Klinghoffer Totally Misses the Point

We found a rather sad and revealing 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 Could This Be Darwin’s Most Trivial “Prediction”?, and 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.

In his latest post, Klinghoffer (or Kadiddlehopper) is attempting to be smug about something someone else has written. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us and David’s links omitted:

Sloths move very slowly. With that in mind, if you were going to predict a kind of animal that could tolerate a lot of variation in the architecture of its inner ear, with some presumably being more conducive to precise balance and some less so, what animal might that be? Take a guess. Squirrels? No, wrong, a squirrel with vertigo would not be a very successful squirrel. If you guessed “sloths,” you’re right! You could have been a great 19th-century naturalist. Sloths would seem to have very relaxed needs in terms of balance, and so could afford that kind of variation in a way squirrels could not.

There’s nothing remarkable about that — even Klinghoffer understands it. But does he know what it means? Stay with us, dear reader, and you’ll see that he doesn’t:

Jerry Coyne at Why Evolution Is True returns momentarily to blogging on evolution with an interesting post, “Darwin right again: the inner ears of sloths are highly variable,” touting a study in Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

Here’s the paper he’s talking about: High morphological variation of vestibular system accompanies slow and infrequent locomotion in three-toed sloths. Klinghoffer goes on:

The long and the short of it is that in the Origin of Species Darwin “predicted,” insofar as a feature is not useful to an animal, you may expect to find more variation in it: “An organ, when rendered useless, may well be variable, for its variations cannot be checked by natural selection.”

The paper confirms this with regard to three-toed sloths as compared to squirrels and some other creatures. Was this not crushingly obvious even before a team of seven international scientists, from Cambridge, the University of Vienna, and elsewhere, went to work on the problem?

Was that really “crushingly obvious” to someone who never read Darwin? Has Klinghoffer read Darwin? Does he know the context in which Darwin said it?

We find that quote in Origin of Species, Chapter 13, which is all about vestigial organs — a topic the Discoveroids dislike intensely because they so obviously contradict intelligent design (see Discovery Institute Justifies Vestigial Organs). Darwin, after discussing male nipples, rudiments of the pelvis and hind limbs in snakes, and several other examples, says:

I have now given the leading facts with respect to rudimentary organs. In reflecting on them, every one must be struck with astonishment: for the same reasoning power which tells us plainly that most parts and organs are exquisitely adapted for certain purposes, tells us with equal plainness that these rudimentary or atrophied organs, are imperfect and useless. In works on natural history rudimentary organs are generally said to have been created `for the sake of symmetry,’ or in order `to complete the scheme of nature;’ but this seems to me no explanation, merely a restatement of the fact. …

On my view of descent with modification, the origin of rudimentary organs is simple. … I believe that disuse has been the main agency; that it has led in successive generations to the gradual reduction of various organs, until they have become rudimentary, as in the case of the eyes of animals inhabiting dark caverns, and of the wings of birds inhabiting oceanic islands, which have seldom been forced to take flight, and have ultimately lost the power of flying. Again, an organ useful under certain conditions, might become injurious under others, as with the wings of beetles living on small and exposed islands; and in this case natural selection would continue slowly to reduce the organ, until it was rendered harmless and rudimentary.

And then Darwin comes to the “trivial prediction” seized upon by Klinghoffer, which explains the cause of vestigial organs:

An organ, when rendered useless, may well be variable, for its variations cannot be checked by natural selection.

And a bit later he ties that into his theory, and shows how vestigial organs contradict creationism:

Rudimentary organs may be compared with the letters in a word, still retained in the spelling, but become useless in the pronunciation, but which serve as a clue in seeking for its derivation. On the view of descent with modification, we may conclude that the existence of organs in a rudimentary, imperfect, and useless condition, or quite aborted, far from presenting a strange difficulty, as they assuredly do on the ordinary doctrine of creation, might even have been anticipated, and can be accounted for by the laws of inheritance.

So the sloth’s rudimentary organ of balance (a specific prediction Darwin didn’t make) is far from trivial. It’s yet another piece of evidence that supports Darwin’s theory. That’s the danger of quote-mining Darwin. The full context is never very friendly to creationists.

Okay, back to Klinghoffer, as he concludes his silly post by telling us that whatever the researchers learned, he knew it all the time:

Yet applying common sense, and the knowledge that species display variations, would have “suggested” that “cool” insight, rendering the “prediction” trivial, without all the trouble this team of researchers went to.

We suppose this minimized and out-of-context prediction is a special type of quote-mining, but it’s not worth devising a term for it. In conclusion, we note that if Darwin’s prediction about useless organs becoming variable turned out to be false in the case of the sloth, the Discoveroids would be jumping with joy. But as it turned out to be accurate, Klinghoffer shrugs it off as obvious and “trivial.”

Hey — do the Discoveroids ever make any predictions? Sure, sometimes. We’ve posted about some before — see Discovery Institute: Tests for Intelligent Design! It’s amusing to compare Casey’s predictions to Darwin’s. But Klinghoffer wouldn’t understand the difference.

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 Totally Misses the Point

  1. ALL of the Disco Tute’s predictions are made after the fact. How about another “trivial” prediction, KlingMoron? Just a little one specific to an organism, like a gerbil.

  2. Yes, it is crushingly obvious that snakes evolved from limbed animals and that whales evolved from land animals and so on. It also crushingly obvious that IDers are denying science rather than practicing it but they keep insisting on proving it over and over again.

  3. At least Kling had the decency to link to Coyne’s article, which was quite well written and interesting.

    It also demonstrates the difference between actual working scientists and ID advocates. In ID-world, one never needs to do original research and gather facts, it’s enough just to apply “common sense”. So to an IDiot like Kling, the money was wasted and the prediction trivial.

    My question after reading Coyne’s article, is how does ID account for this pattern of variability. Under ID, everything is functional and purposeful, so large amounts of variability should not be predicted by ID. Why would different sloths need differing degrees of balance. Or, even better, to use an example from Coyne’s article, why is a wisdom tooth present (therefore functional) in one group of humans but not in another? How does ID explain the difference in functional requirements between the two groups of humans?

    Thanks for pointing out Kling’s article. I learned something from his link to Coyne’s post. I doubt that was what he intended.

  4. Klingongopher reveals his brilliance! This explains Why there is so much variation in Creationist theories, and why the Discovery Institute is such a useless organ.

  5. Ceteris Paribus

    @TA: Thanks for pointing that out.

    In fact the number of Christian denominations is said to number around 40,000.

    As the Klingster said, it should be “crushingly obvious” that the large number of variations available to true believers must be the result of severe dis-use of that portion of the human brain which the Klingster’s creator set aside for holding a religious belief.

    Or to put it another way, with a wave of the hand at the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the chances of his personal Saviour passing over all the graveyards on earth and resurrecting only the correct subset of true believers, is less than 1 in a bizillion, raised to the power of the Trinity.

  6. I think Klingy-dingy unwittingly gave the game away: “without all the trouble this team of researchers went to.”

    Yes, research is *so* unnecessary when you already know all the answers…

  7. A quietly ironic post title; it should win the “Dog Bites Man” award for business as usual. In other news, the sun rose this morning.

  8. The whole truth

    What a waste of life to spend every day of it it trying to find something wrong with science. klinghoffer and the rest of the IDiot creationists never have and never will do anything productive. They are obsessed with and jealous of people who are smart, industrious, rational, courageous, and productive. They want respect and authoritative power without earning it, and they think that whatever they say should be worshiped as an indisputable commandment. What a bunch of arrogant, parasitic losers.

  9. @Tomato Addict:

  10. I have wondered how traumatic it would be for Spawn o’ Discos to realize what their fathers did, but then you have Eric Hovind, a misdemeanor off the old felon. I can just hear little David Jr. explaining how fingerpainting leads to Hitler.

  11. In fact, if Klinghoffer had altered just a syllable or two in the title of his piece to render it as ” Could This Be Darwin’s Most Trivial “Refutation”?, he would have been more or less on target…

  12. Off-topic, but this is a must read from Panda’s Thumb: Disco Institute Damage Control? Barton Book Dumped

  13. Was this not crushingly obvious…

    IOW: ‘its very clear from the bible that the sloth cochlear system would show greater variability than other mammals. Even though the bible doesn’t mention sloths, or the cochlear system, or even identifies mammals as a related group of organisms.”

  14. megalonyx? Are you still out there? Good to hear from you!

  15. eric says: “its very clear from the bible that the sloth cochlear system would show greater variability than other mammals.”

    Yes, it is. Just imagine if you had to get from Mt. Ararat to South America in a short period of time, and you could only travel upside-down in the trees — across the Atlantic, or maybe via the Arctic land-bridge. It’s “crushingly obvious” that your navigational abilities would be all whacked out after such a migration.

  16. Curmudgeon: “And a bit later he ties that into his theory, and shows how vestigial organs contradict creationism.”

    Reason no. ~4 billion why I hate the word “creationism” and all its variants. Your “logic” is dangerously close to that of Discoveroids. The only thing that saves you is that you included Darwin’s own words:

    <em…presenting a strange difficulty, as they assuredly do on the ordinary doctrine of creation…

    Darwin had no idea of the anti-evolution pseudoscience that would arise a century after his book, or the all-out-scam of ID that would “evolve” a few decades after that. If he did, he would certainly say that nothing “contradicts creationism,” because the entire set of “creationism” accommodates everything and is unfalsifiable. Don’t take my word for it. Dembski himself said in 2001 that ID (which “is” “creationism” by at least one of its many definitions) can accommodate all the results of “Darwinism.”

    What Darwin apparently meant by “difficulty” (not “contradict”) is that any potential hypothesis of independent origin would be, in light of that evidence, the “extraordinary claim that demands extraordinary evidence.” But not all Discoveroids subscribe to “independent origins” – old or young life versions – and at least one explicitly rejects it.

    From what I read of Darwin, he would not fall for the bait-and-switch of “proximate cause vs ultimate cause” either. We have even less excuse to fall for that scam today.

  17. Curmy kindly wrote:

    “megalonyx? Are you still out there? Good to hear from you!”

    Indeed I am — still blundering through as one of mankind’s vestigal organs.

    Good to see you are keeping up the good fight!

  18. Jim Thomerson

    It looks to me like Darwin answered any question creationists might have about vestigial organs, and refuted their belief that a vestigial organ would have no function. One supposes creationists have not read Darwin carefully.