Klinghoffer & the Ladies of “The View”


Many of you have heard of The View — a daytime talk show on American television, featuring an all-female panel comprised mostly of droolingly ignorant and highly emotional ladies babbling about various social and political issues.

It shouldn’t surprise us that The View is watched by the geniuses at the Discovery Institute. They’ve just posted this at their creationist blog: The View Takes on Intelligent Design, Sort Of.

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:

You have to grant some grudging admiration to evolutionary advocates like our friends at the National Center for Science Education. They’ve done an impressive job of misleading the media with the false equation between creationism and intelligent design.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Yes, the “false equation.” Then, as an example, he describes what some website said about a recent episode of The View. His purported quotes follow:

Candace Cameron Bure, the sister of evangelist actor Kirk Cameron, insisted on Wednesday that creationism was compatible with science. But she was then left speechless after Joy Behar asked to defend her remarks.

Wowie — the ladies of The View got into a cat-fight about creationism. It must have been an amazing show! We used to write about Kirk Cameron, for example: Kirk Cameron and the Crocoduck. Let’s read on as Klinghoffer quotes some more:

A discussion on The View about reports that GOP presidential hopeful Ben Carson’s own advisers doubted his grasp on foreign policy prompted Behar to remind her co-hosts the that former neurosurgeon also rejected evolution. “I take issue with that,” Bure [ Kirk Cameron’s sister] interrupted. “Because that does not mean that he is a dumb man or unintelligent.”

What a show! Klinghoffer continues quoting Cameron’s sister:

“To use that as an argument — I don’t believe in evolution, but intelligent design, there are many people and great scientists that are all over the world that believe in intelligent design,” she continued.

“Really?” Behar replied skeptically. “I’d like to meet them.”

“To say that someone who believes in intelligent design does not believe in science is silly,” Bure insisted. “The two are compatible.”

“How?” Behar wondered. “Explain it.”

Bure took a deep breath and let out a nervous laugh. “You’re putting me on the spot,” she told Behar.

No doubt you wish you had seen that episode of The View. Well, you still can:

Let’s see if Klinghoffer has anything else to say:

I must say I’m impressed that the group waded into the subject, however imperfectly. Alas, it appears no one on the panel knew what intelligent design means. The View isn’t a philosophy seminar, nor do the co-hosts include any scientists or science journalists. I’m not blaming them. They get their information the way most Americans do — from the media, which on the subject of evolution has collectively capitulated to a misinformation campaign.

Here’s one more excerpt:

Pressed to name a scientist who supports ID, Ms. Bure at one point said, “I would love to bring them on the show.” Joy Behar agrees, “Let’s have a debate between Darwinism and intelligent design,” to which Whoopi Goldberg responds: “We will invite folks on because we want to have as many conversations as we can.”

No longer describing the TV show, Klinghoffer is now speaking for himself:

Whoa. No kidding? That is a fine idea. Please be in touch and I have no doubt we can offer an appropriate and illuminating conversation partner.

We’re excited. Just think, maybe one day they’ll have Casey on The View. It’ll be a day to remember!

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

34 responses to “Klinghoffer & the Ladies of “The View”

  1. The show must be getting a ton of phone calls from creationists who would gladly give their soul for the kind of exposure the view has to offer.

    Hopefully no one is injured by the tsunami of drool that will soon be unleashed.

  2. Oh, yeah! Get Kenneth Miller on that show too! There is a YouTube video of him at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg wherein he shows the [BS] of ID in a very entertaining, easy-to-follow presentation.

  3. michaelfugate

    It really does depend on how one defines science and creationism – creationists like Klinghoffer and Ham claim ID and YEC are science, but that is simply not true. Meyer, for instance, keeps telling us that science in its currently practiced form lacks God and it would somehow be more complete if it included God, yet we know that science + God = science; God has no effect. There is no equation in which God appears.

  4. Klinghoffer writes: “…nor do the co-hosts [of The View] include any scientists or science journalists.”

    Sure, but nor do they pretend to be, David.

  5. michaelfugate:
    “There is no equation in which God appears.”

    Sidney Harris would beg to differ:

  6. I like the way Joy Behar went in for the kill, along with the woman to her right (screen’s left, between Joy and Whoopie). Too bad Whoopie interrupted with her “Why can’t there be both?” nonsense.

    Of course, we can understand why Whoopie killed the discussion. She knows her TV audience, and knows there are likely to be a lot of evangelicals who would stop watching if the conversation went on.

  7. michaelfugate

    god of the gaps?

  8. Ya gotta love Whoopi’s take on Evolution vs. Creationism:

    Why can’t both be true?

    How about: because one is based on rigourously-researched empirical data, and the other is based on Bronze Age fairytales?

    Or: one produces irrefutable evidence of deep time, and the other sticks its fingers in its ears and screams, “La la la, I can’t hear you!”

    Or: one is science, the other is a steaming pile of [beep-beep-boop!]…

  9. Klinghoffer confabulates regarding “the false equation between creationism and intelligent design”.

    What, he really thinks we all just fell off the turnip wagon?

  10. The false equation is the one equating creationism with Young Earth Creationism plus Noah’s Ark etc.

    Not to mention the equation of evolutionary biology with origins of life research and cosmology – or, for that matter, with atheism.

    And then there is the equation of Intelligent Design with an alternative explanation.

  11. “It really does depend on how one defines …. creationism”
    Taken literally this is an open door of course – if I define creationism as a piece of furniture with four legs then ID is not creationism indeed.
    A meaningful definition of creationism can be get by listing its three core elements:
    1. Rejection of Evolution Theory;
    2. Paley’s False Watchmaker Analogy;
    3. God of the Gaps.

    Accepting one element is not enough; accepting two almost always (I yet have to meet an exception) results in accepting the third core element.

    @1 – Quite a few creationists claim that they accept evolution, but change the meaning of the word. The most obvious example is what our dear SC calls the Micro Macro Mambo.
    @2 – The last variation of this analogy I have met is “suppose you walk around within a tv set; you can’t have any idea about the designer”.
    @3 – As our dear SC also has pointed out here the apologist likes to conflate methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism.

    With this definition ID totally qualifies as creationism. I have yet to meet a meaningful one that excludes ID. What I grant Klinkleclapper and co is that ID is not YEC. That doesn’t say much. A Toyota is not a Rolls Royce either, but both are cars.

    Science is harder to define, but as long as creationists don’t do empirical research to bolster their crap we can safely assume no form of creationism is science.
    And no, Ol’ Hambo’s Ark doesn’t count.

  12. I think it’s amusing that Klimplepimple has time and interest to watch The View, one of, if not “the” most vapid shows on TV. Five numbskulls mouthing off on stuff about which they have no concept.

    I got a chuckle out of Bimbo Cameron flat-footed to explain what “intelligent design” creationism was. Clearly, she had no clue. One question and she was out of her depth. Well, the apple doesn’t fall far from the Tree of Knowledge in the Cameron family.

    All that mud slung, I will admit, however, that The View is the perfect forum to discuss “intelligent design” creationism.

  13. @mnbo:
    Paley wasn’t the inventor of the watch analogy. It was commonplace in the 18th century, and it goes back at least as far as Cicero (not a “watch”, of course, but a water clock or some such thing).

  14. michaelfugate

    ….the false equation between creationism and intelligent design.

    Let’s see
    Both believe the Abrahamic God is the creator/designer
    Both don’t understand science.
    Both use the same arguments.
    Both try to legislate their way into public schools.
    Both do most of their work in churches and religious colleges and universities.

    I am sure there are more – other than the name, are there any differences?

  15. @docbill,

    “I think it’s amusing that Klimplepimple has time and interest to watch The View…”

    Indeed! But, what else is there to do at the Discovery Institute? (Besides maybe work in your green-screen laboratory.)

  16. Klinghoffer continues quoting Cameron’s sister:

    “To use that as an argument — I don’t believe in evolution, but intelligent design, there are many people and great scientists

    Name one “great scientist” who’s an ID supporter.

    Oh, but I forgot: to creationists–and yes, ID is creationism, no matter how the former’s protagonists try to deny it to get around a growing list of unfavorable court decisions–the mark of a great scientist is precisely that he or she believes the Genesis story and is willing to say so out loud or in print. You can’t go wrong if you get to say that agreeing with you is the mark of greatness.

  17. Oops. The full quote, of course, should be

    “To use that as an argument — I don’t believe in evolution, but intelligent design, there are many people and great scientists that are all over the world that believe in intelligent design,” she continued.

    The point is obvious: as I’ve noted above, ID’ers think a scientist is “great” if he or she is on their side, and if they had their way it would be the rack and the stake for the rest.

  18. Kirk Cameron is a YEC, isn’t he? So, when his sister Candace says she believes in ID, then she’s not a creationist, especially not a YEC. (using Kling’s logic) She’s rejected her brother’s beliefs and gone all sciency.

    After all, how could a ID believer fall for all that creationism stuff? Unless, perhaps, she learned whatever she knows about ID from other YECs, like her brother. Unless ID was discussed approvingly in her fundamentalist church. Unless she read ID bloggers like Kling who argue that non-ID believers tend to be atheists, capable of monstrous evil, and persecute the religious. Unless she has attended ID seminars in bible schools. Unless… well, unless she has read the wedge document.

    I mean, how else could one possibly make a “false equation” between ID and creationism.

  19. My dark heart fairly throbs and quivers at the thought of Casey Luskin on The View going head to head with those ladies. I close my evil eyes and ponder the thrill of hearing Casey’s gerbil-like, breathless bleating with the enthusiastic swooning of those empty-headed bimbos that make up The View’s chorus.

    Wake up to the educational and intellectual state of America today, and weep.

  20. michaelfugate

    Wouldn’t it make more sense to put on Anne Gauger and Georgia Purdom? Could we Eugenie Scott, Barbara Forrest, or Olivia Judson? Marlene Zuk would be good too.

  21. Texas rejects letting academics vet public school textbooks”


    But they will have the attention of the Texas BOE.

  22. @TomS: “Paley wasn’t the inventor of …”
    I know. It’s not my fault though that the analogy is named after him. And I’m not going to mention Cicero every time when I write about it just to make you feel good, especially not when it’s totally irrelevant for my comment who invented it.

  23. @DavidK: Just as well, actually. There are plenty of parents who will find errors that will get corrected in 20 years or so.

    Some years ago when Don “Somebody’s got to stand up to the experts” McLeroy was chairman some review board or another was identifying experts and “expert” was defined as anyone who was nominated by 3 board members without any further vetting. Thus, IIRC, pseudo-historian and professional flim-flam man, David Barton, was picked for the History Panel, and some creationist chemist from A&M was selected for the Science Panel. It was just too stupid to believe.

    Oh, wait, Texas + Education – no, it wasn’t too stupid.

  24. OT (sort of), but we just now passed Ken Ham’s ArkPark construction project at Williamstown, Ky. You can barely see it from I-75 if you know where to look. You can see the construction cranes; the upper part of the ark looks like it could be a factory if you didn’t know about it being an ark. It’s a bit of a distance from the interstate.

  25. Does anyone know the exact street location of the building site for the ark?

  26. michaelfugate

    The Ark Encounter will be located on I-75 in Williamstown, KY, (Grant County) about a 40-mile interstate drive south of downtown Cincinnati, Ohio. RSG perhaps knows more…

  27. Troy asks: “Does anyone know the exact street location of the building site for the ark?”

    Here ya go: Exit 69.

  28. Rather than read DK’s rant and listen to the “catfight,” I’d appreciate it if one of you clarifies this:

    DK writes about the “false equation between creationism and intelligent design,” and then that CCB asserts that “creationism [emphasis mine was compatible with science.”

    So, does that mean that DK thinks that both ID and creationism (whatever he means by that) are compatible with science, or is he suggesting that ID may not be?

    Did either DK or CCB elaborate on what “compatible with science” means? Specifically, did either claim it to mean: “the evidence points to kinds popping up at once a few 1000 years ago,” or “the evidence says that some designer did something somewhere, at some time(s),” or “the creator/designer used evolution, and ~4 billion years of common descent”?

    The quote from CCB is that she believes in “ID”. Does that mean that she does not believe in creationism? Or that DK thinks she does not? Or do one or both agree that one can “believe in” both? (which is possible, unlike “believing in” YEC and OEC at the same time)

    Last question. Would I be correct in assuming that the View panel whined about God instead of calmly asking CCB simple “what happened when” questions?

  29. Eric Lipps: “Name one ‘great scientist’ who’s an ID supporter.”

    As you note in your 2nd comment, she only said “believes in ID,” which sometimes includes “theistic evolutionists” who just personally believe an untestable “ultimate cause” but are critics, not supporters of the ID movement. I’m guessing she didn’t volunteer names, and that no one asked her for names either. But I welcome anyone to correct me if I’m wrong.

  30. Ed: “Kirk Cameron is a YEC, isn’t he? So, when his sister Candace says she believes in ID, then she’s not a creationist, especially not a YEC. (using Kling’s logic) She’s rejected her brother’s beliefs and gone all sciency.”

    While I also hope for clarification, I’m ecstatic that someone besides me even asked! Of course, no answer, however detailed, will include what anti-evolution activists know and believe, but would dare not speak. So allow some personal speculation:

    Kirk, Candace and David all privately know that there’s no evidence for a young earth, or of “kinds” popping up all at once recently, or periodically over billions of years. Kirk, and maybe Candace, personally take one of those accounts “on faith despite lack of evidence,” whereas David is probably a closet “Darwinist.” But they all know the cultural value of maintaining a “big tent” against “Darwinism.” Kirk and Candace may be as clumsy with their terminology as David is slick, but they can afford to be. Most people, including to David’s chagrin, most rank-and-file evolution-deniers, have no problem equating ID and creationism.

  31. Pardon the thread monopolizing, but I haven’t seen one this interesting anywhere in months:

    michaelfugate: “I am sure there are more – other than the name, are there any differences?”

    Not to defend the ID scam in the least, but some of the similarities you mention are simply untrue. ID, neither the official position, nor every DI fellow, “believe[s] the Abrahamic God is the creator/designer.” Certainly they want followers to infer that if possible, but if Behe really believed that he caught God red-handed, he essentially admitted at Dover that God could be dead! Most likely no DI fellow think they caught any designer, or if they did, at best some hapless lackey. Not that they’d ever admit that of course. Also they do not use all the arguments of [Biblical] creationism. In fact they more steadfastly avoid the testable – and legal to teach – “what happened when” ones than the ones that assert designer’s identity. Now why would they do that – unless they know those arguments are so absurd – and mutually contradictory – that even most nonscientist evolution-deniers would see through them?

    TomS: “The false equation is the one equating creationism with Young Earth Creationism plus Noah’s Ark etc.

    But as you know, most people on the street, whether they accept evolution or not, do equate creationism (and often ID too) with the Ark, “kinds” etc. (young earth is usually optional, if they even think of the “when” which is rare). Whereas most critics of the anti-evolution movement define “creationism” as any strategy to promote unreasonable doubt of evolution, while suggesting that “some designer did something else instead.” So when IDers claim that “ID is not creationism,” it’s specifically to bait critics into a knee-jerk “is too creationism!” response, instead of one that calmly and clearly shows how the IDer is playing a word game. One that they would not need to play if they thought any of the “what happened when” claims of Biblical creationism had the slightest bit of evidence to back it up.

  32. Troy’s link to Google Earth gets you close to the ark site; it’s the cleared land with the earthmoving equipment northwest of the Ky. Veteran’s Cemetery, which is just south of I-75 exit 154. If you zoom in, you can see that the road leading NW from the KY. Vets cemetery now carries two names — Eibeck Ln & Noah’s Ark Ln.

    You can just see the ark from I-75 as you’re driving by the Ky. Vets Cemetery.
    Kentucky has Mammoth Cave National Park as well. Can’t see it very well from the highway either.

  33. RSG The reason I wanted to find it is to see if Google Earth image was recent enough to show it. As you can see it does not.
    I’m a bit impressed that Hambo was able to pull it off. But when you consider the amount of public money going into it the feat was more wrangling the legal loopholes than finding the odd millionaire here and there that wants to finance a creationist endeavor.