Klinghoffer & The Scopes Trial

We found something today at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog that is guaranteed to thrill you: For Next Week’s 90th Scopes Trial Anniversary, We’ve Got Something Special Planned. 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.

Everyone knows about the Scopes Trial. The Discoveroids have something special planned. Oooooooooooh! This is really exciting! Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

Next Tuesday, July 21, is the 90th anniversary of the Scopes “Monkey” Trial, the day the case was decided, and we’ve got something special in store for you to mark the occasion. Stephen Meyer had the leading hand in it. David Berlinski, Paul Nelson, Douglas Axe, Ann Gauger, Casey Luskin, and I also pitched on.

All of those intellectual giants are involved! We’ve never been so thrilled. Wait! [*Curmudgeon makes a quick dash to the bathroom*] Okay, we feel better now, and we can’t wait to learn what the Discoveroids will do. Klinghoffer then says:

What is it? Well, you’ll have to check back here on Tuesday to find out.

Darn! We’re going to be in suspense until Tuesday. Let’s read on:

As you know, the Scopes Trial is the source for the (historically misleading) film Inherit the Wind, which still hovers like a baleful phantom over the evolution controversy. The Scopes anniversary is an excellent occasion to debunk the Darwinists’ fiction that time somehow stands still and has done so for nearly a century.

We’ve written about the movie — see Scopes Transcript: Darrow’s examination of Bryan. The trial scenes were accurate — especially the part where Darrow got to examine Bryan. We know, because the transcript of the trial had been published long before the movie was made. We have a copy. But it’s quite understandable that the Discoveroids are upset at how badly Bryan performed. Anyway, Klinghoffer continues:

They [the wicked Darwinists] present the subject of evolution versus intelligent design as if there were no real debate, as if nothing much had happened in science in the past 90 years to challenge Darwinian biology or to suggest an alternative, as if it were still Darrow battling Bryan over Scriptural literalism before a crowd of “yokels” outside the Dayton courthouse. For them, it remains the year 1925 and we’re still receiving acid dispatches from the Bible Belt via H.L. Mencken.

Imagine what Mencken would do with the Discoveroids — especially if he know about the amazing advances in biological knowledge in the last 90 years. Here’s more:

No. Notwithstanding the daily denials issuing from today’s defenders of 19th century materialist science, the debate about Darwin advances year by year.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The debate is advancing? Who’s advancing it — Klinghoffer and Casey? Moving along:

The past couple of years have been particularly important. It’s the scientific controversy that can no longer be denied.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! And now we come to the end:

Next week we are going to document that in a very substantial fashion.

Oooooooooooh! We’ll be watching. Stay tuned to this blog!

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

20 responses to “Klinghoffer & The Scopes Trial

  1. I suspect these Dishonesty Institute fellows will all dress up in what is the most appropriate attire for them for this auspicious occasion, ape costumes, and of course they’ll act their appropriate parts. They’ll also provide free bananas for anyone interested.

  2. michaelfugate

    Just you wait Darwinists, just you wait. We will get even some day. Like those ads in comic books for Charles Atlas – “Hey quit kicking sand in our faces!” They believe they will someday be the “Hero of the Beach”, but of course you have to lift some weights first….

  3. And there still is the 1852 essay by Herbert Spencer, The Development Hypothesis, which asks the question: What is your alternative?

  4. It never occurs to these people that they are just whistling in the dark

  5. Holding The Line In Florida

    Thanks to the SC for keeping me abreast of all the important developments in the world during my self imposed exile from the world during summer. It is ending all too quickly! I can’t wait to see how I will have to change my teaching of evolution next year! Now where was that Rhum?

  6. [*Curmudgeon makes a quick dash to the bathroom*]

    TMI. David McConaghie told the world as much via Snapchat…

  7. “as if nothing much had happened in science in the past 90 years to challenge Darwinian biology or to suggest an alternative” of course being that Creationism/ID has been at the forefront of so many scientific discoveries (seem to be having a little trouble remembering precisely which ones at the moment)klinghoffer is totally justified in his claim.

  8. Off-topic, but I can’t find if this tidbit on McConaghie was picked up in full on this illustrious blog: Secret camera in MP’s office toilet had over 200,000 images or videos court told

    Actually, ‘216,373 photos or videos’, to be exact…

  9. They keep saying that there time has come. Not just every year, but every few months. When exactly do they present their evidence?

  10. Sounds like somebody needed to woo their financial backers!

  11. michaelfugate

    Templeton! – look at me!, look at me! Big Questions!

  12. Ah, James b, you beat me to it on Klinghoffer’s comment —
    “They [the wicked Darwinists] present the subject of evolution versus intelligent design as if there were no real debate, as if nothing much had happened in science in the past 90 years to challenge Darwinian biology…”

    Since the Discoverrhoids don’t allow comments on their website, I was going to ask Klinghoffer to give some examples of “scientific discoveries” that challenge evolution.

    Well, Klinghoffer, we know you read this blog regularly. We’ll wait while you gather your thoughts.

    Waiting…

    Waiting…

    (crickets…)

  13. Mary L. Mand

    Drives them nuts that science and real scientists ignore them.

  14. They [the wicked Darwinists] present the subject of evolution versus intelligent design as if there were no real debate, as if nothing much had happened in science in the past 90 years to challenge Darwinian biology or to suggest an alternative[.]

    Because nothing has. Even the “punctuated equilibrium” hypothesis of Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldridge does not repudiate Darwinism; it merely suggests that in some circumstances it may proceed fairly rapidly for awhile and then slow down–until another spurt of change occurs–as a result of reproductive isolation and adaptation to a new environment.

    Imagine what Mencken would do with the Discoveroids — especially if he know about the amazing advances in biological knowledge in the last 90 years. Here’s more:

    No. Notwithstanding the daily denials issuing from today’s defenders of 19th century materialist science, the debate about Darwin advances year by year.

    It sure does — but not in creationists’ favor. Their “God of the gaps” is looking scrawnier by the day, as real scientists keep filling in those gaps.

    As for “nineteenth century materialist science,” evidently Klunkhoffer is unaware (or hopes his audience is unaware) of the role played by 20th-century quantum theory in modern thinking on evolution–and in any case, if forced to choose between them, I’ll take nineteenth-century science over seventeenth-century natural theology any day.

  15. waldteufel

    Any day now, the Discoveroids will burst forth from their seedy offices over a gym wth gobs of breathtaking evidence for their Sky Fairy and amaze the science world.

    Maybe next Tuesday is the Blessed Day?

  16. The Discoveroids continue to be obsessed by court cases. They really don’t seem to be involved in the science at all. Instead, their resources are spent on bringing lawsuits where possible, lobbying legislators, and writing books for non-scientific audiences.

    Given this focus, it is not surprising that they think the Scopes trial decided some scientific issue.

    My guess is that they will write a little dramatic re-enactment of the Scopes trial as if it were held today – with the DI as the heroes, of course. They will cast scientists as foolish materialists, stuck with their silly evidence based theories, while the ID mystics carry the day. Or something like that.

  17. One is waiting for the evolution-deniers to present their alternative account of what happens and when so that the world of life displays its variety.
    It isn’t a matter of a lack of evidence.
    It is a matter of what is an alternative.
    Evidence for what?

  18. docbill1351

    Hoary old chestnut season comes early this year.

  19. Numbers (the historian, not the book of the Pentateuch) has good stuff on this. Scopes was no martyr but a willing participant in a show case, generated to test the Tennessee law. Bryan was neither a young earth creationist nor a biblical literalist, but he was so muddled and so politically careful not to offend the rising YECs (in the person of MacCready Price) that it’s difficult to know what he *did* think. I’m planning to write about all this, and am reading accounts by the historian lawyer Edward J Larson, which seem sound as far as I can judge. Larson is at Pepperdine (*your* kind of conservative, Curmudgeon?), was with DI but left years ago, and is a member of the International Society for Science and Religion, which denounces ID as bad science and bad theology. So I will enjoy it if,as I expect, the ID crowd use him as a source.

  20. michaelfugate

    Here is Paul Conkin’s comment in the preface of his book When All the Gods Trembled: Darwinism, Scopes, and American Intellectuals:

    The new and the old, so the conventional message goes, when fully or properly understood, do not conflict. One can reconcile both. Or, in language that reflects either stupidity or a deliberate refusal to define terms and think rigorously, I confront ad nauseam the assertion that “science” and “religion” do not conflict.