Yesterday we wrote Oook, Oook! Ken Ham and Harambe. Today it’s the Discovery Institute’s turn. They just posted Killing Harambe — An Intelligent Design Perspective at their creationist blog.
This is great! Yesterday we got ol’ Hambo’s biblical view of things, and today we’re getting the Discoveroids’ interpretation. 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.
Over the Memorial Day holiday, zookeepers in Cincinnati made the correct decision to shoot and kill a gorilla, Harambe, to protect a little boy who had fallen into the animal’s enclosure.
That’s nice, but we want to know how he reached that conclusion. He tells us:
For the gorilla’s death, a first response might thus be to look for someone to blame — the kid’s mom, perhaps, for paying too little attention to what her son was doing, or the zoo, for failing to make sure the moat where Harambe was enjoying the water was secure against little climbers. But the truth is, unfortunate circumstances happen, sometimes unavoidably.
Whoa — hold on a minute! We’ve been studying Discoveroid science for quite some time now, and if we’ve learned anything, it’s that things don’t just happen. That’s the way those vile Darwinists talk about mutations. The Discoveroids are always telling us that when something improbable happens, it’s a great big clue that the intelligent designer was involved. How can Klinghoffer casually throw Discoveroid doctrine aside? We’re shocked — shocked! Let’s read on:
Given the choice between ape and boy, the zoo wisely chose to sacrifice the ape. They had no choice. … End of story? Not quite.
What else is there? Klinghoffer continues:
Harambe’s death has turned into a flashpoint between Right and Left [What?], addressed today, for example, by Ben Shapiro [Whoever that is] who writes:
[Klinghoffer quotes the guy:] The outrage over Harambe’s death springs from two groups: those who worship nature and those who refuse to acknowledge that sometimes bad things just happen.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! This is incredible! It’s always those evil Darwinists who say that sometimes things happen. That’s what mutations and natural selection are all about. And it’s the creationists (including the Discoveroids) who insist that everything happens according to Plan. Now, suddenly, the gang that says “things just happen” are the good guys. Well, let’s keep going down the rabbit hole. Here’s more from Klinghoffer:
The impulse is always to react to strong feelings at the death of a “mere” animal by dismissing those feelings as self-indulgent liberal emotionalism. However, the perspective that recognizes design in nature offers a caution against this impulse. It’s a conservative habit to scold others for listening to feelings over intellect. Emotions, however, once investigated, often turn out to conceal wisdom worthy of respect.
What? Now we’re going to learn about the superiority of feelings over intellect. He quotes somebody who allegedly said, and the ellipsis is in Klinghoffer’s quote: “in crucial cases… repugnance is the emotional expression of deep wisdom, beyond reason’s power fully to articulate.” Then Klinghoffer tells us:
If that’s true of disgust, then maybe it’s also true of the instinctive response of wonder and exalted admiration when confronted with a gorilla. Such a creature directs our attention to a transcendent care for awesome beauty, hidden just behind the veil of nature. Add to this the animal’s critically endangered status, and is there enough to justify more than a dismissive “moment to be upset” about Harambe’s death? I think so.
But what about the “flashpoint between Right and Left,” that is, between “those who worship nature and those who refuse to acknowledge that sometimes bad things just happen.” Which side is Klinghoffer on? He seems to be all over the place. Moving along:
The design in nature extends everywhere, to animals and plants of all kinds. Yes, each has its place, and typically that place subordinates one to another, with all being subordinated to man.
Uh huh. The intelligent designer — blessed be he! — has given us dominion over them. It seems we read that somewhere. Anyway, if you’re as confused as we are up to this point, perhaps Klinghoffer’s final paragraph will clear things up:
There was, again, no rational choice as to whether to sacrifice an ape to save a boy.
But this shouldn’t negate feeling shocked, even outraged, at the gorilla’s death if it could have in any way been avoided. We are entitled not only to experience such a feeling but also to justify it on rational grounds. Even if the death could not have been avoided, sensitive and thoughtful people should not dismiss our intuitive response — mourning the destruction of a magnificent and rare monument to intelligent design.
What in the world did he say? Can you figure it out, dear reader?
Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.