Klinghoffer Attacks the New “Cosmos” Series

Yesterday we wrote Discoveroids Unwittingly Plug the New “Cosmos”. The pilot episode for the series hasn’t aired yet, and the Discoveroids are already out of their minds.

Today they’re at it again, and they’ve given the job of attacking the show to David Klinghoffer, the Discoveroids’ journalistic slasher and poo flinger. He has just written New Cosmos Series Has Intelligent Design in Its Crosshairs. There’s not much to it, but it’s a great reminder that the show debuts tomorrow. Here are some excerpts from Klinghoffer’s brief rant, with bold font added by us:

In case you had any uncertainty about the upcoming 13-part Cosmos series, a revival of the Carl Sagan franchise, executive producer Seth MacFarlane has Darwin skeptics and alternatives to Darwinian evolution very much in his crosshairs. This is a major and costly project, though Fox won’t say how costly — so it’s flattering in a way.

Yes, it is flattering — in the same way that vaccination is flattering to the smallpox virus. Then Klinghoffer quotes from a recent interview of MacFarlane in the Los Angeles Times:

We’ve had a resurgence of creationism and intelligent design quote-unquote theory. There’s been a real vacuum when it comes to science education.

[...]

You see it in the rise of schools questioning evolution, all these things piling up that betray the fact that we’ve lost our way in terms of our scientific literacy and it’s incredibly damaging to the evolution of any society. I thought we solved this whole evolution thing years and years ago but I guess not, I guess it still needs to be explained. There are a number of areas where scientific illiteracy rears its head.

It’s not difficult to understand the Discoveroids’ concern. This new series is their worst nightmare. But Klinghoffer isn’t giving up. He says:

I would bet that MacFarlane has no idea about the details of the challenge from intelligent design, whether in the realm of cosmology or biology, as most people who denounce ID in the name of “scientific literacy” do not. Today, materialism of the Carl Sagan variety is overwhelmingly maintained by a careful averting of the eyes from counterevidence and counterarguments.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Right, David. You guys keep telling us that you’ve got an Ark-load of counterevidence. But we’ve been following your movement rather carefully, and so far, you haven’t shown us anything.

After that reference to a huge but never-seen cache of evidence, Klinghoffer quotes something from Discoveroid Steve Meyer, who mumbles about how they’re “just beginning to uncover the scientific evidence that the material cosmos is not all there is.” Then Klinghoffer concludes with a teaser:

We’ll have more to say about Cosmos after we’ve seen the first episode on Sunday.

Thanks, David, for the reminder to watch the show tomorrow. We can’t decide what we’re looking forward to most — the show or your reaction to it. Maybe it’s the combination that will make the new series so memorable.

Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

40 responses to “Klinghoffer Attacks the New “Cosmos” Series

  1. Klingy said:

    I would bet that MacFarlane has no idea about the details of the challenge from intelligent design

    Kinda hard to have an idea about nothing. “Hey, Klingy, here’s nothing at all! What do you think about it?

  2. anevilmeme

    Our Curmudgeon wrote:

    “…..and the Discoveroids are already out of their minds.”

    They haven’t been on speaking terms with their minds in a long time. Let’s be honest now, the Discoveroids wouldn’t be able to (if you’ll pardon the term) ID their minds in a police line up.

  3. SC posts, “After that reference to a huge but never-seen cache of evidence, Klinghoffer quotes something …”

    Of course it’s never-seen… it’s spiritual, not material. Klingy is always ranting on about the materialism of science.

    The ID-ologues can’t see their “evidence” either, for the same reason. But they just know it’s there; they can just feel it in their heads. In fact, that’s the only place their “evidence” exists — in their heads.

    (Special note to Klinghoffer: Science is the means by which we attempt to understand the universe. The universe is real; i.e., material. Therefore, science is materialistic. Your so-called “Intelligent Design” brand of creationism is not science; it is spiritualism. It cannot manifest itself in any material way; therefore, it can never be disproven.)

  4. Remember that one time when the Discovery Institute got upset because Darwin’s Doubt was being criticized before it was released? Surely, Klinghoffer wouldn’t stoop so low, right?

    #Klinghoffered

  5. …it’s flattering in a way.

    Yeah, Kling, it’s all about you. If it weren’t for your employer, no one would ever think to remake and update a highly successful show with a new charismatic personality and air it on commercial television. That just never happens, does it?

  6. Creacrap is a disease that rots the brain away, MG, including memory.

  7. Pete Moulton

    Klinghoffer writes: “We’ll have more to say about Cosmos after we’ve seen the first episode on Sunday.”

    I’m sure you will, Little Davey. In fact, I’m banking on it. You IDiots never pass up an opportunity to display your abject ignorance of science in public, do you? It’ll be a good laugh to help me start off the new week.

  8. Rikki_Tikki_Taalik

    Meyer’s blurb …

    “The problem with materialists is they think that in [the brief span of the history of modern science], science has got all the mysteries of existence figured out…”

    Steve loves a good strawman. Can Steve name one “materialist” and demonstrate that this person actually thinks that ? Somehow I doubt it. Actually, I’d put money on it. Meyer continues …

    “In fact, we are just beginning to uncover the scientific evidence that the material cosmos is not all there is.”

    And as per usual, no examples of this evidence are provided by either of them. But at least Klingster got his typical preening bravado across…

    .”.. Seth MacFarlane has Darwin skeptics and alternatives to Darwinian evolution very much in his crosshairs. This is a major and costly project, though Fox won’t say how costly — so it’s flattering in a way.”

    Yeah Klingster, it’s all about you and the other merry band of bumbling propagandists over there. *gack*

    You know what I’ve noticed for some time now Klingster? Wherever you go, unless one is spending time on the very few sites like UD or ENV or the usual suspects that expose their antics like WEIT, Sandwalk, PT, here at Curmy’s, etc., nobody out there is actually using any ID arguments anywhere. Maybe the occasional IC/ID god of the gaps is feebly pushed, but for the most part the people that are objecting to evolution are using the standard old YEC crap from places like AIG ,ICR, or crap they picked up at Sunday School.

    How many “letters to the editor” have we seen here that Curmy put up have actually bothered to even mention ID? We hear a lot about the supposed “counterevidence and counterarguments” from the DI, but either nobody seems to know about them, they don’t exist, or nobody actually cares. Not even the DI it seems. Other than some occasional lip service, even Dembski and Behe have dumped the gig as far as I can tell.

    *shrug*

  9. Rikki_Tikki_Taalik

    Oh, and one more for the Klingster just in case he’s listening. Why is it that over at Smilodons Retreat where the review of Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt continues, nobody is bothering to defend the nonsense and dishonesty he has exposed in the book? Where are the articles at ENV or UD to rebut him after all the sneering that came from you guys that “Darwinists” couldn’t deal with the book?

    Why is it that the ever taunting Rex Tugwell, the only guy who’s bothering to try to defend the book over there and at Amazon.com with any vigor, runs away any time he’s asked to point out where in the book there is any positive argument or positive evidence for ID? Rex has been asked time and time again to point to an argument in the book or otherwise that isn’t a “we doubt that evolution can do this” smeared over with a quotemine or some misrepresentation of actual science and it doesn’t seem possible.

    Can you help Rex? Perhaps you or Meyer can write an article and point out where this elusive “information” is? I won’t be holding my breath though. Of course, even I know I’m wasting my time typing all this crap out because this is all about propaganda for the court system and selling books.

  10. I was looking through my TV listings to see what channel I had to watch to view the first Cosmos show. It wasn’t listed for any of the channels in my cable package. So I called Comcast to order it. After the usual nightmare of going through all their menus and recordings and people reading scripts, it turns out that it’s supposed to be on a couple of the Fox channels I already have, but it’s not listed yet. Strange. Maybe it’ll be listed tomorrow.

  11. Our Curmudgeon is puzzled that Cosmos is

    supposed to be on a couple of the Fox channels I already have, but it’s not listed yet. Strange.

    NASA deleted it from your listings, just like they took down their webpage on the Blood Moon Eclipses. They’re still covering up how they faked the lunar landings, and that the Face on Mars was genuinely built by intelligent aliens.

  12. docbill1351

    Some years ago I was a mentor in the Gifted and Talented program for high school kids in our local school district. (I know, right? Turned me loose with a bunch of malleable minds; what were they thinking?)

    So, what Klingwhiner brayed was particularly interesting, but not in the way Klinkle’s rat-infested brain imagined:

    I would bet that MacFarlane has no idea about the details of the challenge from intelligent design, whether in the realm of cosmology or biology, as most people who denounce ID in the name of “scientific literacy” do not.

    This is a Common Whine from the Disco Tute that EVERYBODY misunderstands “intelligent design” creationism. Of course, we know, and they know, and they know we know, it’s not the case. The Tute knows the scam and we know the scam, so it’s all a game.

    However, consider this. With a group of bright high school students who have yet to take college-level chemistry, math, physics or biology I was able to discuss with them, in semi-detailed terms, the essence of cosmology, the general theory of relativity, the photoelectric effect as a demonstration of quantum mechanics, the theory of evolution, the history of atomic theory and descriptions of atomic structure, and the stellar synthesis of elements from hydrogen through iron (and beyond). These kids had no problems with any of these concepts.

    Yet, somehow, for some reason, the Disco Tute after 20 years still can’t articulate a theory of “intelligent design” creationism that can be understood by not only high school students but PhD level scientists. It’s really quite amazing when you think about it. Quite amazing.

  13. waldteufel

    docbill, they can’t articulate a theory of “intelligent design” creationism because they don’t have one. All they can do it to set the Gerbil to the task of lying to school boards about science, task Klingkerpooper with smearing scientists both living and dead, and churn out books of pseudoscience laced with sciency sounding (to the rubes) verbiage. They have nothing but a dark desire to destroy science education in the civilized world. As our distinguished Curmudgeon is wont to say . . . the Discoveroids are the enemies of the Enlightenment. They really are a sinister enemy; well funded by dedicated and delusional maniacs who are bent on marching western civilization straight back to a thirteenth century Christian dominionist theocracy.

  14. waldteufel

    BTW docbill, your teaching story reminds me of one myself. My son was in an accelerated learning program at a rural elementary school, and a couple of times the teachers asked me to come and give lectures to the kids about geology and a little astronomy. I quit doing that in disgust when the main teacher in the program pulled me aside to caution me about telling the innocent little kiddies that the universe was almost 14 billion years old . . . . because her Christian bible clearly indicates that the universe and earth were created 6,000 years ago. Up to that point, I was blissfully ignorant of the rampant creationism smuggled into the classrooms by religiously motivated, ignorant teachers. Needless to say, I pulled my son out of that school and put him in a real one.

  15. @SC: Fox Network carries The Simpsons, Family Guy, American Idol, 24, etc. Look for listing of those programs. I haven’t seen what time it airs, but I imagine tomorrow’s newspapers will have info.

    You’re C.I.T.A.D.E.L. is in Florida, right? If you are in the Orlando broadcasting region, Fox is Channel 35-1.

  16. retiredsciguy, I knew the channels, but for some weird reason, Cosmos wasn’t listed on any of them earlier. It is now. I can get it on three different Fox channels, all at 9:00 tomorrow night. The only remaining problem is … will my clocks be correctly set?

  17. Cosmos airs at 9 EDT; 8 Central.

  18. I should have refreshed my screen before posting. Sorry about that.

  19. Stephen Kennedy

    @waldteufel

    I fear that your experience in a rural school is not an isolated event and is one reason that creationism is still widely held to be true in many areas of the U.S. The teachers, particularly in rural areas and the South are often open creationists, do not care that promoting religion in the classroom is against the law and firmly believe that even in the public schools the students should get a “biblical” education.

    Even teachers who are not crusading creationists often tailor their lessons so they will not conflict with creationism. In many parts of the country parents are not going to complain if you avoid issues like the age of the Universe in science classes but you will certainly have to deal with angry parents, school administrators and school boards and people in the community if you teach that it is nearly 14 billion years old.

    I am glad my two sons went to a large suburban high school near Sacramento, California where creationist teachers would not be tolerated. They are in college now where my oldest is doing a double major in Geology and Physics and my younger one is majoring in Computer Science and minoring in Physics. I am sure it would have been a real disadvantage to my son taking Geology classes at a public university if he had been taught in high school that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

  20. Lst yr @DiscoveryCSC bitchd bout Meyers book being criticzd b4 publctn. Now @d_klinghoffer critczs Cosmos b4 seeng it http://bit.ly/1ik4ldf

    H/t Mark Germano

  21. Our Curmudgeon provides an update:

    for some weird reason, Cosmos wasn’t listed on any of them earlier. It is now.

    Hah! We caught NASA red-handed–just as WND did over the Blood Moon Eclipse ‘now you see it now you don’t’ webpage–and they have restored your telly listings in the hope we won’t notice their sinister game.

    What more proof do you want that the the government is a vast conspiracy to force Darwinist atheisitical cannibalism on God’s own people?

  22. For those interested (and with a free 10 hours or so), Nat Geo is running “The Original Cosmos” episodes this afternoon right up until 9 pm. Then, they are also airing the new version. Unlike Fox, Nat Geo will air it multiple times, a boon to those with DVR conflicts.

    Hail Sagan!

  23. @SK: my son went to a rural school in Suriname – the same school where I teach. Despite the village being very religious I don’t have any problems when telling that the Universe is 13,7 billion years old, the Great Flood is a myth etc. Even if some people contradict me now and then I can shrug it off by saying “that’s what science tells us”.
    My son studies math and informatica at The University of Amsterdam. So you’re describing a typical American problem, I’m afraid.

  24. The show starts in an hour and a half — at least where I am. It’s on some Fox channels (not Fox News) and also National Geographic. Unless you watch it, you won’t be able to appreciate the howling from the Discoveroids tomorrow.

  25. I watched it, and except for the stupid hucksters trying to sell shiny things every 8-10 minutes it was pretty good. Too bad PBS didn’t pick it up. The series would be vastly better without commercial interruptions. Next week I’ll try watching Cosmos on the National Geographic Channel in hopes of more Cosmos and possibly fewer commercials. I watch very little commercial network TV, so my hopes might be naive and wrong.

    All that said, I’m looking forward to Klinglepooper’s whining about Cosmos after he gets orders from his Discoveroid overlords. Also, I’m hoping for some reactions from the dullards at AIG. Those clowns are always good for a laugh.

  26. The Discoveroids are already whining and sniveling! Oooooh this is gonna be fun. Run out and get plenty of popcorn, kiddies! Neil DeGrasse Tyson has to be their worst nightmare!

  27. I agree — pretty good, overall. I especially like Tyson’s delivery — friendly, low-key, matter-of-fact, but with a quiet enthusiasm — nice balance. Easy to watch, which should go a long way toward gaining friends for real science. His personal tribute to Sagan at the end was particularly moving.

    A couple of minor quibbles — the animation showing the spacecraft of imagination flying through the asteroid belt was TOTALLY unrealistic — way too many asteroids; way too close together. If you were actually in space close enough to an asteroid to see surface detail, you would be unable to see any other asteroids, unless your asteroid happened to have a satellite.

    Same thing goes for the depiction of the Kepler Belt (home of Pluto) and the Oort Cloud. The animation Department got a bit carried away for the sake of drama.

    In future episodes, I hope Tyson goes into more detail showing the evidence upon which our understanding of the universe is based. It is, after all, what makes astronomy a science, not conjecture.

  28. Spaceship of the imagination… Is Tyson the first black guy in space since Lando Calrissian?

  29. “Is Tyson the first black guy in space since Lando Calrissian?”

    Infidel! Have you forgotten Louis Farrakhan’s UFO?

  30. Stephen Kennedy

    In his blog today Hambo promised an AIG review of “Cosmos” and expressed the fear that there might be “evolutionary content” in it. Prepare for a lot of complaining about “millions of years” from Hambo. Hambo will also grouse about the show pointing out that it was not just the Catholic Church but the prominent Protestants of the time that Hambo reveres, such as Luther and Calvin, were also very hostile to Copernicus and Heliocentrism.

    The only complaint I have about the show is that there seemed to be an inordinate number of commercials.

  31. retiredsciguy says: “I especially like Tyson’s delivery”

    Agreed. He’s an excellent choice. I thought the show was grand in its sweep but thin on specifics. Well, it’s the introductory episode. And I think it’s a bit heavy on special effects, but a lecture-and-blackboard style wouldn’t attract a large audience. The commercials don’t bother me. I’ve got a “mute” button, and I’m glad to see the free enterprise system supporting a show like this. I didn’t need Obama’s 30-second appearance before the show started.

    Now I’m trying to anticipate the criticisms from the usual suspects. Ol’ Hambo is very predictable. He’ll be having fits about billions of years, the Big Bang, and the fact that it wasn’t the Genesis account. The Discoveroids will be wailing that there was no mention of the magical designer who fine-tuned it all. They’ll probably nit-pick the stuff about Bruno, because — as we know — they don’t have any problem with inquisitions and torching heretics.

  32. docbill1351

    I actually got to watch some of it live while getting dinner ready. I rarely watch TV these days. I thought his Calendar of the Universe was nicely done and it was a good introduction to the series. Having watched the original Cosmos, and watched clips since then, I recognized many parts where Tyson channeled Sagan. The finale was especially moving.

    Overall, I prefer Tyson to Nye by a long shot. Tyson is still a lot of fun, has enthusiasm and gravitas whereas Nye is just a clown.

  33. Diogenes quips, “Is Tyson the first black guy in space since Lando Calrissian?”

    No. There have been 15 — 14 American; one Cuban. The Cuban was the first Black in space, aboard Soyez in 1980. (Three were women, so if you want to get technical, 12 black “guys”in space.)

    Here are the details:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_black_astronauts

  34. It may be pointless to add this after so many comments, but if it gets just one reader to think, it’s worth it:

    20 years of incessant Discoveroid whining all reduces to this:

    1. ID is defined such that the only way to not be accused of “misunderstanding” it is to rave about it, or at least whine much more about “Darwinism” than about ID, as do committed Biblical literalists like Ken Ham. Since Discoveroids love to play the word game that “ID is not creationism,” I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt that they have also accused some “creationists” of not understanding ID either. If they haven’t, their double standard is even more self-incriminating than I thought.

    2. The one and only essential component of ID is the baseless, paranoid charge that mainstream science is “conspiring” against all “critics,” be they ID peddlers, Biblical creationists, or anyone else under the big tent. Everything else you equate with ID, from the “irreducible” or “specified” complexity, the long-refuted “weaknesses” of evolution “borrowed” from Biblical creationists, even the rare personal speculations about “what happened when, in lieu of evolution” is optional. Except maybe the Hitler thing. That always seems to be the last refuge of an ID peddler.

  35. RSG: “No. There have been 15 — 14 American; one Cuban. The Cuban was the first Black in space, aboard Soyez in 1980. (Three were women, so if you want to get technical, 12 black “guys”in space.)”

    That’s not “space”! That’s low Earth orbit. If you’re not exceeding the speed of light, it’s not really space.

    And don’t give me a list of Jews in space. Nothing will ever outdo Mel Brooks’ Star of David shaped spaceships.

  36. The Tooters should be happy with the intro [and likely the rest of the series] – Tyson covered every bit of documented evidence for the work of an intelligent designer.

  37. It is interesting when one uses familiar religious references to assuage the listener to try something better. Buyer beware to the disingenuity of such “friendly” talk of “come with me”, “tree of life”, “all life is one”., having a “spiritual” experience with cosmic knowledge. Everybody is selling something, and Cosmos is selling you a philosophy more than science. Give me the science, the beautiful observations and inquiry, but I jettison it’s humanism and materialism and not so veiled atheism. I think Newton would do the same. Cosmos beautifully details Newton and his scientific discoveries but subtly denies the “clock maker” or his “notes” to us “orphans” to which Newton professed faith in. Logic is a casualty of error here. We can work together here, yet let everyone be persuaded for himself. Whom is your pied piper?

  38. It’s who, not whom.

  39. Thank you brother (in the true Cosmos sense).

  40. It’s also its.