7 Evidences For CDesign Proponentsism

I've been investigating creationism for around eight years, on and off. Luckily, my heart is hardened to the Infinite love offered freely and without precondition by The Good Lord God, and I have so far been immune to all attempts to save me from eternal hellfire. Praise SatanDarwin.

Recently, however, my faith in un-belief has been troubled.

A new intriguing concept called "CDesign Proponentsism" has appeared, offering a new way of looking at the Universe not tied to outmoded, intellectually bankrupt notions such as logic, evidence, or testability.

CDesign Proponentsism challenges not only secular progressive humanist atheist daughter-defilers like myself, but also Theistic Evolutionists (the same thing, of course). For the first time in several generations, we are at risk from losing the secular stranglehold which keeps our country from being great.

As we atheists and fellow travelers know, CDesign Proponentsist's do not read our blogs or websites. Why else would they not to link to us? Safe in the knowledge that this post will be kept secret and between ourselves, I would like to share my concerns with you.

There are, as far as I can see, seven irrefutable arguments in favour of "CDesign Proponentsism". Luckily, I have something called "Cognitive Dissonance", and I am immune to their power.

If you feel that your atheistic commitment to living without moral limits is fragile in any way, I would urge you to stop reading here. The rest of you may proceed - with caution...

I give you.... 7 Evidences For CDesign Proponentsism.

1. The Explanatory Filter

The world's greatest living Mathematician is one William Dembski, the Paris Hilton of Information Theory. Dr Dembski has created the notion of the "Explanatory Filter", which I shall explain by applying it to a mystery uncovered recently by the elusive Dr. Snail.

One Galapagos Finch posted an M&M "survival of the fittest" parody at Uncommon Descent on 24 January which is remarkably similar to one which appeared anonymously last year on Craigslist. (My 37173 g00gle skillz suggest it dates back to at least 2003).

As a committed materialist, it is painful for me to admit that the scientific method offers no answers as to how such near-identical complex specified information systems could have arisen independently on at least two separate occasions. I could of course use imaginary, psuedo-scientific concepts as "convergent evolution" in order to construct a just-so-story as to how this might have happened.

Dr Dembski's "Explanatory Filter", on the other hand, offers a much more satisfactory conclusion. The parody was quite obviously coded into the DNA of the original writer and of DembskiGalapagos Finch, and was triggered only to appear in the latter's consciousness at a time and place foretold by the Bible Code. It's that simple.

2. Irreducible Complexity

As Dr Michael J. Behe explains here to Stephen Colbert, the component parts of a mousetrap have no function whatsoever.

3. The Controversy

There is no controversy? The mere fact that I am talking about CDesign Proponentsism proves there is a controversy.

4. It is not Creationism

When watched in the light of Scripture, this video clip demonstrates conclusively that CDesign Proponentsism is not creationism.

5. Parodies

What greater evidence is there is of the moral bankruptcy of a position than when its adherents go the trouble of creating elaborate parodies of their opponents? Take this song, for example, written by Amadan and sung here by Karl J. Mogel:

I Am The Very Model Of A CDesign Proponentsist

6. Chuck Norris Believes It

Here Chuck Norris, playing the part of blowhard reporter William "Bill" O'Reilly, endorses "Intelligent Design - that is 'a Deity Created life'". Also watch out for noted scientist Ben Stein, who rightly points out that cells contain "hundreds of thousands of moving parts each of which has to work perfectly"; and that "maybe we're wrong... maybe we're stupid, but we'd like to be able to ask the questions..."

7. Scriptural Support

How could the Bible, written by illiterate bronze-age goat-herders 5,000 years ago, have anticipated modern scientific understanding so exactly? CDesign Proponentsism does exactly what it says in the Bible.



There we have it. The best evidences that CDesign Proponentsism can offer. And still I am unmoved. Praise SatanDarwin indeed!

ID - The Hideous Truth

I haven't seen this picked up anywhere else, but Uncommon Descent recently mentioned interviews with William Dembski & Michael Behe by the Pro-ID Spanish website, Ciencia Alternativa, and carried at IDEAcenter.

Both interviews show how far removed the average ID supporter is from the reality of ID's Hideous (un)Truth.

In the first conversation, the interviewer gushes about all of the wondrous science ID has produced. Dembski has to point out that, err, there hasn't actually been any science resulting from his "ideas".

"CA: Dr. Dembski, ID has come a very long way since its inception; and ID proponents are making inroads in a vast array of scientific disciplines such as astronomy, biology, and chemistry. How has your own work in mathematics (namely, The Design Inference and No Free Lunch) helped or influenced the development of novel ways of doing science?

WD: It’s too early to tell what the impact of my ideas is on science. To be sure, there has been much talk about my work and many scientists are intrigued (though more are upset and want to destroy it), but so far only a few scientists see how to take these ideas and run with them."

When you've picked your jaw up from the floor following that little revelation, check out Michael Behe coming so far off the fence on Common Descent to give the average Uncommon Descenter a clutcher...

"ML: In The Edge, you make a defense for common descent (p.182) and later attribute it to a non-random process (p. 72). Considering the convergent evolution of the digestive enzyme of lemurs and cows, hemoglobin of human and mice, and in your own work resistance mutations that also arise independently (p77), why such a commitment to common descent? Isn’t genetic convergent evolution or even common design (considering your view of mutations) good alternative explanations to common descent?

MJB: I don’t think so. Although those other explanations may be true, I think that common descent, guided by an intelligent agent, is sufficient to explain the data. It has the great advantage of being easily compatible with apparent genetic “mistakes” shared by organisms, such as the pseudo-hemoglobin genes I wrote of in The Edge of Evolution."

Well, maybe I've got it all wrong? Maybe Dembski and Behe are just substantially more intellectually honest than the cdesign proponentsists I tend to come across.

What do you think?

Conservapedia: Because every time you use Wikipedia, God kills a puppy...

Why are creationists so stupid? Easy. They don't process information which challenges their beliefs.

In my head-banging discussions on the Expelled IMDB Message Boards, a chap called Pooua said this:

I have seen this play out for 25 years. This is the way that evolutionists behave. When I take standardized tests that show that I am in the top few percent of the nation in scientific literacy, and yet am told constantly that I am scientifically ignorant simply because I dispute evolutionary theory... ...I actually read the court transcripts (and not from Wikipedia or T.O.). I know what Behe said, and he did not say that ID is no more scientific than astrology."

Well, if the guy will repeat nothing but creationist drivel, he's going to look like a moron no matter how smart he is. Poor sod. And I just love the concept that the same information has a different value because it comes from a "conservative" source (he linked to ARN) than it does if it comes from Wikipedia or T.O..

Thank God for Conservapedia, huh? Although by my experience, any time that organ says anything sensible, it's enough to make a creationists head asplode.

And for the records, Michael Behe did say in court that if ID were to be considered a scientific theory, astrology would too.

Evolution News helpfully explains:

"The problem with astrology is not that it could have fit the NAS or Behe's definition of science 500 years ago. The problem is that it is not supported by the evidence. That is why, unlike ID, no serious scientists are advocating astrology as a good theory which could be presented to students in science classrooms. Nor do serious academics reference the peer-reviewed scientific literature in support of astrology, as serious scientists do for ID."

The minute "serious scientists for ID" can quote any part of the scientific literature as positive evidence for "Intelligent Design", Behe will have established that ID is more scientific than astrology.

Until then... I believe Jesus was a Capricorn. Or did I dream it?