Discovery Institute: Dominionists? No Way!

The incredible cascade of creationism continues. Today we have yet another blog item from David Klinghoffer, who holds the exalted title of “senior fellow” (i.e., flaming, full-blown creationist), bestowed upon him by 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).

You probably know who Klinghoffer is, but if not, we last described him here. Klinghoffer’s latest contribution to the Discoveroids’ blog is “Dominionist” Darwinism.

You can’t begin to appreciate Klinghoffer’s title without knowing something about Dominionism and Dominion Theology. That movement is mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Howard Ahmanson, Jr., known to be a generous patron of the Discoveroids, but they don’t flat-out say that Ahmanson is a Dominionist. But it’s close. Ah, this article makes the connection. We don’t know Mr. Ahmanson, so make of it what you will.

Now that you’re up to speed, you’re ready for some excerpts from Klinghoffer’s little essay on what he calls “Dominionist” Darwinism. Here we go, with bold font added by us, and links deleted:

Our friend and colleague Nancy Pearcey has a good piece in Human Events taking off from a New Yorker attack piece on Michele Bachmann who, for reading and admiring Nancy’s book Total Truth, is smeared as a Christian “dominionist.” The word is a made-up term, hitherto unfamiliar to Pearcey or to me.

Klinghoffer never heard of the word “Dominionist” before. You believe him, don’t you, dear reader? Of course you do. He continues:

It’s intended to cast an innocent idea championed by Pearcey — that Christianity (or one might add, Judaism) describes a holistic worldview rather than just a “religion” — into a sinister light conjuring fears of theocratic plots.

Jeepers — sinister theocratic plots! Who in his right mind would ever associate such an idea with the Discoveroids? That’s absurd, right?

Haven’t we seen this tactic before? Sure we have. It was way back, more than three years ago, when we posted Discovery Institute — Deny, Deny, Deny! There we first described a tactic the Discoveroids used to deny the very common observation that Intelligent Design proponents are really creationists in disguise. We said it was:

[T]heir tactic of openly declaring the full truth of their motivations, but thinly disguising it as an absurdity that only their misguided adversaries believe. Yes — how ridiculous that the Discoveroids might actually be promoting an anti-science agenda!

There were subsequent occasions when they used that tactic, and when we posted about it. See The Wedge Document, So What?, and also Klinghoffer: “What, me worry?”, and also Klinghoffer: “You Caught Us. So What?”, and there were a few others, but that’ll give you the general idea. They use that tactic all the time.

Okay, back to Klinghoffer. Pay attention now. If he’s true to the “Deny, Deny, Deny!” tactic, he won’t refute the dominionist charge. Oh no, he’ll just deny it by claiming it’s absurd, and he’ll start insulting his critics. Watch how it’s done:

Yet even discarding the scare-word aspect of the term, couldn’t we say the same of many other ideas in wide circulation in our culture? As Nancy points out, for example, in the minds of many Darwinists, a theory that took root in the fields of biology and history has all-encompassing implications, far beyond the narrow realm of explaining the mechanism by which life evolves: ….

We’ve omitted the quote from Klinghoffer’s friend Nancy, claiming that “Darwinism” is an all-encompassing world view that includes politics, sexuality, music, and literature. Yes, that guy Darwin did it all, which is why (according to Klinghoffer) the “Darwinists” are Dominionists. It must be true because his friend Nancy says so. Therefore, pay no attention to anyone’s assertion that the Discoveroids are Dominionists.

Wasn’t that sweet? Klinghoffer concludes with this:

If Pearcey and Bachmann’s Christianity is “dominionist,” no less so, for many evolutionists, is Darwinism.

So there you are. The Discoveroids aren’t Dominionists — you are! Nyaaa, nyaaaa, nyaaaah!

Copyright © 2011. 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

15 responses to “Discovery Institute: Dominionists? No Way!

  1. I am now persuaded that Klinghoffer is suffering (in my opinion) from some psychosis that prevents him from seeing what is staring him in the face…similar to someone who has a shotgun pointed at his nose, but insists that he sees no weapon and that no one is threatening him. The word “dominionism” in the context he wishes to deny, has been around for 40 +/- years, The idea, of course, has been around considerably longer than that in one form or another.

  2. Ellie says:

    I am now persuaded that Klinghoffer is suffering (in my opinion) from some psychosis that prevents him from seeing what is staring him in the face

    I think he knows exactly what’s going on.

  3. Of course Klinghoffer knows what is going on. The Wedge Document shows that DI is going after the Education Peak of Dominionism.

  4. I am now persuaded that Klinghoffer is suffering (in my opinion) from some psychosis

    Don’t medicalize him. Don’t give him that excuse. He’s a literary con artist–I’d compare him to a prostitute but prostitutes are honest about what they sell. He takes money, and lots of it, to spread lies.

  5. Hello Klingerklanger! Wedge Document calling!

  6. Just to be clear, I believe Klinghoffer knows what is going on. It is my opinion, however, that he does not believe (and I’ll admit psychosis may be the incorrect word) it will ever affect him, nor do I think he understands that those Liars For Jesus with whom he works, don’t really give a rat;’s behind about him.

  7. Warning: Turn off irony meters:

    I’m getting a case of deja-vu. A nice Jewish guy telling people what they don’t want to hear, then getting “persecuted.” 😉

  8. Well Frank, if he didn’t have such idiot ideas, those ideas wouldn’t get ‘persecuted’.
    The way DI believes one error in the ToE will bring down the entire synthesis makes them more Dominoists than Dominionists, and we all know how much energy Dominoists expend setting them up so they can knock them down.

  9. One of the 20-year goals in the wedge strategy is:

    “To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral, and political life.”

    Sounds pretty much like Klinghoofer’s definition of dominionism.

    The New Yorker profile on Bachmann was quite enlightening, well researched – and a bit scary. It says something about the current state of our political system that candidates such as Bachmann are viable contenders for a major party nomination.

  10. Klinghoffer doesn’t seem to realize the potential backlash of using terms like “Dominionist.” It’s political kryptonite for his side, despite the obvious attempt to distort its meaning by artificially grafting Darwin’s name onto it. It’s not an easy fit – and will only make people aware of the original scary concept.

    Personally, I couldn’t have defined “Dominionism” until I read the Wikipedia links. That may be the case with most Americans. Acquainting them with the word (especially since it seems to share a root word with “domination”) will make them wary all right – but not of Darwin!

    BTW, Klinghoffer cites some interesting items in his column. The Singing Neanderthals and Madame Bovary’s Ovaries are going right into my Amazon list!

  11. b_sharp says: “more Dominoists than Dominionists”

    Hee hee.

  12. I had missed Madame Bovary’s Ovaries, but I just put in a request for it at my public library.

  13. Klinghoffer’s whole little rant boils down to:
    “I know you are, but what am I?”

  14. @Ed: Spread the word about Bachman, she’s a nut job. I’m not sure who would be worse to get a presidential nomination, Bachman or H. Clinton. I’ll probably be voting for our Curmudgeon in the next election.

  15. sorry, that was off topic. but on the topic of the Dominionists, Klinger is totally one of them. He needs to get hit in the head with his wedge.