Klinghoffer Says Eugenie Scott is a Liar

This is a video of a recent speech by Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). Her topic is: What Would Darwin Say to Today’s Creationists?

After you’ve watched it — or even a portion of it — you can appreciate the latest post at the blog of 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).

It’s 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. His name has some of the resonance of Red Skelton’s Clem Kadiddlehopper.

Klinghoffer’s (or Kadiddlehopper’s) post is titled The Super-Expansive Category: A Favorite Deceptive Tactic with the Darwin Lobby.

He begins by quoting Scott’s explanation to her audience that intelligent design is a form of creationism (that happens within the first six minutes of the video). That’s entirely true and it drives the Discoveroids crazy, because it’s central to their litigation strategy to maintain the fiction that theirs is not a religious teaching. Their strategy is doomed to failure, but by sticking with it they hope to slither through the barrier of the First Amendment, which thus far has prevented creationism from being taught in public schools.

Their subterfuge hasn’t fooled anyone. When their experts testified under oath in court, the creationist nature of their “science” was painfully obvious. See Kitzmiller v. Dover: Who is the Intelligent Designer? During that trial, their recommended text, Of Pandas and People, was revealed to be a warmed-over creationist book (see cdesign proponentsists). In addition to all that, the Discoveroids’ wedge strategy — declaring that their purpose is “To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God” — was exposed for all the world to see.

Nevertheless, the Discoveroids continue their charade. Why they persist is a mystery, because everyone knows what’s going on. But they do persist, even to the point of severely insulting Genie Scott for saying what all the world knows to be true.

Okay, that’s enough introduction. Now let’s see what Klinghoffer says. To keep this brief, we’ll excerpt only the most vicious parts. After quoting Scott saying that ID is creationism, he says, with bold font added by us:

Both intelligent design and creationism take issue with the Darwinian paradigm that portrays evolution as unguided and reflecting no intelligent purpose or intention. Beyond that, the two ideas have very little in common. That doesn’t stop Eugenie Scott from forcing them, over and over again, into the same basket.


The only conceivable purposes served by this insistence are dishonorable: seeking to discredit a genuine scientific challenge to Darwinian theory, intimidating scientists and non-scientists alike, and fooling the public, while dodging serious challenges.

Right. It’s Genie Scott who’s trying to fool the public, and it’s the Discoveroids who are honorable. Let’s read on:

That’s more than a provocation. It’s a lie and an invitation to otherwise thoughtful people to lazily shrug off the obligation to think about a profound question.

Ooooooh! It’s a lie! Hey, you gotta believe Klinghoffer, because he’s a Discoveroid and we know they never lie. The truth-teller continues:

To keep peddling this untruth would require a conscious dishonesty — or, more charitably, a willed ignorance on the part of Dr. Scott and the NCSE, a self-protective determination to remain unacquainted with what intelligent-design advocates argue and the evidence they offer.

Pay attention, dear reader, because when the subject is conscious dishonesty, Klinghoffer knows what he’s talking about. Here’s the end:

Eugenie Scott, leading Darwin lobbyist, sounds like a nice lady. It’s too bad she persists in seeking to make her case by confusing people. What is she doing in a disreputable and dishonest business like that?

As always, Klinghoffer is a class act.

Copyright © 2012. 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

18 responses to “Klinghoffer Says Eugenie Scott is a Liar

  1. At 2:30 she says “Creationists are special…” but then corrects herself.

    I wonder why? They are definitely “special.”

  2. docbill1351

    It’s called projection and misdirection. What Klinkletinkle writes is what we all know the Disco Tute does! Such noisy little hamsters they are. There are only two, or perhaps these days no, “design theorists.” there was Behe with incurible complexity and specified nonsense, and Dembski with his nixplanatory filter. No other scammer has come up with more ID “theory.”

    Think about it. Dembski doesn’t do anything with ID anymore; he’s too busy cutting a paycheck at a Bible diploma mill, and Behe spends his time talking about mousetraps and getting his useless butt kicked by graduate students.

    Finally, all of the major ID proponents (Luskin, Behe, Wells, Meyer, Dembski, Phillip) all claim that Teh Designer is “God of the Christian Bible.”. All of them. No exception. That is the very definition of scientific creationism which is what Genie was talking about.

    And finally, finally, Klinkflapdoodle isn’t stupid. Disgusting, yes. Revolting, yes. Pathetic, yes. Stupid, no. Klinkleklonkle is a deliberate jackass. He “writes” to provoke and he always lies. Still, like Luskin, he’s not a Fellow, just an office worker fetching coffee and donuts for Westie and the boys. Hmmmm, maybe not as smart as I thought.

  3. Of course the two have very little in common. According to the FTE’s textbook Creation Biology, “Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.”

    Design, in contrast, is defined in FTE’s Of Pandas and People as: “Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.”

    The differences could not be any clearer!

  4. docbill1351 says:

    Klinkflapdoodle isn’t stupid. Disgusting, yes. Revolting, yes. Pathetic, yes. Stupid, no. Klinkleklonkle is a deliberate jackass. He “writes” to provoke and he always lies.

    No, no, no. We mustn’t be judgmental. I’m sure he’s operating at his maximum capacity, given the extent of his knowledge and moral framework. He’s an outstanding Discoveroid.

  5. SC writes: “He’s an outstanding Discoveroid.”

    I can’t think of a worse insult…

  6. NeonNoodle

    This video is worth watching in it entirety. All Dr. Scott’s videos are, really. I can’t think of anyone more rational and more articulate – and less offensive. There’s a word for Klodhopper and his ilk in Yiddish. It’s called putz.

  7. docbill1351

    Note how Klownklapper lambasts Scott for her “cartoon” (how apt!!) assessment of ID but skates right over correcting her. Because he can’t, of course. It’s a common tactic of ID creationists to avoid any discussion or definition or example of ID, rather they point to an irrelevant book (all of their books) which will get you no closer to an answer.

  8. Jack Hogan

    Why they persist is a mystery, because everyone knows what’s going on.

    Their persistence is not a mystery to me. They believe they are on a mission from the IDer God to combat evilution and save souls.

    The primary reason they persist is to indoctrinate and brainwash as many of the young as possible, the ones who cannot yet think for themselves and who do not know better. This works to some extent, considering Gallup polling. The secondary objective is propping up the beliefs of those already indoctrinated and brainwashed. A third objective is trying to plant an anti-science seed of doubt in the minds of the ignorant and wishy-washy, especially those predisposed to resent “those arrogant know-it-all scientists”.

  9. I just watched the video, and I think I understand Klink’s annoyance. The problem is that Eugenie didn’t mention the DI, and only briefly mentioned ID as a type of creationism. There’s a pic of Behe with some inane quote included in a series of examples of people in past years confidently asserting that the theory of evolution is fading away. That’s it. Most of her time is spent discussing home-grown YEC, and the forms of creationism promoted by other religions elsewhere in the world, and she spends a great deal of time talking about Darwin and summarizing the more recent discoveries supporting evolution that were unknown in Darwin’s time.

    Klink is hurt because she gives ID such short shrift. After all, in his mind, ID is the most important movement anywhere, and to think that someone on the other side would regard YEC and other forms of creationism as more important! It must be very painful to be relegated to just a subset of the creationist movement.

    Not an excuse for writing slime however.

  10. NeonNoodle

    Poor Dullard Kowpooper; just a cipher to a subset of a movement – a crumb on the spongecake of science. Life’s so unfair.

  11. NeonNoodle

    Correction: he’s a crumb on the spongecake of pseudoscience. I inadvertently promoted him.

  12. This is quite an amazing collection of nicknames for Mr. K. We should start a list.

  13. @TA: I nominate “Doo-Doo Head”. I know. It doesn’t start with a “K” or go with his normal name, but I’ll bet Doc Bill would vote for it.

  14. NeonNoodle

    @TA: I just hope Drippy Klamdigger appreciates the extra effort being extended on his behalf. It would be a shame if Dirty Klotheshamper took it all for granted.

  15. kent hovind is right

    eugenie scott is just pushing the religions of evolution and atheisms the foundation of communism.

  16. Oh goodie, we have some entertainment. At least for a while.

  17. aturingtest

    With a start like that? Probably not worth the energy it would take to type anything more than “Kent Hovind is an idiot, and so are you.”

  18. techreseller

    Wait, but if Klinketinkle really believes what he writes??? Is that even possible? And still be able to tie your own shoes and drive a car? Nah, you are correct. He is a weasel. Only likely explanation.