We often wonder what motivates 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).
For some of their low-level functionaries, it’s probably just a job that pays the bills. For those at the top, we suspect it’s a raging fury driving them toward changing the world to a Dark Ages theocracy. But what about their mid-level people? What about those whose writings we see at their blog? It can’t be that they’re just earning a paycheck. Some may be genuinely confused and think they’re working for a cutting-edge science outfit, while others seem to be committed ideologues.
We certainly can’t figure out David Klinghoffer, whose creationist oeuvre we last described here, and upon whom the Discoveroids have bestowed the exalted title of “senior fellow” — i.e., flaming, full-blown creationist.
See what you can make of Klinghoffer’s newest article. It’s titled Wikipedia and the Sociology of Darwinian Belief. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us and his links omitted:
I wish I worked as efficiently as Wikipedia’s editors. Last week I noted here [link omitted] that notwithstanding the impressive volume of pro-ID peer-reviewed publications, by researchers within and outside the intelligent-design movement, Wikipedia’s article on ID carries the ridiculously false statement that “The intelligent design movement has not published a properly peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal,” with a footnote to the six-years-old Kitzmiller v. Dover decision.
The “impressive volume of pro-ID peer-reviewed publications”? We assume he means the undistinguished survey-type articles in mediocre trade journals or creationist-run publications recently mentioned by the Discoveroids in posts like this: Our New List of Pro-ID Peer-Reviewed Scientific Papers; 50th Paper Published in 2011.
If Klinghoffer is worried about Wikipedia being out of date by referring to Kitzmiller, what about his creationist colleagues who, by dismissing Darwin, are at least 150 years behind the times? Well, they’ve updated a bit by referring to the fantasies resulting from Alfred Wallace’s late-life dementia. Let’s see what else Klinghoffer says:
Writing us at ENV [the Discoveroids’ blog], a reader in South Africa promptly took it on himself to try to correct the Wiki article and report back about the results. A worthy gesture, but I could have told him he was probably wasting his time.
Correcting Wikipedia is a waste of time? Probably so, for “corrections” attempted by creationists. Let’s read on:
As anyone knows who’s followed the popular Darwinist blogging sites, Darwinism is an ideological movement seemingly rich in believers unhindered by responsibilities to family or work or both, with little better to do day and night than engage in (usually anonymous) skirmishes on the Internet.
Anonymous bloggers with no responsibilities? We wonder to whom he’s referring. Let’s continue:
Editing the Wiki article, our South African friend inserted references to the 50-plus peer-reviewed articles from our updated list of pro-ID scientific literature. Sure enough, within just 30 minutes, someone had erased his additions and substituted snide and again false language to the effect that:
[Klinghoffer’s alleged quote from Wikipedia:] The Discovery Institute insists that a number of intelligent design articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals…. Critics, largely members of the scientific community, reject this claim, stating that no established scientific journal has yet published an intelligent design article. Rather, intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with peer review that lacks impartiality and rigor, consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters.
That seems accurate. By the way, this amusing drama is apparently occurring in this Wikipedia article: Intelligent design. Here’s more from Klinghoffer:
This is preposterous, as anyone who has looked at the list of papers would have to honestly admit. Our South African friend went a few rounds with the Wikipedia editors but, last time I checked, without ultimate success. They kept erasing or editing his edits.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Moving along:
It’s pathetic, but also revealing. As I noted at the American Spectator the other day, Darwinists and other liberals are very big on seeking sociological or medical explanations for the persistent tendency of most Americans to “deny science” by doubting Darwinism, politically correct climate science, and the rest. It tells you something that, in defending their doctrine at Wikipedia, the Darwinian cause can draw on such an impressive body of apparently unemployed and socially isolated devotees.
“Darwinists and other liberals”? Well, he’s not speaking about your Curmudgeon. Another excerpt:
Intelligent design can’t do that. If I had to estimate, based on ample experience, I would say that the sociology of ID leans far, far more in the direction of people tied in with other people — work, family, friends — in other words, with reality.
ID creationists are tied to reality? BWAHAHAHAHA! On with the article:
We don’t live just virtually on the Internet.
But the Discoveroids’ “theory” of intelligent design does live solely on the internet. One last excerpt:
And so, despite the fact that Darwin-doubting represents a majority view in American culture as a whole, we can’t muster the needed forces among the unemployed and isolated to monitor Wikipedia for falsehoods around the clock. We just don’t have the time. We have other things to do.
Whatever else the Discoveroids may have to do, it doesn’t include turning up evidence for their magical designer. If they ever did that kind of research, it would show up in the respected journals — and in Wikipedia.
Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.