Discovery Institute Somehow Manages To Get Propaganda Published In Boston Globe

The creepy and sinister-looking Stephen Meyer, Ph.D (Professional huckster and Douchebag)

The Discovery Institute’s Stephen Meyer amazingly managed to get a lengthy letter titled, “Jefferson’s support for intelligent design,” published in today’s Boston Globe. He spends 700 words to make the following case: Thomas Jefferson believed in a Creator; therefore Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools. That is his argument. If you think I’m setting up a straw man, check out his letter for yourself.

Meyer cites an 1823 letter from the elderly Jefferson to his friend John Adams in which he stated, “I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition.” Jefferson also remarked, “It is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion.”

There is so much wrong with Meyer’s letter that I’m not sure where to begin. I suppose I could start by asking, so what if Jefferson believed in a Creator? I doubt he’d want it taught as a scientific hypothesis, and even if he did, who cares? Meyer is making a pathetic appeal to authority here. As every rational person knows, hypotheses are accepted or rejected on their merits, not who their formulators and supporters are.

The doltish Meyer—who is a Christian, surprise surprise—dares to suggest that ID is not inherently religious. But here’s a challenge: find an ID advocate in the Western Hemisphere who does not believe in the Judeo-Christian God. Go ahead, I’ll wait. The fact is that ID is simply repackaged Creationism, with the laughable parts about Adam, Eve, and the talking serpent edited out to make it more plausible. Not that it means anything truth-wise, but this was also the opinion of federal judge John E. Jones III when he ruled in Kitzmiller v. Dover that it is unconstitutional to teach ID in public schools because it violates the Establishment Clause.

In his letter, Meyer never mentions the utterly empty and useless darling phrase of ID proponents, “irreducible complexity,” but he launches into some bullshit about the wonders of DNA, saying, “As Bill Gates has noted, ‘DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.’” Yet another appeal to authority—and again to a guy who has no background in evolutionary biology or genetics. But do you know what’s even funnier about this one? Bill Gates is reportedly an atheist. Way to make your arbitrary quote-pulls airtight, Steve.

Continuing with his horrid drivel,

“This discovery [of DNA] has made acute a longstanding scientific mystery that Darwin never addressed or solved: the mystery of how the very first life on earth arose. To date no theory of undirected chemical evolution has explained the origin of the digital information in DNA needed to build the first living cell on earth. Yet modern scientists who argue for intelligent design do not do so merely because natural processes have failed to explain the origin of the information in cells. Instead, they argue for design because systems possessing these features invariably arise from intelligent causes.”

That temperature increase you just felt wasn’t global warming. It was a tornado of hot air coming from Meyer’s asshole. Darwin “never addressed or solved” the problem of abiogenesis? Well if he never addressed it, how could he solve it? Meyer and other anti-science hooligans are fond of criticizing Evolution for not answering a question it doesn’t even purport to address in the first place. In the case of a buffoon named Chuck Missler, he seems to think that Evolution does try to account for abiogenesis. Watch as he attempts to refute a nonexistent claim, while making a complete ass of himself in the process:

Right, so because I believe in Evolution, I wouldn’t be surprised one of these days to find a fucking bear in my peanut butter. Peanut butter guy here thinks Evolution is hooey and favors ID, but in truth he is actually one of the best arguments against Intelligent Design you could hope for. And how about the guy in the very beginning of the video? If he’s willing to lie about his baldness by wearing a toupée, what else is he willing to lie about? Probably anything.

However, I must admit, I’ve always been intrigued by the approach of criticizing theories for failing to account for phenomena they don’t even attempt to explain, so I decided to try it out myself. As you are about to see, I came up with some major findings. For example:

Game Theory does not explain the elliptical orbits of the planets.

The second law of thermodynamics does not explain the deliciousness of pineapples.

Plate Tectonics does not explain why Dane Cook sucks.

That was fun. And I had no idea these dearly-held ideas were so deficient. I feel like I’ve stumbled upon some serious revelations. Who knows where Discovery Institute logic will lead us next?

Anyway, getting back to Meyer. Don’t you just love how he states that the features of DNA “invariably arise from intelligent causes” as if he’s telling us what he had for breakfast this morning? Like what he’s saying is self-evident. State it as confidently as you want, but that won’t change the fact that your assumption has no grounding in empirical evidence, otherwise you would’ve offered us some by now.

You’ll notice that because Meyer can’t find a reputable scientist who endorses his primeval views, he has to resort to yanking quotes from Thomas Jefferson and Bill Gates. Never mind Charles Darwin, Ernst Mayr, Kenneth Miller (who’s a Catholic), Richard Dawkins, and others who have spent countless hours studying and researching the evolution of organisms and who repudiate Creationism/Intelligent Design (including Miller). If you’re Stephen Meyer, why give a damn about the inconvenient findings of great scientists when you can just quote non-biologists whose comments ever-so vaguely support your chickenshit hypothesis?

- Max