Klinghoffer Exploits AIG's Georgia Purdom

This is about a fascinating piece by David Klinghoffer, posted at the blog of the Discoveroids — both he and they are described in the Cast of Characters section of our Intro page. His title is a little bit misleading: Speaking for “Answers in Genesis,” Creationist Georgia Purdom Hits a Nail on the Head.

Wow — Klinghoffer says a young-Earth creationist hits the nail on the head! If we were to engage in the practice of quote-mining, we’d stop right there with his title. You know who Dr. Georgia Purdom is. She’s a creation scientist about whom we recently wrote Our Onion Overlords. She works for Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia. Hambo is co-founder of Answers in Genesis (AIG) — described in the Cast of Characters section of our Intro page.

Klinghoffer’s title is sufficient to allow an unscrupulous charlatan to claim that he has climbed aboard Hambo’s sinking ship and has gone whole-hog for the young-Earth, Noah’s Ark version of creationism. Misusing a title like that is exactly what the Discoveroids did a few days ago — see Discovery Institute Quote-Mines Lisa Randall.

But we don’t do that sort of thing. We leave the sewer tactics to creationists. Instead, we actually read Klinghoffer’s article and we know that our readers — unlike brain-dead creationists — are likely to check our claims and sources. Instead of quote-mining Klinghoffer’s title we’ll examine what he says and why it is that he praises Georgia Purdom. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us and David’s links omitted:

Creationist Georgia Purdom deserves congratulations for putting her finger on a key difference between creationism and intelligent design. That’s a distinction that many Darwinists egregiously and intentionally muddle, leaving the media and much of the public confused. Dr. Purdom, who has her degree in molecular genetics, works with the organization Answers in Genesis. In a brief video she asks, “Is the Intelligent Design Movement Christian?” Emphatically, she says no, and characterizes ID this way:

Then Klinghoffer purports to quote from Purdom’s video. We haven’t verified its accuracy:

[Alleged quote from Georgia Purdom describing intelligent design:] It’s an evidential approach that basically tries to answer the question of what is designed, not who, when, why, where and how. Which is why the movement is not Christian. Because the Bible does tell us who, why, when, where and how. And so while there are Christians within the intelligent-design movement, the movement itself is not Christian.

ID is “an evidential approach”? That is knee-slapping funny! Purdom probably believes it. It’s the way AIG thinks. They assume that if someone doesn’t run around babbling about Adam & Eve and Noah’s Ark and six-day creation all the time then he’s a hell-bound secularist-atheist-Darwinist. They’ve pretty much said so before — see Answers in Genesis vs.Intelligent Design, where we quoted AIG saying this:

Any person who believes in any god who created the universe or life in any way could be a member of IDM [intelligent design movement]. This wedge strategy essentially divides belief about origins into two classes: naturalism and super-naturalism. By placing all super-naturalistic philosophies under the same “umbrella,” IDM hopes to present a more unified front than could be done by any single religiously motivated movement.

Yes, except that the Discoveroids’ insidious Wedge Strategy specifically says: “Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.” That’s their true goal, but unlike AIG, they never admit it.

Amusingly, although the Discoveroids hope that one day they will gather all creationists under their bland, deceptive banner, the hard-core young-Earth types (of which AIG is typical) often find the Discoveroids’ message to be insufficiently sectarian. That’s the position of Georgia Purdom. Klinghoffer quotes her a bit more as she criticizes the Discoveroids:

[Allegedly a quote from Georgia Purdom:] The central problem is they have divorced the Creator from his creation. And by not having the history of the Bible and not understanding the fall of man and the curse on all creation, they have a difficult time explaining evil in the world such as carnivory and flesh-eating bacteria.

She’s right. When faced with sloppy design, or even malevolent design, the Discoveroids can’t blame it on Satan. They are forced to concede that The Designer Can Be Sloppy. That undermines their whole “theory,” which is based on the nonsensical claim that they (and apparently they alone) have the ability to detect design. They’ve gone so far out on that limb that we named it their Theory of Improvident Design. Let’s read on to see what else Klinghoffer has to say:

Dr. Purdom nicely reminds her viewers that ID begins with the evidence, and only the evidence, on a variety of scientific fronts. Surely that’s what makes it so powerful and so interesting.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! He continues:

ID reaches conclusions that leave plenty of room for theism, but it does so without presuppositions beyond a willingness to follow the evidence where it leads.

Uh huh. Except no one — probably not even most Discoveroids — believes that their evidence (of which they have none) leads to Oogity Boogity. Here’s more:

A very different way of reasoning, creationism begins with a favored conclusion, a predetermined religious view and works backward from there, seeking support for faith in a particular way of reading the Bible.

That sounds lovely — except it’s the same with the Discoveroids. Everything they say and do is intended to further their Wedge Strategy — the blatant purpose of which is to suppress science and to institute theocracy. Moving along:

Whether it’s fair or accurate to equate the latter approach [AIG's young-earth creationism], in blanket fashion, with authentic Christianity, effectively requiring it of all Christians, I leave to others to decide. I think that if I were Christian myself and not Jewish, I would find such a notion rather off-putting. In apologetics, the business of Answers in Genesis, the purpose is to convince the unconvinced. But I struggle to see who would be won over by a strategy like that.

What he really means is that the AIG approach has no hope of slipping through the courts to force its way into the public schools, while the Discoveroids still imagine that they have a chance of success with their fraudulent theory. Here’s how he finishes:

Still, the underlying point that Georgia Purdom makes is valid and should be widely broadcast. Her bottom line, her problem with intelligent design, is that ID is science. That fact distinguishes it from creationism, and it is what drives Darwinists mad.

If Georgia Purdom thinks ID is science, will anyone be thereby persuaded to agree? What’s her opinion worth? She actually thinks that AIG’s creation science is science. Nevertheless, Klinghoffer is citing her as an authority to make the point that the Discoveroids aren’t creationists. Well, why not? He probably thinks she’s a dingbat, but he’s willing to exploit her anyway. What else has he got?

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article