Klinghoffer Attacks Zack Again


You knew this was coming. Yesterday we posted Louisiana Creationism: Zack Strikes Again!, about an article by Zack Kopplin, who is well-known to readers of this humble blog as a tireless campaigner against the infamous and insidiously-named Louisiana Science Education Act (the LSEA).

We said it was certain to arouse the Discoveroids to even greater frenzy than Zack’s earlier article, which brought forth a gruesome response from Klinghoffer — see Discovery Institute Attacks Zack Kopplin. And lo, what we predicted has come to pass.

This just appeared at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog: From Slate, More Agitprop on Louisiana’s Academic Freedom Law. It was written by David Klinghoffer, a Discoveroid “senior fellow” (i.e., flaming, full-blown creationist), who eagerly functions as their journalistic slasher and poo flinger. The graphic above this post is in his honor. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

Here is Zack Kopplin’s new contribution at Slate, The Bible v. the Constitution, which he twice promised would cause me to collapse in a catastrophic health reversal at its revelations about Louisiana public schools teaching “creationism.”

Then he gives us a Tweet or something, allegedly to him from Zack:

Just wait, like I said, you’re going to have an aneuryism. I wouldn’t be saying the things I am unless I had evidence.

Like all creationists, Klinghoffer has no sense of humor. He says:

Since I’m writing this, the bizarre and ghoulish predictions were evidently mistaken.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Let’s read on:

The article is Zack’s latest indictment of the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA), which he’s been campaigning against fruitlessly for years. The law permits teachers in the Pelican State to tell students about evolutionary theory’s scientific strengths and weaknesses, while making clear that it extends no protection to advocating religion.

Yeah, the law makes it clear. As we’ve done before, we offer this disclaimer, which is adapted from the wording of the LSEA:

This post shall not be construed as being disrespectful of the Discoveroids.

Now we’ve cleared up two points: (1) the LSEA doesn’t promote religion; and (2) your Curmudgeon respects the Discoveroids. Okay, Klinghoffer continues:

In the parlance of Darwin activists, which they harp on endlessly, that makes it a “creationist law.” Zack’s last article at Slate mentioned “creationism” only 23 times. The current one bumps that up to 27.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! If the LSEA didn’t authorize the teaching of creationism, why would the Discoveroids so zealously promote it? Here’s more:

It’s hard to know what to make of some of the private emails from teachers and others that Zack reproduces, which he searched for usages of his favorite scare word. Zack and other Darwin advocates like Josh Rosenau at the National Center for Science Education employ the term “creationism” to mean anything from reciting the text of Genesis in biology class to sharing mainstream science critical of Darwinism, so it wouldn’t be surprising if teachers and officeholders who use the word are confused about its definition With the help of friendly media, the language manipulators at the NCSE are responsible for sowing a lot of that confusion.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The drooling teachers in Louisiana aren’t really promoting creationism. They only use that word because the “Darwin advocates” have confused them. Moving along:

Whether guilty of teaching genuine creationism or not, the teachers at least are without guile.

They don’t need to resort to guile. They think the LSEA will protect them when they teach creationism, so that’s what they do. Another excerpt:

In any event, like other examples of academic freedom legislation, LSEA was written to do one thing — authorize teaching genuine science that might otherwise get a teacher in trouble. If it does that, it does its job.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Everyone knows the purpose of the LSEA — see the Curmudgeon’s Guide to “Academic Freedom” Laws. The politicians know it, the teachers know it, and every drooling creationist in Louisiana knows it. But on one point we agree with Klinghoffer — the law is doing its job. Klinghoffer finishes with this:

Obviously, if people abuse LSEA’s authorization, and “break the law,” that’s a problem with the teacher not a problem with the law. People also abuse the U.S. Constitution. That doesn’t mean you toss it out.

So there you are. There’s no problem with the LSEA. It’s a good law, as solid as the US Constitution. If only Zack would stop confusing everyone, there wouldn’t be any problems.

Copyright © 2015. 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

11 responses to “Klinghoffer Attacks Zack Again

  1. Doesn’t the implementation of the the wedge strategy require the constitution as it exists to be “tossed out” at some point to make way for even a minimal legal foundation for a theocracy to be formed?

  2. Obviously, if people abuse LSEA’s authorization, and “break the law,” that’s a problem with the teacher not a problem with the law. People also abuse the U.S. Constitution. That doesn’t mean you toss it out.

    That’s pretty rich, coming from a creationist who’d probably very much like to toss out the part of Article Six of the U.S. Constitution which states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States,” and reinterpret the First Amendment to mean it grants, as Jerry Falwell used to say, “freedom of religion, but not freedom from religion.”

  3. So either the discovery institute wrote a decent law to put creationism in the classroom. OR the wrote an incompetent academic freedom law that allows intential abuses.

    Dishonest or incompetent. They have appearently chosen incompetent.

  4. Obviously, if people abuse LSEA’s authorization, and “break the law,” that’s a problem with the teacher not a problem with the law.

    In other words, what Kling is saying is that if teachers are caught doing what the law was written to encourage them to do – then we’re throwing them under the bus. You can bet that no member of the DI will do anything to defend any of these teachers or their school systems if any of this comes to trial.

  5. I have a question for you, David Klinghoffer. You are continually writing about evolution’s “strengths and weaknesses”, or I should say, writing the phrase “evolution’s strengths and weaknesses.”

    We, the regular readers of our dear Curmudgeon’s blog, are well-acquianted with evolution’s strengths. However, none of us here (to my knowledge) are up to speed on what you are calling “evolution’s weaknesses.” Could you be so kind as to enlighten us? And no, I’m not referring to “specified complexity.” That’s B.S., and you know it.

  6. Charles Deetz ;)

    @retiredsciguy … Surely you’ve know that evolution cannot account for creation of new information, explain irreducible complexity, or beat the odds of a hundred randomly selected parts of life all multiplied together. Each of these have their own glaring weaknesses, but it’s all they’ve got.

    @Spector567 I think you figured out what to say that my brain was trying to. Klingy trying to sneak past that trap, but is glaringly obvious.

  7. retiredsciguy:

    According to the DI, what evolutions’ weaknesses are that, if people accept it as good science, there is no human “exceptionalism,” there is no need to believe we are the special pets of a god and no need to believe in religion. Of course, they can’t say that and so [handwave, mumble, mumble] information, specified complexity, irreducible complexity [handwave, mumble, mumble].

    What evolutionary science’s real weakness is the nearly infinite capacity of human beings, with the help of charlatans, to fool themselves.

  8. @spector567 – characterizes the law as Dishonest or incompetent

    Like supposed intelligent designers.

    You’ve nailed it.
    The teachers of Louisiana are going to be abandoned.

  9. “Since I’m writing this, the bizarre and ghoulish predictions were evidently mistaken.”
    And once again we can enjoy the pathetic spectacle of a believer who worships a holy book full of metaphors, but is incapable of recognizing one outside of that holy book.
    ZK’s usage of “aneuryism” was metaphorically. And Klingy’s response is metaphorically the product of an aneuryism indeed.

  10. Diogenes' Lamp

    Mnb0, exactly. Klinghitler clearly did have an aneurysm. This is the worst thing Klingleberry has ever written, and that’s saying something.

    Now Klingleberry knows the LSEA is in deep trouble, and the DI is trying Dover-style lying and double talk. “Hey, the reacher said ‘Book of Genesis.’ That could mean anything!”

    Lying, sneaky Klinghitler.

  11. Diogenes' Lamp

    Klinghitler defending these creationist teachers (or disingenuously pretending he doesn’t know what they’re up to, after reading emails where they say what they’re up to) is just as smart as presidential candidate the Rev. Mike Huckabee defending Christian kiddy diddler/gay marriage opponent Josh Duggar. You can visit Huckabee’s Facebook page to see how popular that turned out to be.

    Politically, very stupid. These people portray themselves as in touch with the common man, while the “elitists” (scientists, non-fundamentalists) allegedly live in a bubble cut off from “American values”. The banners of same-sex marriage, the defenders of Christian kiddy molesters and the DI’s defenders of creationist teachers who boast of teaching Genesis in biology class will find out the hard way how badly they have miscalculated the values of average Americans.