Klinghoffer: Darwinists Are Insecure

Slasher

The latest post at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog is Self-Image as a Bulwark of Darwinian Orthodoxy.

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 for emphasis:

He begins by mentioning and quoting from an article about the recent disclosure that many psychology studies appear not to be reproducible. Then he quotes a few Discoveroids and fellow-travelers. All of that is irrelevant to what he really wants to say, so we’ll skip it. Finally he gets to the meat of his post:

The only thing [the aforementioned psychology research scandal] this leaves out is an aspect of pride, and that is: prestige. In the context of evolution, it’s all-important. It’s not possible to exaggerate the place of self-image as a bulwark of Darwinian orthodoxy.

Ah, now the fun begins:

Experience has taught us, again and again, how often otherwise thoughtful people refuse to consider alternative understandings of life’s origins because that would potentially lead them down a socially uncomfortable path.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We’ve seen this before in Discoveroids and other creationists — a total lack of self-awareness. Let’s read on:

Yes, for scientists there are real professional dangers that go with opening your mouth to say something critical of the reigning evolutionary theory. Even for the tenured scholar, and all the more so for the untenured and the graduate student, a great deal of looking over your shoulder and anticipating damnation goes with the thought of admitting that Darwinism faces serious scientific challenges, or that evidence of design in nature might conceivably be worth a look.

Assuming there is some tiny bit of rationality involved here, all we can think of is that this is the latest excuse being given to the Discoveroids’ generous patrons to explain their total failure to have any impact on academia. Klinghoffer continues:

… Darwin defenders so typically respond to ID not with evidence and arguments of their own but with emotional manipulation based on their listeners’ self-image. The strategy has evolved with the times. It used to be that Darwin skeptics were tarred predominantly with language suggestive of religious fundamentalism. Hence the popularity of conflating intelligent design with creationism, resulting in the fanciful chimera of “Intelligent Design Creationism.”

Fanciful chimera? We think it’s a spot on accurate expression. Here’s our last excerpt, and it’s really bad — even for a Discoveroid post:

More recently the tactic has shifted somewhat, with Darwin advocates making increased use of the weaponized terms “science denial” and “science denier.” Here the idea is to subtly associate skepticism with something not just embarrassing but utterly vile — Holocaust denial.

Wow! Yes, we’ve called them science deniers. But Holocaust deniers? We’ve never seen anyone even suggest that — it’s a wildly impossible stretch. The idea never occurred to us. But Klinghoffer is the Discoveroids’ journalistic slasher and poo flinger, so things like that come naturally to him.

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

28 responses to “Klinghoffer: Darwinists Are Insecure

  1. But they ADMIT their intelligent designer created the universe in their “theory” as well as all life on this planet. They also whine and moan about how Earth was created by their designer just for us humans. And they always refer to their designer in the singular and as a male. How can they think the older con job of ID not being a religious proposition is still viable?

  2. HEY! Kettle! This is Pot! You’re black!

  3. Yes, we’ve called them science deniers. But Holocaust deniers? We’ve never seen anyone even suggest that — it’s a wildly impossible stretch.

    Apparently it’s become a meme recently among science-deniers — not just evolution-deniers — to make this claim: when we call them what they are, we’re really trying to smear them with the “Holocaust denier” association. As you say, it’s a garbage argument, but I can imagine a lot of the Discoveroids’ target market nodding sagely in agreement.

  4. So the Klingon shows that, as with evolution, he has no idea what skepticism is. Here’s a clue from Bertrand Russell: “It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true.” That rather sounds like creationism, not evolution, which has overwhelming grounds for supposing it true. And those “…serious scientific challenges…” that Klingy imagines evolution faces are what, exactly.

    And did anyone notice the irony of his accusation that criticism of ID has “evolved over time”. Does that mean it didn’t just appear (poof!) on the sixth day and stay the same for the past 6,000 years?

  5. “Experience has taught us, again and again, how often otherwise thoughtful people refuse to consider alternative understandings of life’s origins because that would potentially lead them down a socially uncomfortable path.”

    But the old god did it or the lame assertion of intelligent design and even the Easter bunny, etc., have all been considered, quite thoroughly, and all have been found totally lacking of any scientific merit whatsoever. Klinghoffer can believe whatever he likes, but obviously he chooses to deny science in favor of his myths.

  6. I think we might be seeing the genesis [pun intended] of a new tactic by the D’IDiots. Think it through. They blame Darwin for the Holocaust, so us calling them Holocaust Deniers is just another way for us to claim Darwin wasn’t responsible. Since the Holocaust happened, we must be wrong about them being Holocaust Deniers . . . and if we are wrong about that, we must be wrong about other things . . . like Evolution.

    Damn, my brain hurts on that one. Sorry for subjecting you to it.

  7. Klinghoffer:
    “… anticipating damnation goes with the thought of admitting that Darwinism faces serious scientific challenges…”

    I join abeastwood in calling out Klinghoffer on this —

    Klinghoffer — name one “serious scientific challenge” faced by evolution. We await your answer.

    (We know you read this blog as “religiously” as Ken Ham, so your silence will be considered as your admission that you can’t name any such challenges.)

  8. SC: Oh, Mighty Closer of Italic Tags, please work your magic. I thank you, Dear Sir.

    [*Voice from above*] Behold, it is done!

  9. As one of the major spokesmen and political hacks of ID/creationism, Klinghoffer provides a clear view into the innermost psyche of an ID/creationist. Everything he attributes to “Darwinists” and “Evolutionists” is really the inner angst and bitterness of a kvetching ID/creationist who senses vaguely, somewhere deep down in his shallow little mind, that we in the science community can, and will, call them out and rub their faces in their pseudoscience at any time. ID/creationist pseudoscience is so well documented in a fifty-year public record of their writings that they can’t run away from it. It has all been laid bare; and it is stupid and ugly.

    Ken Ham and his “PhDs” are wrong about everything at even the high school level. They can’t calculate properly, they don’t know basic definitions and concepts of science, and they have no understanding of the processes of scientific research; all they can do is try to imitate what they have made no effort whatsoever to learn. And they muck it up every time they open their mouths.

    Just like Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis, the “Discovery” Institute is a direct intellectual descendent of the misconceptions and misrepresentations of Henry Morris and Duane Gish who formed the Institute for Creation “Research” back in 1970. AiG and the DI accepted that intellectual inheritance without ever noting and checking how egregiously wrong ID/creationism actually is.

    Their ignorant, uncomprehending little minds continue to spin with confusion and anger even as the scientific community has figured out their socio/political tactics and can now ignore them as it continues to leave them in the dust. Even high school students are able to snicker at them.

  10. alternative understandings of life’s origins
    What alternative understanding of life’s origins?
    Particularly if he is serious about it not being creationism.

  11. Christine Janis

    Here’s my question: how do Klinghoffer and other members of the DI know what scientists are thinking? There is no record of them attending scientific meetings, hanging out in scientific departments at universities, etc. It seems that the only time that they meet real scientists is when they inveigle one of them into taking part in a debate.

    Or perhaps there are masses of unhappy, persecuted scientists forming queues around the base of the DI office building, waiting for their opportunity to pour their hearts out about about their true feelings and fear of reprisal. Perhaps somebody who lives in Seattle can go and check.

  12. Christine Janis asks: “Here’s my question: how do Klinghoffer and other members of the DI know what scientists are thinking?”

    I suspect they’ve got the general idea, and whatever silly dreams of success they may have had at the beginning have vanished long ago. I’m pretty sure that their only goal now is to keep the cash coming from their generous patrons, and silly excuses like “Darwinist insecurity” are what seems to be working for them.

  13. Breaking Back Page Drooler News… SC reports that Klinker Dinker writes that science is all about pride and orthodoxy rather than discovery, logic, reason and the scientific method.
    Mental health professionals have their work cut out for them here.

  14. @SC:
    It has been 16 years since the Wedge Document set out its goals. “Silly dreams of success” indeed!

  15. Despite a busy week touring America while saying “Bless you!” almost as many times as Ken Ham ignores scientific evidence in a single day, Professor Tertius took the time to address a question posed here:

    Dr. Christine Janis asked:
    “How do Klinghoffer and other members of the DI know what scientists are thinking?”

    They work from the same game and script as the YECist ministries: The “Everybody Knows Atheist Scientists Think That…” Game.

    Obviously, it all about promoting a caricature. But it is a caricature that resonates with the donor base. For years, they’ve generalized statements by the Apostle Paul in Romans 1 that they’ve taken to mean that all atheists choose to deny the Creator “so they can sin all they want to with total impunity.” (They either gloss over the fact that Paul’s target group in the much-cited Romans 1 passage are idol-worshippers, or they generalize “idols” to include The Theory of Evolution as the “shrine” worshipped by the evolution-religion.) From there, they embellish their caricatures by imagining, “How would I think and reason if I were a dirt-bag atheist scientist?”

    For more of this exciting verbiage, interested readers can read further at the Bible.and.Science.Forum blog:
    The Evolution-Denialism Playbook

  16. Once again, I’m gonna guess that I’m the only one who noticed this mind-boggling irony, and once again I hope I’m wrong:

    Klinghoffer: “Experience has taught us, again and again, how often otherwise thoughtful people refuse to consider alternative understandings of life’s origins because that would potentially lead them down a socially uncomfortable path…”

    He of course must mean how “otherwise thoughtful people” at the DI refuse to consider the “evidences” of a young earth that YECs assert, or of independent origin of “kinds” that both YECs and OECs find convincing. He certainly knows how the DI never considers those alternative understandings, much less critically analyzes them.

    I guess they’ll start now.😉

  17. Derek Freyberg

    Klink: “Carrying on the wonderful legacy of the noble Chuck Colson, … “.
    I’m old enough to remember when Chuck Colson was Tricky Dicky’s hatchetman, and ended up in the slammer for Watergate crimes. Granted he did some good things later, I don’t think I would ever describe Chuck as “the noble” anything. Finding G*d after you’ve been caught just doesn’t seem quite as noble as finding G*d before you’re caught, and perhaps then not doing the things for which you were caught.
    And then we move on to the rest of the piece, which our host and earlier commentators have kindly deconstructed for us.

  18. Hence the popularity of conflating intelligent design with creationism, resulting in the fanciful chimera of “Intelligent Design Creationism.”

    So, Kling claims that ID is not creationism. In other words, ID detects design in living organisms (and the universe etc) but does not assert that something or someone actually made the things that ID detects design in. They came about naturally, but were designed? No creationism here… nope, not a bit. Just the blueprints.

    The only thing different between ID and other forms of creationism is that the most of it’s believers are comfortable with an old earth. An old earth with repetitive extinctions, inhospitable climates for most of its history, and a designer who continues to design over billions of years in tiny increments in trillions of creatures.

  19. The statement that no one gives the I.D. claims any consideration is completely untrue. They simply aren’t happy with the conclusions people arrive at after reviewing the alternative understandings the D.I. produces.

    “Alternative Understandings”, what an entertaining phrase.

  20. @FrankJ:
    You are not alone.

  21. Klinghoffer:
    “Experience has taught us, again and again, how often otherwise thoughtful people refuse to consider alternative understandings of life’s origins…”

    No person on Earth can truthfully claim they have an understanding of life’s origins. We simply do not know. All we have are speculations on life’s origins, some much more probable than others.

    And if we did have an understanding of life’s origin, there would be no valid alternative understandings — they would then be alternative misunderstandings.

  22. All of the writings of the Discoverrhoids demonstrate clearly that they have no right to claim they are a “think tank”. Their thinking is too shallow. “Think tray”, perhaps, but certainly not “think tank”.

  23. @retiredsciguy
    “Think tray”, perhaps, but certainly not “think tank”.
    “Think diaper”?

  24. The whole truth

    “Darwinian Orthodoxy”, “Darwinism”, “Darwin defenders”, “Darwin skeptics”, “Darwin advocates”.

    IDiot-creationists and many other creationists are really, really obsessed with Darwin. They HATE him and everyone who accepts anything that he discovered and proposed. The constant use of the labels above with Darwin’s name in them also shows that klinghoffer and his hateful creationist ilk do not understand or care about what evolutionary theory actually is and that it has progressed greatly since Darwin revealed his evidence and proposed his ideas.

    IDiot klinghoffer and other creationists are stuck in the past, and they put a great deal of effort into personalizing their hateful theocratic agenda. It isn’t enough for them to bash evolutionary theory. They constantly attach Darwin’s name to it (in distorted ways) even though much of modern evolutionary theory is not attributable to Darwin. In their hateful and manipulative minds, to make their propaganda more effective they must create and perpetuate a very personal ‘common enemy’.

    Darwin is their primary target (but of course they have many other targets). To the ‘I was specially created in the image of God and I ain’t no monkey!’ theocratic narcissists, Darwin was and is the epitome of evil and blasphemy, and he must be dragged to the public square, summarily judged, found guilty of unforgivable crimes against humanity, morality, and ‘God’, forced to recant everything he discovered and proposed, and condemned to hellfire for eternity where he belongs.

    In addition to being WAY behind on evolutionary theory, and science in general, the Darwin hating creobots obviously believe that endlessly bashing Darwin will somehow substantiate their ID-creation assertions and convince everyone on Earth to eagerly adopt their particular religious beliefs.

  25. The whole truth says:

    Darwinian Orthodoxy”, “Darwinism”, “Darwin defenders”, “Darwin skeptics”, “Darwin advocates”. IDiot-creationists and many other creationists are really, really obsessed with Darwin.

    Yes, but there’s more to it. Relativity isn’t “Einstein-ism,” plate tectonics isn’t “Wegener-ism,” etc. By personalizing the science, giving it someone’s name and adding “ism” to that name, it resonates like “Marxism,” which really is a bizarre and catastrophic belief system associated with one individual.

  26. Anonymous: “The only thing different between ID and other forms of creationism is that the most of it’s believers are comfortable with an old earth.”

    Actually, a majority of self-described creationists are also comfortable with an old earth. It’s just that, for some reason the media obsesses over YEC to the point that many people wrongly assume that it’s the only belief of evolution-deniers. And that helps the ID peddlers to bait-and-switch definitions. When they say “creationism” they mean the Biblical forms, which is as most of the public understands it too. Critics, however, use it to mean any anti-evolution strategy. So unless we make it clear to the public that IDers are playing a word game, simply saying that “ID is too creationism” is counterproductive, and just what IDers want.

    The big difference between ID and other forms of creationism (Biblical or otherwise) is that ID is a big tent scam, that tries to unite all “kinds” of evolution-deniers. Thus ID takes no “official” position on designer’s identity, the age of life, earth and universe, or even common descent. When IDers do occasionally state their personal position, they usually admit the billions of years of life. And in fact the only clear position that any major IDer took on common descent was to concede it.

    Most IDers also freely admit that they personally think the ultimate designer is God. But they also admit that the designer that they claim to have caught red-handed is not necessarily God. That’s in fact the one issue where they don’t try to have it both ways. Michael Behe admitted at Dover that it’s possible that the designer no longer exists. So unless that good Catholic boy thinks that God is dead, he’s just admitting that he caught not God, but at best some lackey.

  27. @The whole truth:
    I was created in the image of God and ain’t no monkey creationists

    And I insist on pointing to the fallacies of composition and division..

    Evolutionary biology is the scientific understanding of the origins of populations. Reproduction biology is about individuals. Christianity is concerned with the relationship of the individual to one’s Creator. (And Redeemer. For example, Universalism is a minority opinion (“heresy”) which says that the collective is redeemed.)

  28. It used to be that Darwin skeptics were tarred predominantly with language suggestive of religious fundamentalism. Hence the popularity of conflating intelligent design with creationism, resulting in the fanciful chimera of “Intelligent Design Creationism.”

    Take it up with the courts, Klingwrap. They’ve ruled that ID is essentially a fig leaf (so to speak) for Biblical creationism designed to get around prior legal decisions.

    Actually, a majority of self-described creationists are also comfortable with an old earth.

    I’d really like to know the basis for this statement.

    I know there are “old-earth creationists,” but every creationist work I’ve ever seen and every creationist I’ve personally encountered pushes the YEC line. And every account of creationism I’ve ever read makes the point that OEC’ers are a minority among professional Darwin-haters.

    Granted, some of them do an admirable tap-dance, trying to avoid committing to YEC without pissing off its supporters, who get most of the funding. But sooner or later these people have to commit themselves, and then they’re stuck. If they go with OEC, they essentially give away the store to supporters of Darwin, since they’re reduced to positing either an Earth lifeless until 6,000 years ago–which satisfies nobody–or a “punctuated creation” which looks an awful lot like evolution. And if they go with YEC, there they are with the fundamentalists, peddling straight-up Genesis as science.