Klinghoffer’s Opinion of Ben Carson

When your Curmudgeon spotted this, all he could think was “My cup runneth over.

You remember the last time we mentioned one of the Republican presidential candidates — Is Ben Carson Insane?. Well, look what we found at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog: Ben Carson on Creationism, Evolution, and Intelligent Design.

What makes this even better is that 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.

Carson and Klinghoffer — it doesn’t get any better than this! Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

We’re not in the business of expressing preferences for one aspirant to higher office over another, but evaluating candidates’ views on relevant scientific issues comes with the territory of what we do. Dr. Carson’s thoughts on evolution, the history of life and the cosmos, have come under scrutiny. He was on The O’Reilly Factor last night, and gracefully handled questions about his beliefs [link to a video].

[…]

Bill O’Reilly opened by making a useful differentiation between intelligent design and creationism. He asked Carson if he’s a creationist, to which Carson replied that the Declaration of Independence affirms a “Creator,” and so does he.

[*Groan*] We’ve rebutted that clunker about the Declaration of Independence too many times. Let’s keep going:

Fine, O’Reilly answered, but “That could be intelligent design,” not creationism. Yes indeed!

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! O’Reilly is another genius, as we’ve noted before — see Is Bill O’Reilly a Discoveroid? Let’s read on:

O’Reilly deserves kudos for clarifying a distinction that Darwin lobbyists habitually obfuscate.

Yeah, kudos to O’Reilly. Klinghoffer continues:

Carson went on to deny reports that he thinks the world is just six thousand years old: [quote from Carson].

Okay, he’s an old-Earth creationist. So are the Discoveroids. Skipping some other quotes, here’s more:

To be sure, Dr. Carson has said things to which I for one can’t agree — for example, his comments about Darwinian theory as reflecting the influence of “the Adversary,” meaning Satan. That was in a speech before a church group in 2012, and he has recently sought to clarify his meaning in a Time Magazine interview that, in truth, didn’t help much.

Klinghoffer doesn’t agree with Carson’s Satan remark? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! This is a small sampling of Klinghoffer’s previous posts, which most of you have seen before. He has attempted to link Charles Darwin to: Hitler, and communism, and Stalin, and the Columbine shootings, and Charles Manson, and the Ft. Hood Massacre, and Mao Tse-tung, and Dr. Josef Mengele. But for some reason, Klinghoffer draws the line at Satan.

Skipping some more blather, here’s the last of Klinghoffer’s post:

Wherever his presidential campaign ultimately takes him, Dr. Carson has stirred the pot of an important debate. He shows that a serious person who is not an evolutionary biologist has a right, and an obligation, to think through the evidence about evolution for himself. The conclusions he has reached so far don’t exactly match ours, but his thoughtful skepticism is worthy of respect.

So there you are, dear reader. Klinghoffer thinks Carson’s thoughtful views on evolution are worthy of respect. Well, yes, in a way. They’re as worthy of respect as Klinghoffer’s views.

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

16 responses to “Klinghoffer’s Opinion of Ben Carson

  1. Carson comes into the race; Carson will go out of the race. You can’t explain that!

  2. michaelfugate

    I think Carson doth protest too much. Instead of defending his views, he whinges about the “liberal” media. Take some responsibility Ben or go home.

  3. Carson comes into the race; Carson will go out of the race. You can’t explain that!

    Clever!

    Of course, the real explanation of Ben Carson is hoping that he can improve his brand value on the speaker circuit (and even possible TV pundit & social commentary bookings)

    Now that he’s actually into his “candidate thing”, he’s probably starting to hope that he just might possibly under the right set of circumstances find himself on the ticket as a VP candidate who placates the right-wing of the party. However, just as a lot of them were leary of voting for a Mormon, the many of the same fundamentalist Christians still consider Seventh Day Adventism a “dangerous cult with a false Gospel of works.” Oddly enough, there’s a lot of conservative Christians who can more easily vote for an “ambiguously-religious person” than an extremely conservative Mormon or SDA. That was a huge issue in some quarters with Romney vs. Obama—and many even voted for neither.

  4. @michaelfugate-
    Is it not standard practice throughout the spectrum of evolution protest, instead of defending (or indeed, describing) one’s views, to whinge about evolution? Is that not definitive of ID?
    The lady doth protest too much, methinks
    The Wikipedia article on that line from Hamlet has what I think is a nice phrase,

    unintentional apophasis — where the speaker who “protests too much” in favor of some assertion puts into others’ minds the idea that the assertion is false, something that they may not have considered before.

    An ordinary, intentional apophasis is when one feigns not to bring up a subject, only to call attention to it: not to mention …, or: I don’t want to sully my opponent’s character, or even: I’m sure that he doesn’t think he’s lying.
    There are a number of instances of unintentional apophasis in the evolution denial movement, where they bring up a subject where they had better not bring up that subject, an analogy which makes one think: That doesn’t sound like intelligent design to me.

  5. So now some people are coming forward and asserting that Carson botched their operations, that he’s nothing but a quack and incompetent doctor.

  6. Klinghoffer once again whistles that tired old tune:

    Bill O’Reilly opened by making a useful differentiation between intelligent design and creationism.

    The Discoveroids endless insistance that their unilaterally-applied redefinition of “Creationism” to mean only ‘Young Earth Biblical Creationism’ may indeed be “useful” to them (in maintaining their Big Tent), but it’s a distinction without a difference.

    Consider how one would respond to someone who proclaimed: “How dare you call me a racist!? Just because I maintain that some races are inherently superior to others does not make me a racist — for I do not publically proclaim any belief about which race is superior to the others!”

  7. DavidK reports:

    So now some people are coming forward and asserting that Carson botched their operations, that he’s nothing but a quack and incompetent doctor.

    Utterly irrelevant IMHO, whether such allegations are true or false. I’m instinctively suspicious of such reporting, which at face-value looks like a smear, and disinclined to investigate such reports on the grounds that medical competence is not the issue in his bid for elected office.

    I have absolutely no reason to doubt, for example, that the egregious Dr. Michael Egnor is indeed a highly-gifted neurosurgeon; I can, indeed, even admire him for his skill and dedication in that field. That has no bearing whatsover on the fact that in other regards the man is an obnoxious liar and flaming idiot. Or–to take an example from the other end of the political spectrum–consider Noam Chomksy. However vehemently one might disagree with his political opinions, it is foolish to deny his pioneering brilliance in the field of Linguistics.

  8. Oh sod it! In previous post but one, the hypothetical quote from a crypto-racist should read “proclaim any belief about”…

    I am probably too heavily overdrawn on my account with The Great Hand of Correction to yet again solicit a fix for that one. Is His Mercy truly Infinite?

    [*Voice from above*] Were it otherwise, you would have known it long ago.

  9. Wherever his presidential campaign ultimately takes him, Dr. Carson has stirred the pot of an important debate. He shows that a serious person who is not an evolutionary biologist has a right, and an obligation, to think through the evidence about evolution for himself. The conclusions he has reached so far don’t exactly match ours, but his thoughtful skepticism is worthy of respect.

    It would be nice if in his campaign Dr. Carson showed any evidence of thinking about anything at all. As a presidential candidate, he makes a great neurosurgeon.

    And of course one can’t have “thoughtful skepticism” without actual thought.

  10. “…think through the evidence about evolution for himself…his thoughtful skepticism is worthy of respect.”

    The problem is, Carson’s positions seem to be based on nothing more than his opinion. I’ve seen no indication that he has bothered to become educated or informed about any of the topics on which he pontificates.

  11. michaelfugate

    Given that his father was a SDA minister, I doubt he has ever thought about the science behind evolution. He most likely believes now what he believed when he was 6.

  12. I’ve stopped making fun of Carson because I think he’s mentally ill. Carson shows no sign that his blathering is cunningly designed, rather, to him his delusions are real. As for Carson becoming “educated or informed about any of the topics on which he pontificates,” I don’t think it’s mentally possible for him to do that, his delusions are so strong.

    That said, I don’t think Carson has tread on climate change since Jerry Brown sent him the data. We’ll see.

  13. michaelfugate: Excellent point. I see a lot of things disparaging Carson as a doctor. All the nonsense he’s spouting isn’t from his stint in medical school, he learned all that at his momma’s knee. So to criticize him as a doctor (possibly you’ve seen the memes going around “Dr. Seuss still a better Dr. than Ben Carson etc.) is absurd, since he was a fine surgeon and obfuscates what is wrong with him: his loony beliefs.
    The biggest problem with Carson isn’t even his creationism. He is a political neophyte with absolutely no grasp of the geopolitical structure of the world.

  14. michaelfugate

    @Troy, I am sure he was primed for encountering evolution when it came up in the few biology courses he took (he was a Psychology major) and just ignored all the evidence; he already knew it was satanic and wrong.

  15. michaelfugate

    The other thing that confuses me is in the frenzy to jump on the anti-marriage equality bandwagon, people like Carson piss on the marriages of every Biblical patriarch engaging in polygamy and concubinage. Solomon supposedly had 700 wives and half as many concubines – busy man to say the least. Carson is smarter than Solomon?

  16. Christine Janis

    “The biggest problem with Carson isn’t even his creationism. He is a political neophyte with absolutely no grasp of the geopolitical structure of the world.”

    All people seem to care about in England is his views on guns —- nobody even mentions he creationism. Not sure why —- but of course it isn’t a topic at all in this country.