Klinghoffer Exposes Academic Bias

Turtles all the way down

A new post at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog demonstrates that it’s not Turtles all the way down. No matter how far down you go, there will always be a Discoveroid occupying the depths below you. Their latest post is titled Identifying “Academia’s Bermuda Triangle”.

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 for emphasis. He begins with a brain-teaser about the perils of academia:

Complete the last word in the second of the following two paragraphs:

This is an essay about how to avoid carpet-bombing your career as a scientist. …. Veer too far from carefully charted courses and someone may slip quietly up behind you and slide a cold piece of steel in between the ribs of your budding research career.

They’ll do this believing that they are serving public interest by snuffing out dangerous research agendas, but that won’t make any difference to you. It’ll be your reputation that will suffer grievous injury. What in the world might elicit such harsh rebuke from a community of otherwise broadminded, free speech spouting scholars? What is so verboten that it constitutes academia’s Bermuda Triangle, a place where careers disappear more often than ships in the actual Bermuda Triangle? In one word, it’s….

Quite a mystery, isn’t it, dear reader? What is academia’s Bermuda Triangle? Klinghoffer provides the answer:

In a word, it’s what? Intelligent design? That is what I would have said, but no, that’s two words. The essay by St. Louis University criminologist Brian Boutwell, published at Quilette, is titled The Bermuda Triangle of Science. He contends that the area of scholarship that imperils all who enter is not a skeptical approach to Darwinian evolution but rather the fraught subject of race.

Using that as a springboard to discuss intelligent design is Klinghoffer’s unique insight, because the article doesn’t waste time mentioning obviously nutty topics like creationism, astrology, or ancient astronaut theory. Somehow, Klinghoffer thinks his favorite “science” is in the same category as race studies when it comes to being a career destroyer. Let’s read on:

Well, well. Without denying that race is explosive on campuses, surely evolution is no less dangerous, subject to “obscene…violations of free speech,” “grant dollars denied…, denied promotions, removal of a course from course listings, and an atmosphere of general harassment.”

No doubt, Klinghoffer has in mind the travails of creationists in academia, as immortalized in their “documentary” Expelled. Then he reminds us of something that still causes agony for the Discoveroids — the Sternberg peer review controversy, which resulted in the retraction of a creationist paper by Discoveroid Stephen Meyer. The Discoveroids think that scandal ranks up there with the Galileo affair. Then he blames it all on Darwin:

Some observations on race and evolution: First, if the scientific study of racial differences incites anger, that’s in part because of the history of racial pseudoscience going back to Darwin’s own notorious writings, especially in The Descent of Man, that inspired venomous Nazi and eugenic theorizing.

Utter Discoveroid rubbish, of course — see Hitler and Darwin. Klinghoffer continues:

Second, do you ever notice how campaigners for free speech on campus ignore the danger to scholars who investigate evidence for design in nature?

Yes! And they also ignore the danger to “scholars” who investigate the Moon landing hoax. Academia is so unfair! Here’s more:

I’m sorry to say, intellectuals who decry manacles on scholars in other areas, for the most part couldn’t care less about protecting freedom for scientists when it comes to evolution. Intelligent design, not race, is the field of scholarly study that really dare not speak its name.

How horrible — all those “scientists” doing “scholarly study” about intelligent design have to hide in the closet! Moving along:

Finally, I wonder if the persecution of ID scientists escapes notice because students, for the most part, don’t get worked up about evolution. They absorb the orthodoxy without question, for the most part.

The brainwashed fools!

Klinghoffer babbles on a bit longer, but that’s all we can handle. In closing, however, we should point out that there’s some good to be found in Klinghoffer’s post. His argument and his hysterical tone reveal that the Discoveroids are very well aware that their campaign to penetrate academia has been a complete and total failure. And that’s good news indeed!

Copyright © 2016. 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 “Klinghoffer Exposes Academic Bias

  1. Data, Klingy. Show us the bloody data. If you haven’t got any, buzz off.

  2. michaelfugate

    It wouldn’t be ID if they couldn’t tie Darwin to Hitler! If one read only creationists, one would be led to believe that racism didn’t exist before 1859!

  3. I’d love to hear about this research. What is the research project? What is the hypothesis? Who is the scientist being prevented from carrying out this research?

    PS. Why doesn’t the DI fund the research?

  4. Yet again, Klingyklown shows us that he has no idea of what science is, how it works, or what its findings are. That he is really deserving of the Curmudgeon’s coveted Buffoon Award is clearly on display here.

  5. Rob – many of us have the same questions. I am thinking of sending my research proposal to the DI requesting three years of support at $100,000 per year to cover my stipend and benefits. I will gather all of the scientific evidence that supports intelligent design and write a summary. Of course there will be no evidence, but I can live off of the fatted calf for a few years. It is likely that the DI has no money to support research grants since they spend most of their income/donations on themselves.

  6. Klankerwanker is, once again, delusional in his imagined persecution of “ID friendly” researchers at universities. The Truth ™ is there is no such bias. A researcher can study ID to their heart’s content. Take Behe (please!) for example. He’s got tenure, teaches biochemistry and is as snug as a bug in a rug down there in sleepy little Lehigh U. Granted there is a sign on his door that reads, “Beware of Troll,” but other than that there’s no problem.

    Then there’s Robert Marks and Little Ewert at Baylor who happily run the “Evolution Infomatics Lab, Tire Repair and Hair Salon.” Not sponsored by Baylor, of course, but happy little clams they are.

    Then there’s Dembski, also formerly of Baylor, who was fired from his position by the Baylor president who hired him, but not for ID “research,” rather for being an uncivil jerk. The Dembster bragged about being able to write one of his books while being on paid-fired-contract with Baylor.

    And Gonzalez the Astrologer didn’t get canned from Iowa for doing ID “research,” rather he derailed himself from the tenure track by not doing any work and not bringing in any research grant money.

    So, where’s all this bias of which you squeak, eh, Klinkywinky?

  7. For once I like the analogy. It makes clear that Klinkleclapper’s musing are based on myth, just like the original:


  8. Is there a list of people who have been let go from academic positions because of their differences from Young Earth Creationism, global Flood, etc.?

  9. Docbill, your evidence against a worldwide conspiracy directed towards Intelligent Design “theorists” is proof that the conspiracy goes all the way to the top.

  10. docbill1351

    You know that we of the Illuminati never talk about the Illuminati, assuming there is such a thing. There are five lights.

    The question on the floor:

    Is there a list of people who have been let go from academic positions because of their differences from Young Earth Creationism, global Flood, etc.?

    I don’t know of a list but it would be called List Dembski who was fired from Southwest Theological Seminary (or some such place) for writing that The Flood was probably a local event and not literally true, and old Dumbski found out the hard way there were no take-backs!

    But, yes, there have been a few cases recently where academic staff have been fired for theological or doctrinal violations.

    ID “proponents” fired for pushing ID? Zero.

  11. Saith Klinghoffer:

    Some observations on race and evolution: First, if the scientific study of racial differences incites anger, that’s in part because of the history of racial pseudoscience going back to Darwin’s own notorious writings, especially in The Descent of Man, that inspired venomous Nazi and eugenic theorizing.

    Well, actually, no. “Racial pseudoscience” goes back a lot further than that. As for the Nazis, they owe a lot more to Houston Stewart Chamberlain and Arthur de Gobineau than to Charles Darwin.

  12. @Eric Lipps
    Chamberlain was strongly opposed to Darwin and evolution.
    Wikipedia says about de Gobineau, “Trained neither as a theologian nor a naturalist, and writing before the popular spread of evolutionary theory, Gobineau took the Bible to be a true telling of human history.”