A Visit to the Museum with Klinghoffer

We’ve seen rants by ol’ Hambo about what he refers to as “secular” museums that have exhibits based on evolution. For example, Smithsonian Exhibition — Deception and Atheism. But we can’t recall a similar rant from the Discovery Institute.

Well, the Discoveroids have done some complaining — see Science Museum Promotes Science — Scandal!, and also Casey Visits the California Science Center. So maybe they aren’t that different from ol’ Hambo after all.

Anyway, there’s a rant about the Smithsonian’s evolution exhibit posted at the Discoveroids’ creationist blog: Two Museums, Two Revealingly Different Ways of Communicating about Evolution. 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. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us.

First, he references an article he read about visits to two museums — the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History in Washington, DC, and the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York. He accepts what he read as fact and says:

What’s interesting is that the Smithsonian makes a big, heavy-handed, tub-thumping push for Darwinian evolution, directed especially at children, while New York’s more old-fashioned AMNH does not, or at least not to nearly the same extent, opting instead for a more tentative, sober, and honest approach.

What’s so objectionable about the Smithsonian exhibit? We’ll skip a big quote from the article Klinghoffer read. Then he tells us:

Leaving aside the the museum’s cheating conflation of micro- with macroevolution [BWAHAHAHAHAHA!] and the cloying references to “Iggy the Iguana” and “Great-grandma Morgie,” I wonder, don’t the curators at the Smithsonian realize how transparent and off-putting their chirpy triumphalism is? That’s the way with triumphalism on any subject. I can’t imagine it convincing anyone. It’s poor salesmanship, surely, if selling an idea like evolution is understood to be the point of the exercise.

We hope the Smithsonian can survive this criticism. Let’s read on:

And the irony — do they miss that as well? On one hand, the Smithsonian bashes you over the head with the Darwinian insistence that a human being is nothing more than an unexceptional member of the extended animal family. On the other hand, this lowly animal has got everything absolutely all figured out about biological origins — to the extent, furthermore, that any humans not on board with the approved origins story are mocked, silenced, and expelled.

Ah, now we understand. Klinghoffer feels that he, personalty, is being mocked, silenced, and expelled. Perhaps that’s an accurate perception. He continues:

That corollary is not stated in the museum exhibits, but the Smithsonian is the same national institution that drummed out evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg for admitting that doubts about Darwinian theory could have some merit.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The Discoveroids are still bitter about the Sternberg peer review controversy

Well, that’s pretty much all Klinghoffer has to say. And now you’ve been warned — if he ever invites you to visit a museum with him, you’ll know how to respond. We conclude that his attitude is strikingly similar to that of ol’ Hambo — and we’re not surprised.

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

12 responses to “A Visit to the Museum with Klinghoffer

  1. Dont they realize that the Smithsonian exhibit is there because a Koch brother gave the museum a LOT of money.

  2. “It’s poor salesmanship” – D.K.

    Another indicator of the nature of the perceptive framework that they either carefully cling to or are unable to escape from. I doubt the tour guides at any real museum think in terms of “power closing” natural history concepts with the visitors. It would make for a stellar python skit though.

    Con man or Confused, it’s intellectual dishonesty either way.

  3. The whole truth

    “…the Smithsonian is the same national institution that drummed out evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg for admitting that doubts about Darwinian theory could have some merit.”

    That is a blatant, egregious lie. Sternberg was NOT “drummed out […] for admitting that doubts about Darwinian theory could have some merit”. Klingliar demonstrates again that he and his fellow IDiot-creationists have NO integrity.

    I hope that no one fails to notice that the IDiot-creationists make no complaints when religious organizations, churches, schools, museums, etc., ‘drum out’ people for not being religious, not being religious enough, and/or not practicing the ‘right’ religion or the ‘right version’ of the ‘right’ religion.

    “…opting instead for a more tentative, sober, and honest approach.”

    Klingliar and his fellow IDiot-creationists are falling down drunk on their mind numbing religious beliefs, totally dishonest in their “approach”, and there’s nothing “tentative” in their religious beliefs and theocratic agenda. They are determined to destroy science and rule the world:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

  4. “A Visit to the Museum with Klinghoffer”
    That’s a bit of a disappointment – I hoped so much that Klingy had visited some special museum – the one in Petersburg, Kentucky for instance. Why would that be a gas? Klingy himself provides the answer.

    “That’s the way with triumphalism on any subject.”

  5. @The whole truth: why wouldn’t we go to the original document itself?

    Wedge Document

    The introduction is sufficient to learn everything you need to know about IDiocy. And because IDiots are a funny lot they confirm it by trying to contradict it.

    Top of page 2, the three point list.

  6. Perhaps the Great Hand from Above can forgive me, because I didn’t know what I did? I intended to link to that repulsive tripe, not to pollute this nice blog with it. If the Great Hand from Above is in an extraordinary good mood it perhaps could even insert a space on a strategical place, so that it turns into a link like I intended?

    [*Voice from above*] I did what I could, but it may not be what you had in mind. There is always some sloppiness if you just use the naked URL instead of the full link code.

  7. “a human being is nothing more than an unexceptional member of the extended animal family. On the other hand, this lowly animal has got everything absolutely all figured out about biological origins”
    And then has the irony to state he has it all figured out cuz his G’Pa was no monkey!!!

  8. I do have an objection to the Smithsonian. They’ll charge you $4 for a pack of generic AA batteries that should cost $1 and then ask (guilt you into it really) for a donation.

  9. Pete Moulton

    So, Klinghoffer’s ‘research’ consisted of reading one article about museums in Washington, DC and New York City while enjoying the comfort and safety of his armchair in Seattle? Yeah, that sounds like a typical disvoverrhoid ‘research’ program.

  10. Klinklelyingsackofklankle references an article in the Christian, Biblical lens, creationist on-line “journal,” WORLD Magazine, penned by the editor Marvin Olasky who is described in the Encyclopedia of American Loons as:

    Diagnosis: Another fundie liar-for-Jesus, Olasky is actually one of the movers and shakers in the dominionist branches of radical wingnuttery. He has quite a bit of political clout, and must be considered a serious threat to civilization.

    Furthermore, according to his Wikipedia entry, several of Olasky’s books were bankrolled by none other than Disco Tute benefactor and billionaire Christian dominionist Howard Ahmanson.

    In short, an impeccable source of information if you are a creepy, lying, creationist propagandist like old Klinklelyingsackofklankle.

  11. That’s even more than I could hope for, Oh Great Hand from Above. Please receive my humble gratitude.

  12. Leaving aside the the museum’s cheating conflation of micro- with macroevolution [BWAHAHAHAHAHA!] and the cloying references to “Iggy the Iguana” and “Great-grandma Morgie,” I wonder, don’t the curators at the Smithsonian realize how transparent and off-putting their chirpy triumphalism is? That’s the way with triumphalism on any subject. I can’t imagine it convincing anyone. It’s poor salesmanship, surely, if selling an idea like evolution is understood to be the point of the exercise.

    Klinghoffer should take his own advice, stop with the triumphalist proclamations that creationists have “Darwinists “on the run” and get his creationist friends and employers to do likewise. They’re not convincing anyone, just playing to the suckers who already believe in order to keep those checks rolling in.

    There are only two differences between the triumphalism of fundamentalists and those of evil pro-evolution institutions like the Smithsonian. First, creationist triumphalism is mocking and threatening. And second, the creationist version actually exists. Even plays and movies like Inherit the Wind treat Bible-banging science deniers with more respect than creationists typically show for their pro-evolution opponents.