WE recently posted about a nasty intra-denominational food-fight between Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Professor Karl W. Giberson. Their ongoing argument involves a few things, but it’s particularly about Mohler’s claim that “the theory of evolution is incompatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ.” See Are Evolution and Christianity Incompatible?
The matter being entirely theological in nature, and not being a scientific debate in any way, we chose merely to mention the dispute’s existence and to otherwise stay out of it. Most of us know that we shouldn’t intrude on what is purely a family quarrel. We prefer leaving it to the members of that denomination to decide how much of science — if any — their sect will accept.
But not everyone was raised with our sensibilities. David Klinghoffer has jumped in all the way, and the effect is most amusing. For those who don’t know who Klinghoffer is, here’s some background information, which most of you can skip:
David Klinghoffer is a “Senior Fellow” (i.e., full-blown creationist) among 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). David has his own blog, where his posts often duplicate what he says at the Discoveroids’ blog, or which are often praised by his comrades at the Discoveroid blog.
He has written a series of essays attempting to link Charles Darwin to: Hitler, and communism, and Stalin, and the Columbine shootings, and Charles Manson, and Holocaust Museum shooter, James von Brunn, and the Ft. Hood Massacre, and Mao Tse-tung, and Dr. Josef Mengele, and the Occult, and most recently The Dark Side of Darwinism.
And now, dear reader, we present you with some excerpts from Karl Giberson v. Al Mohler on Darwin: The Grudge Match, Klinghoffer’s latest post at the Discoveroids’ blog. The bold font was added by us:
It’s always a bad sign when people start publishing “open letters” to one another. Our BioLogos friend Karl Giberson is embroiled in a strangely bitter dispute with Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Bitter, at least, on Dr. Giberson’s side. In this dustup, theistic evolutionist Giberson displays a lot less dignity than the object of his ire, Dr. Mohler, and less regard for truth notwithstanding that it’s precisely a lack of truthfulness with which he seeks to tar Mohler.
Observe that Klinghoffer gets judgmental with his first paragraph. He describes the dispute as “strangely bitter,” and then in the next sentence he says: “Bitter, at least, on Dr. Giberson’s side.” Let’s read on:
The cartoon-like uncharitableness of these totally unsupported allegations — Mohler calls them “shocking,” and he’s right — is in contrast with Mohler’s own restrained response.
Cartoon-like? A creationist is accusing someone of being cartoon-like? Hey, Klinghoffer: the cartoonists are on your side. We continue:
The Southern Baptist theologian, unlike Giberson, declines to make personal attacks and sticks instead to the misleading theology and history in Giberson’s book.
We thought that even Klinghoffer would be clever enough to avoid expressing a theological judgment — but we were wrong. He says there is “misleading theology” in Giberson’s book.
As someone outside the Christian community, I won’t try to adjudicate the faith issues separating these two men.
No, of course not — except that he just did so. Having done that, Klinghoffer then uses his vast store of knowledge to decide which of the two is correct about history and science. We’ll skip most of his post because you can click over there to read it all if you care to do so. Here’s what he says at the end, where he reaches his conclusion:
On the Internet, scurrilous personal attacks and innuendo never die. Neither Giberson nor Mohler gets the history exactly right. But Mohler corrects the record, while Giberson piles on the personal insults and wild slanders. If you were looking for a guide to history, or theology or science, which man would you trust?
The interesting thing here isn’t that Klinghoffer is choosing sides in a denominational feud that doesn’t affect him, or that he’s choosing the wrong side on issues of history and science. Such blunders are to be expected. What interests us is the way he chooses sides. He says that “Giberson piles on the personal insults and wild slanders.” Then he asks: “which man would you trust?”
Theology aside, is that how questions of science and history are decided?
There is great irony here, dear reader. What we’ve seen of Klinghoffer’s career as a Discoveroid consists of little more than writing “wild slanders” — at least when he’s writing about Darwin and evolution — as a glance at his above-described oeuvre will indicate. Never mind whether he’s accurate in his opinion of Giberson’s history and science; he isn’t, but that’s not the issue here.
Even if he were accurate, Klinghoffer is judging the Mohler-Giberson dispute not on verifiable facts, but on his estimate of which man’s writing is more repugnant. It’s a test that Klinghoffer himself could never pass — but he seems utterly unaware of that.
We give must the Discoveroids credit. Our guess is that they didn’t hire Klinghoffer for his intellect. Rather, they keep him on the payroll for his willingness to load and operate their Cow-flop Catapult and hurl its contents at any target they assign. He does it well, but working with that material for so long seems to have impaired his judgment.
Addendum: Albert Mohler has a guest column appearing in the Christian Post: ‘Prettifying’ Darwin. We’ll quote his final two sentences:
The real meaning of evolution’s central doctrines runs directly counter to the central doctrines of Christianity. Accommodation with evolution is a disastrous doctrinal strategy.
That should be very appealing to the Discoveroids.
Update: See Science and Southern Baptists Agree on Something.
Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
At least implicitly, and usually explicitly, creationism/ID must and does begin with defamation of honest science and scientists. Science is simply hostile to God, so the story goes, and that’s why science rules out claims based upon unobservable magic and thus creation/design.
Klinghoffer is particularly clueless and nasty, but he fits right in with the founding dishonesty and cluelessness of ID.
I’m sure I must be misinterpreting this, but at first glance, it seems to be that Klinghoffer is judging the merits of the arguments by the personal traits of the two. That Giberson is wrong, because he is judging Mohler – in K.’s judgment.
That couldn’t be right, for wouldn’t it be self-defeating?
Klinghoffer is a quote-miner. To mine a quote you first have to read it, and then chop it up to make it as damning as possible. This is lying, plain and simple.
Hes’s NOT clueless.
He is about science, and, I rather suspect, about epistemology at large.
Considering Klinghoffer has fewer academic and professional credentials than Casey Luskin, is that an insult or an accolade?
“academic and professional credentials” are only as good as the use you put them toward. Needless to say, I think Klinghoffer and Luskin are wasting theirs.
The letters by Giberson and Mohler are actually interesting to read, and to their credit, DI links to both. Giberson represents the classic case of liberal christian who accepts the work of scientists and historians in teasing out truths from nature, and so adapts his theological beliefs to accommodate those truths. Mohler, on the other hand, is the classic example of the fundamentalist thinker who does the exact opposite – he must maintain an altered view of the natural world (and thus scientists and historians) to accommodate his belief in the literal truth of the bible. Both seem to be good writers, approaching the problem from opposite positions. Of course, in doing so, they simply talk past each other. Giberson wonders why Mohler cannot see the “truth” (the evidence of nature) and Mohler complains that Giberson has rejected the “truth” (the evidence of scripture).
To me, it is very telling that Klinghoffer comes down squarely on the side of Mohler, especially in his concluding “who are you going to believe” statement. The DI purportedly is an advocate for science, and many of them pretend to be scientists themselves. They advance ID as a scientific alternative to evolution, and go to great lengths to distance themselves from their former association with creationism. Yet in his blog, Klinghoffer (who presumably speaks for the DI) comes down squarely on the side of the scripture advocate in this scripture vs. science debate. He tells his readers that they should look to the person who is specifically arguing against science based on it’s incompatibility with scripture, as the preferred guide to science, and history (and, of course, theology) .
It’s hard to figure out why he wrote the blog in the first place, other than to defend a fellow attacker of evolution. However, by doing so he is clearly demonstrating the DI’s view of science in general, and the hollowness of their pretension that ID is anything other than creationism dressed up in a lab coat.
Ed says:
This is why you need your Curmudgeon to guide you through the rough waters. The Discoveroids are waging war, not scientific debate. In war, when necessary, one seeks out allies wherever they may be. If and when the war is won, there will be ample time to settle old antagonisms. Best example: Churchill very reluctantly accepted the necessity of an alliance with Stalin, and after the war he made his “Iron Curtain” speech.
The Discoveroids are on the verge of losing their entire game, and suddenly this very influential SBC leader speaks out publicly against evolution. That’s a huge denomination that probably represents the bulk of America’s creationists. This is a heaven-sent opportunity for the Discoveroids, so to speak.
True, Mohler seems to be a bible-based creationist. I don’t see the slightest trace of “creation science” in his writing (there may be that in his other work, but I haven’t looked). The Discoveroids have always kept their distance from overtly religious, young-earth creationists, but now they’re getting desperate and they don’t really care. Any port in a storm, as it were. Mohler represents lots of people and lots of potential support — not only financial support, but lobbying support, which is far more important.
My guess is that a decision was made in Seattle to put out a feeler to see how Mohler reacts. But this is tricky stuff, and it could blow up in their faces. Any Discoveroid initiative offering a temporary alliance has to be deniable. Thus the article was written by Klinghoffer (who is sooooooo expendable) and not by Chapman.
I, like Ed, have read both Gibberson’s and Mohler’s pieces (btw, nice post Ed), and it seems, as with all Young Earth Creationists, as Mohler explains it,
The fundamental problem is this; How can one complain that another is rejecting the “truth” (the evidence of scripture) when simultaneously, no confirming evidence is offered, merely biblical authority, and any contrary evidence must be “taken off the table”?
Doesn’t this reveal far more than an interdenominational argument?
Doesn’t this, at the face, reveal a completely irrational revelation?
has to be rejected out of hand as in direct contradiction to our understanding of the Bible as the inerrant and infallible word of God.
Interesting.
It has to be rejected because it is in contradiction to their understanding.
Which makes their understanding infallible, like the Pope’s.
Let’s get it straight. The DI is strictly against evolution.
Strictly.
They’ll side, even temporarily, with anybody who opposes evolution; any scientist, pseudo-scientist, non-scientist, crackpot, creationist, atheist and even the Pope himself if convenient.
They make and break alliances like the rest of us make and break wind, with about the same effect.
The DI has no interest in science or science education. None whatsoever. They aren’t in search of the Truth ™ , or knowledge or anything.
The DI is only after power and control. Nothing more. That’s why it’s futile and nonsensical to “debate” DI fellows or treat them with even a modicum of respect or deference. They must be mocked and laughed at and ridiculed and portrayed as the clowns they are.
The DI begs for legitimacy. Look at the clowns in that tent: Dembski, Behe, Berlinski, Luskin, Meyer. They are all pseudo-intellectuals, legends in their own minds, but where are they really? Dembski’s at a Bible college, Behe’s own department has a sign that reads, “Danger! Crazy man lives here!,” Berlinski doesn’t even have a job, Luskin – never mind, and Meyer, their Top Scientist du Jour gets gigs on the 700 Club. High-larry-us!
Oh, and in addition to mocking please be generous with your donation to state science organizations like the Kansas Citizens for Science, the Texas Freedom Network and the NCSE. They do the yeoman’s work, we’re just the audience.