Once again, we’re confronted with an article by 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.
Neither a lawyer nor a fallen scientist, Klinghoffer plays the role of house mystic — a convenient guise for a retained essayist whose principal job is to enthusiastically function as an unrestrained journalistic slasher whenever his creationist masters assign him to the task. He’s very useful to 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).
Klinghoffer’s latest at the Discoveroids’ blog is If You Want a Good Story, Look to Darwinian Evolution, Not Intelligent Design. It’s mostly about nit-picking some articles by others, and we won’t bother with that. Someone wrote that evolution “lacks the universal grammar of storytelling,” so it doesn’t connect emotionally with people. Silly stuff. But what we find interesting is what Klinghoffer has to say about his own thinking — such as it is. It’s quite revealing, if one cares to think about it. Here we go, with bold font added by us:
The intention [of the “storytelling” concept], of course, is to patronize evolution skeptics. We can’t get over our need to hear a good story, a need that in turn is “wired” in the brain.
We don’t “patronize” creationists around here. Ridicule is more our style. Klinghoffer continues:
You may have noticed something, however, about intelligent design. It tells an even lousier story than Darwinian evolution. Unlike Darwinism or Biblical creationism, it offers a narrative full of questions that remain unanswered. There’s a general drift to it: the evidence points to intelligence and purpose at work in guiding life’s history. But beyond that, all the elements of storytelling — who?, what?, where?, when? — are the subject of debate and uncertainty. How were the designs we observe actually instantiated? Not clear at all.
Actually, we have noticed that. ID has nothing to say about anything, except that Darwin was a wicked man and some things “seem” to be designed, therefore they “must be” designed. Anything remotely resembling science is manifestly lacking. Let’s read on:
But that’s the way of the truth, isn’t it. Falsehood tends to offer smooth story lines, whether including a protagonist or not, while airbrushing out all the ambiguities and doubts. We’ve got it all figured out!
Oh, so that’s the way of the truth — zero details! But evolution, which tells a coherent “story,” albeit with with occasional ambiguities that are still to be resolved, possesses far too much explanatory power to be true. Now we know how to distinguish ID from science. Here’s more:
Truth [i.e., Klinghoffer’s version] is always more complicated, subject to revision and rewriting, with lots of admitted gaps where we’re still working on it.
Yeah, they’re really working on those gaps in ID. They’ll have it all figured out any day now. Then Klinghoffer says:
On the other hand, nothing could be simpler than Darwin’s branching tree of life, fueled by random variation and pruned by natural selection.
Yes, Darwin’s theory is just too comprehensible. Therefore it must be false. The Truth™ [i.e., Klinghoffer’s version] needs a bit of mystery — or shall we say mysticism. Here’s the conclusion:
An aspect of personal maturity is coming to find such simple answers inherently suspicious. With apologies to [one of the essayists he mentioned earlier], we doubt Darwinism precisely because it has the hallmarks of fiction.
We’re not entirely certain we follow Klinghoffer’s argument, but there it is. What do you make of it, dear reader?
Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.