Its got chocolate in it, I cant give it to Arnie! Sure its kinda old, its kinda stale... BUT ITS A COOKIE!

A cookie provided to us, once again, from my Intelligently Sequenced doppelgangers. Paul is so relieved that someone has consolidated several of the usual arguments against Intelligent Design Creationism and clears the air for us.

Well thank goodness! Im excited to read this article too! I mean we cant get Dembski or Behe to define any of their terms or even tell us what the hell 'Intelligent Design' means, maybe finally we can get some answers! Yay!

Top Misconceptions About Intelligent Design

Now, I know you all are a clever bunch, so Im only typing this for the people who dont want to give these tards a site hit. Okay, follow me here-- Number One misconception about ID:

It's Creationism in Sheep's Clothing
Okay, now, what is the name of the site that is hosting this article? New Creationism.

Now dont laugh, readers! They dont have irony meters on Mars, they dont know what theyre saying is funny. So look at this as an outreach opportunity! Drag one of your broken irony meters out of the basement, let some 12 year old aspiring engineer tinker it back into working condition, and donate it to these poor souls! Common everyone!

In all fairness, the author is right in his defense of Number One:
...hypothetically there could be atheists that buy into ID.
Yes, theoretically there are atheists who are clueless enough to 'buy into ID'. Thats the perfect choice of words, my dear.

Number Two is also wonderfully hysterical, if you read Carl Zimmers blog, The Loom:
An Expectation of Optimal Design
This is the Casey Luskin defense of IDC-- The Pinto Argument. Of course this is a funny joke, but 'An Expectation of Optimal Design' is a problem supported by Creationists! Ive seen it from the Young Earthers and from ID Creationists over and over and over and over and OVER! Every base pair is sacred!
... But when Design is suboptimal, its because of sin/the Will of the Designer/etc.
...... But Evilution is unfalsifiable.

I lost all hope of getting any details about ID Creationism at Number Three:
3. Intelligent Design is guilty of the God of the Gaps

...So what makes the framework of Intelligent Design any different from other attempts to ascribe authorship of objects and events to supernatural influence?

Intelligent Design Theory builds upon the foundation of advances in scientific knowledge, not the absence of it. Specifically, Intelligent Design Theory leans upon the science of information theory, astrophysics, chemistry, and biology...
Specifically. Specifically. You know, I dont suppose any ID Creationists have any examples of, you know, specifically, how ID Creationism 'leans upon', say information theory? No? Too specific? Well, okay...



Aaaand Number Four-- the 'Play for Confusion' to get people to think theyre ID Creationists when theyre not:
4. The Strong Dichotomy with Evolutionary Theory
...In fact, theistic (or directed) evolution is arguably a form or expression of Intelligent Design...
Noooooo. Not really. You see, Theistic Evolution is a philosophical position. IDC is a methodological position. Theistic Evolutionists say they believe their deity designs through evolution. IDC say they have proof of Design, therefore they have 'proof' of a Designer. Theistic Evolutionists are not Intelligent Design Creationists.


Okay, seriously, I gotta go take some antacid, loosen the belt a notch, and get some real science in my system. If only insulin cured Creationist Overload too!

1 comment:

Tyler DiPietro said...

Yeah, I'm all creationismed-out myself, I gotta do up a cool post having absolutely nothing to do with creationism. It will be so cool that everyone will come to my blog and say "OH MY GORD TYLERZ, THIS BLOG POST IS SO COOL!!!1"