Yesterday, the Panda’s Thumb revealed that Michael Egnor had only been pretending to be a creationist. They even linked to his confession at Evolution Views and News. I chimed in, defending our prior work on Egnor’s absurd claims with argument that “the line between creationist parody and creationist reality is drawn awfully fine”.
It was an April Fool’s joke, of course. Egnor hasn’t been kidding — he really is that kooky. Or is he? His real April Fool’s Day post was remarkable in its hypocrisy and religious credulity.
What if experimental evidence demonstrated that we could account for biological information (or whatever we call the astonishing complexity of living things) without inferring design? Would I lose my faith?
No, I wouldn’t.
Uh, he just admitted that he would ignore any evidence? What? He goes on to confess that he’d keep on believing God was acting through the appearance of randomness. And he concludes with an amazing example of creationist projection:
What if intelligent design were shown to be right, by scientific evidence? Most atheists would feel their faith in materialism greatly endangered, if not untenable. I suspect that is the cause for all their vitriol. Is Darwinism true? I’ll believe it if I see it. Is intelligent design true? Atheists won’t see it, because they won’t believe it.
Umm, no. If scientific evidence (which I can’t imagine, at this point—I keep waiting for the DI to show it) demonstrated that a supernatural entity was intervening in the history of life, and even in the day-to-day events of the world, I’d be surprised and I’d probably first be very critical and want more and better demonstrations of this evidence, but if it held up, I’d accept it. And of course the existence of an active supernatural being would violate materialism!
It’s not a matter of refusing to believe, either. We don’t see it because the advocates for Intelligent Design can’t show us the evidence—they don’t have any.
For further examples of creationist inanity, Pete Dunkelberg has posted a shining example from Stephen Meyer.
…information is a massless quantity. Now if information is not a material entity, then how can any materialistic explanation explain its origin? How can any material cause explain its origin. And, this is the real fundamental problem that the presence of information has posed. It creates a fundamental challenge to the materialistic scenario because information is a different kind of entity that matter and energy cannot produce.
I, a being of energy and matter, have just arranged the letters in this article to create information—perhaps not a lot of information, but it still represents a net local increase. Simply because information can be a product of pattern rather than mass does not mean it can only be created supernaturally.
It’s a bit humbling, actually. We can try to parody the creationist mind, but then they just turn around and effortlessly exceed our efforts, and say things so foolish that we can’t imagine them. Admit it: if the Panda’s Thumb had instead put Stephen Meyer’s unmodified words on a fake web page instead of Reed Cartwright’s pseudo-confession by our pseudo-Egnor, everyone would have immediately said it was a hoax, wouldn’t you?