Klinghoffer: Tyson Is Smooth, Cunning, & Snarky

Slasher

The Discovery Institute doesn’t like Neil deGrasse Tyson. They posted a number of rants about him when the television series Cosmos: A SPACETIME ODYSSEY was being shown. This example is typical: Klinghoffer Is Still Ranting about “Cosmos”.

Now they’re doing it again. This just appeared at their creationist blog: Atheists Deserve a Better Spokesman than Neil deGrasse Tyson.

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:

Just watch him on the Comedy Central program The Night Show [link in Klinghoffer’s post]. Yes, it’s on Comedy Central, but that doesn’t stop host Larry Wilmore from posing, in earnest, the old question of science versus religion. That’s the theme of the panel discussion with Dr. Tyson, comedian Tom Papa, and a soft-spoken Christian hipster pastor, Carl Lentz. … Tyson is the conversation’s designated atheist (though we know he prefers to be called an “agnostic”). See the segment here:

There’s a video of Tyson’s remarks in Klinghoffer’s post. The Discoveroids hate it when a real scientist gets any publicity — especially one who know how to handle the alleged controversy between science and creationism (including intelligent design). So they assigned the task of criticizing the show to Klinghoffer. He says:

Tyson’s logic is that, as he claims, “intelligent design” assumes a benevolent designer, and the track record of violence and suffering in the universe negates a benevolent deity. Tyson goes on to mock people who, according to crude atheist satire, think The Flintstones is a “documentary” and who picture Jesus as riding on a dinosaur.

Tyson is a funny guy! Let’s read on:

Tyson is asked about intelligent design, and can offer nothing more substantive than this:

[Klinghoffer quotes Tyson:] I look out to the universe and yes, it is filled with mysteries, but it’s also filled with all manner of things that would just as soon have you dead. Like asteroid strikes, and hurricanes, and tornadoes, and tsunamis, and volcanoes, and disease, and pestilence. There are things that exist in the natural world that do not have your health or longevity as a priority. And so I cannot look at the universe and say that yes, there’s a God, and this God cares about my life — at all. The evidence does not support this.

Not bad at all! But Klinghoffer is indignant, and he says:

This problem has been known as long as men and women have pondered ultimate questions, and the book of Job showed thousands of years ago that easy resolutions of it fail.

Wow — the Discoveroids’ litigation strategy forbids references to scripture. Oh, wait — Klinghoffer quickly recovers from that lapse:

But that’s all irrelevant to the theory of intelligent design, which considers — in scientific, not moral or spiritual, terms — the objective evidence of purpose at work in the origins of the cosmos and in the origins and evolution of life. ID doesn’t try to resolve the enigma of innocent suffering, and it isn’t committed to identifying the source of design in nature with the God of the Bible. Those are all issues that ID scientists leave in the hands of philosophers and theologians.

That’s perfectly clear. He continues:

Tyson might have chosen to address the science of intelligent design, its distinctive arguments and the evidence it brings to bear. … Instead, Tyson misdirects the conversation to an irrelevancy.

Ah yes, the so-called science of intelligent design. We’ve already addressed that — see The “Science” of Intelligent Design, and also Casey Summarizes Discoveroid “Science”. Here’s more from Klinghoffer:

The temptation is to dismiss Tyson as a buffoon. But first of all, he’s too influential to dismiss. And second, he’s no buffoon. Listening to him, you can’t deny that this is a smooth and cunning man. … Among TV viewers, there are a lot of people — a great majority — too distracted to investigate the evidence of ID for themselves. It’s precisely those unwary science consumers to whom Tyson addresses his snarky platitudes.

Klinghoffer rants a bit more, and then finishes with this:

Thoughtful people deserve to have their ideas, whether right or wrong, defended by someone thoughtful. Yes, atheists deserve better than Dr. Tyson.

All we can add is that intelligent design fans don’t deserve better than Klinghoffer. He’s the best they’ll ever have.

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

18 responses to “Klinghoffer: Tyson Is Smooth, Cunning, & Snarky

  1. ID doesn’t try to resolve the enigma of innocent suffering, and it isn’t committed to identifying the source of design in nature with the God of the Bible. Those are all issues that ID scientists leave in the hands of philosophers and theologians.

    I guess that means there aren’t any scientists at the Discovery Institute – only theologians?

  2. And THIShas to really piss off Klinghoffer….

  3. I’ve never thought of Tyson as a “spokesman for atheism”. For that matter, I not at all sure that atheism needs a spokesman.

    Still, it’s good to see that Klinghoffer has such high concern for the welfare of atheists </sarcasm>.

  4. It’s interesting that ID is not religious, but it’s very important for Klinghoffer to note that Tyson is atheist, or maybe agnostic.

  5. Yes, IDiocy is clearly not religious. Which is why Klinghoffer quotes that highly regarded science organ *The Book of Job* for evidence.

  6. @ michaelfugate: And Klingy won’t be best pleased that, amongst the top 20 in that list of greats, are such giants of the Enlightenment as Wollstonecroft, Kant, Paine, and Adam Smith…

  7. If Tyson is no buffoon, then why is it tempting to dismiss him as a buffoon? Is that how ID logic works?

  8. It’s always interesting how the mystically minded toggle the “sign from God” and “it’s the work of the devil” claims based on comfort zone.

    To Ol Hambo someone like Tyson couldn’t possibly be a sign from above indicating maybe it’s time to get out of the bronze age. Tyson has to be “smooth and cunning” which in cretin speak means “The work of the devil”.

  9. Meanwhile, Klinghoffer is an utter buffoon. Do we know how much traffic they have been getting lately?

  10. I don’t know their traffic volume, but I’d bet that a significant percentage of it is people who go there to point and laugh. I’d wager the same for the AiG and ICR websites.

  11. Charles Deetz ;)

    Designed life, but no worries about how it actually operates, good or bad? Death and pestilence aren’t worth studying for why or whether they were designed, we’re just going to ignore them, Tyson is a dope for suggesting they are proofs against design. Lame, lame, lame.

  12. “Atheists Deserve a Better Spokesman than Neil deGrasse Tyson.”
    I totally agree! See, Tyson is not an atheist.

    http://rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/show/rs103-neil-degrasse-tyson-on-why-he-doesnt-call-himself-an-a.html

    “(though we know he prefers to be called an “agnostic”).”
    Thanks for admitting your own dishonesty, Klinkleklapper.

  13. Thoughtful people deserve to have their ideas, whether right or wrong, defended by someone thoughtful.

    Kling – — perhaps you’re right, but then it wouldn’t be as funny. The Nightly Show, in case you didn’t notice, is a comedy show. They address actual social issues, but the show is not a science documentary. Chill out, man.

    Speaking for the “thoughtful people”, (since they apparently need a spokesman) – we all know that one has to believe in God before one can believe in ID. It doesn’t work the other way around. So do us a favor and drop the pretense that ID does not presume God. As Wilmore would say, “keep it a hundred.”

  14. [Klinghoffer] continues:

    Tyson might have chosen to address the science of intelligent design, its distinctive arguments and the evidence it brings to bear.

    The what and the what? ID may have “distinctive arguments,” but “science”? “Evidence”? *Snicker*

    Instead, Tyson misdirects the conversation to an irrelevancy.

    But it isn’t irrelevant, since ID’ers leave little room for doubt that their “Designer” is the God of the Bible. If that is so, and if God is supposed to be a loving Father who cares about people as individuals, then the problem of “innocent suffering” is entirely germane.

  15. Continuing: the question then is, how could a loving God have designed the universe we actually live in?

  16. @Eric Lipps:
    distinctive arguments
    There aren’t many arguments which are distinctive, that haven’t been used by the 18th century.
    As far as to the faults of the universe we actually live in, the standard defense is that they are due to the Fall of Adam.

  17. michaelfugate

    I was just thinking that Complex Specified Information is to information as Double Secret Probation is to probation – sounds impressive, but in the end means the same. All you need is agency to find information – bacteria are information gatherers and disseminators.

  18. Double Secret Information sounds good. What it is, and what explains its peculiar behavior.