This has been a boring month for those of us who keep track of the tsunami of bilgewater belching from the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute‘s creationist public relations and lobbying operation, the Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids, a/k/a the cdesign proponentsists).
Why has it been boring? Because they’ve been trying to be intellectual, and it’s not worth the bother of slogging through their dreary blog entries. But today the fun resumes. We have a post by David Klinghoffer, a Discoveroid “senior fellow” (i.e., flaming, full-blown creationist). We won’t bother reciting Klinghoffer’s scholarly creationist oeuvre, but you can check it out in this recent post.
Klinghoffer’s latest is Previewing Metamorphosis: The Case for Intelligent Design in a /Nutshell/ Chrysalis. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:
The other night, I watched the latest production from Illustra Media, Metamorphosis …
Scheduled to be released in DVD form on June 15, Metamorphosis follows on the heels of past Illustra offerings, including Privileged Planet, Unlocking the Mystery of Life, and Darwin’s Dilemma. It’s probably true that with these films taken altogether, Illustra producer and documentarian Lad Allen has made the most easily accessible, visually stunning case for intelligent design available.
Here’s a link to the movie’s promotional website: Metamorphosis. As we ponder the catalog of creationist material produced by Illustra Media, we realize that, in order to maintain our lofty linguistic standards, we must refrain from telling you what we think of them. It’s sufficient to note that Klinghoffer likes them and recommends their latest film. Let’s read on:
If you have one shot at opening the mind of an uninformed and dismissive friend or family member, the kind who feels threatened by challenges to Darwinism, then presenting him with a copy of a 600-page volume like Signature in the Cell, or even a slimmer alternative like Darwin’s Black Box, would probably be less effective than choosing one of Mr. Allen’s DVDs.
Klinghoffer’s “review” is far too gushy and mushy, so we’ll skip most of it and give you his sole complaint:
If I had a criticism of the film, it would be that too little time is devoted to the evolution debate. You come away wondering how Darwinists would respond, and how ID-friendly experts would reply in turn.
This is our last excerpt, and we think you’ll agree it was worth the wait. If you want to see a Discoveroid at his scientific best, you must read this:
[T]he transformation of the caterpillar hints at a deeper truth about life, that it is not bestowed on machines or other mechanical devices, as per the mechanistic myth. Ancient philosophers and mystics spoke of an “animal soul,” different from the soul that makes human beings unique, although people possess both an animal and a divine soul, along with our physical bodies. The animal soul, in this view, is a vital force received by inheritance at conception and, among other functions, participating in the direction of how the body gets knitted together.
Speaking of it as a soul implies purpose, intention, intelligence.
The Discoveroids will be hyping this thing for months. Hey — we just had a thought. This would be a really neat bit of supplementary material for a creationist teacher to use in the classroom. Ooops — we shouldn’t have said that. It might give the Discoveroids some ideas.
Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The animal soul, in this view, is a vital force received by inheritance at conception…
Hey Dave, when do the parthenogenetic species get their soul?
Ironically, there’s even parthenogenetic species of butterflies.
A typical example of creationist thinking: if there’s a scientific topic that still has some unanswered questions, then it must prove creationism. If we don’t understand how something works, it’s god’s doing. Forget the fact that scientists are working to find answers, and all evidence points to the answers being out there, if we don’t know right now, then it just proves that Darwin was crazy.
Why do they say that actual scientific people are “defensive” with respect to creationism? When was the last time someone held a scientific conference on, say, genetics and the topic of “How do we put this in perspective with respect to creationism?” came up? The answer is, “Not.” Science stands on its own; the only stand creationism can make is with respect to actual science, not what creationism has actually, uh, created.
Which is “absolutely nothing at all”.
Besides butterflies, we get Alfred Wallace too! Klinghoffer even used the word Wallaceism. Up to now, I thought the “ism” suffix was used disparagingly. I was wrong. On the other hand, perhaps Kling is a follower of a secret cult of Wallaceism, and accidentally divulged its existence.
I take a bit of umbrage at Kling’s assumption that people who accept science are “uninformed and dismissive”, and especially that they might “feel threatened by challenges to Darwinism”. The only way a rational person would be threatened by a challenge to “Darwinism” is if it is delivered in their face by a wild-eyed fanatic with spittle spraying from his lips. In such cases, it would be appropriate to accept the DVD, offer the person a glass of water, and shred the DVD later when it is safe to do so. If, on the other hand, the offeror appears not to be potentially violent, a good hearty laugh is appropriate, along with a comment such as “you have a good sense of humor, my friend, and you would probably enjoy this copy of The Secret which is equally funny in the same way. Just think, some people actually believe this stuff. Ha Ha Ha. You made my day.”
The interesting thing about most scientists who study biology and evolution is that they really don’t care much about the debate. Well, they do care, but they generally don’t take that active a role, because, as it turns out, being a scientist is a very tiring job. Scientists disagree with creationists, it’s true, but most of them just want to be left to do their work in peace.
You’ll notice how the IDiot’s always use terms like “ID-friendly” or in Klingleberry’s case “ID-friendly experts” and that’s because there are no ID scientists, no ID researchers and no PhD’s in ID. Nope, ID is not taught or researched at any university on the planet, including such stellar institutions of lower learning like Oral Roberts, Bob Jones or Liberty. Why, even our friends at the ICR only offer a master’s in “science” education.
Why so coy, creationists?
Thank you, Klingmoron, for pointing out what a Greatly Intelligent Design is the caterpillar-to-butterfly metamorphosis which is so clever and intelligently designed that it is the very model for so many other species … except that it isn’t.
Luuuuuuucy! Haz you been showin’ off with caterpillars again? You got some ‘splanin to do, Lucy!
So in addition to DNA and developmental processes, “animal soul” must also be present? Does “animal soul” exist in tissues and cells or does it only apply to the whole organism?
Gabriel Hanna asks:
I think it’s in the junk DNA. That’s consistent with the Discoveroids’ claim that junk DNA all has a purpose.
SC says:
Hah!