Klinghoffer — The Design Intuition

The pickings are slim at the Discoveroids’ creationist blog these days. Almost all they post about is the new book by Douglas Axe. The last time we wrote about it was Klinghoffer: Scientists Praise Axe’s New Book. Today it’s more of the same.

This is one of several new posts about Axe and his wondrous book: Perfect Illustration of Why We Need Undeniable. As with most of the others, 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:

I received this tweet from a fellow who, unless I’m misled by Google, is Assistant Professor & Program Director, Elementary Education Undergraduate Program, University of North Carolina at Charlotte:

[Alleged tweet:] “Scientifically valid?” Was that determined by extensive peer review in the scientific community?

What’s that all about? Klinghoffer explains:

He was responding to me here, a thumbnail summary of the thesis of Doug Axe’s new book:

[Klinghoffer’s tweet:] The natural intuition of design is not only innate but intellectually, scientifically valid.

[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh! [*End Drool Mode*] The ” natural intuition of design”! It’s obvious that Klinghoffer has been instructed to flood the blog with propaganda about Axe’s book, but he has nothing more authoritative to talk about than his tweet war. Let’s read on:

You see, this is why everyone needs to read to Dr. Axe’s book, Undeniable. Axe explains how we know scientists are fallible mortals after all, and why we are entitled to have our own independent views, based on our own scientific reasoning, with regard to the ultimate question of biological origins.

Yes, scientists are fallible, so everyone is entitled to have his own view of reality. Klinghoffer then quotes Axe, the new Discoveroid guru:

Having been reminded of how human scientists are, we’ve learned to let go of the utopian version of science, which never resembled real science anyway. Likewise, with the affirmation of our design intuition came the realization that scientific thinking is part of what we all naturally do… . All humans are scientists, and all scientists are human. [Ellipsis in Klinghoffer’s post.]

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Everyone is a scientist! Klinghoffer continues:

This science educator at the University of North Carolina [whose tweet was quoted in the beginning], however, appears to think very differently: No, we’re not entitled to such an opinion, since it cannot be valid without that having been “determined by extensive peer review in the scientific community.”

Egad — how elitist! It’s an outrage! But Klinghoffer has a powerful rebuttal:

Did any religious body ever insist more completely on placing blind faith in the doctors of the church?

So there you are, dear reader. According to the Discoveroids, your opinion is as good as anyone’s. You want to believe the Earth is flat? That’s fine — it’s flat! You like the Time Cube? You got it! And most important — if you like the design intuition, then go for it!

You’ll be thrilled to learn that your Curmudgeon has his own intuition about such things: If it smells like [edited out], then it is [edited out]! It’s comforting to know that Klinghoffer would approve.

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

13 responses to “Klinghoffer — The Design Intuition

  1. It didn’t take long after I began to read creationism to learn about quote mining.

  2. If they are reduced to relying on “intuition” they are admitting that their “science” has no real substantiating basis – they’re just grasping at straws. Anyone who thinks that “intuition” has validity without supporting evidence will believe just about anything. I trust that there will by no disagreemet on their part in regard to the “intituted” thought that the moon is made of green cheese – that’s what I was told when I was a child

  3. So that’s why NASA faked the moon landings — they didn’t want anyone to know it really was made of green cheese!

  4. docbill1351

    “fallible mortals”

    The Tooters are sounding more like old Hambo every day!

  5. docbill1351

    But, seriously, folks old Klingers provides us YET ANOTHER data point to the affirmative answering the question, “Are the Tooters anti-science?”

    The answer, of course, is “Yes, they are anti-science.”

    Bias. Creationists hang their argument on their observation (read that: flat out, bald, fact-free assertion.) that we are all fallible mortals and, therefore, subject to bias. Oh, woe is us!

    But, true, given a scattering of data points on a piece of graph paper and asked to “eyeball” a straight line through them, ten people would probably give ten different slopes – give or take.

    However, ask ten people to run a least squares fit to the data and you’d get one slope, ten times. Bias eliminated.

    If the Tooters actually used science then they would not be harping about bias because they would be using veritable cornucopia of a plethora of tools specifically designed (ha, the irony!) to eliminate bias. Thus, the scientific method as a way to find Universal Truth ™, thank you very much and remember to tip your waitstaff.

  6. “Almost all they post about is the new book by Douglas Axe.”
    It seems to me that the IDiots promote a new hero after Luskin gerbilled out.

    ABeastwood almost gets it. Not only were the Moon landings a hoax, the Moon itself is a hoax. Here is the evidence:


    Every similarity with IDiocy is totally coincidental.

  7. Kling is right – scientists are human. They can sometimes do very human things, like rely on intuition. Luckily, there is a process available to ensure that scientists are not misled by their sometimes faulty intuition.

    The quantum world, at least my understanding of it, is about as non-intuitive as it is possible to be. Same with the curvature of space, or that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. There must be dozens of other examples of significant things we know to be true which are completely counter-intuitive.

    I find it counter-intuitive that an all-powerful supernatural designer exists. Even more counter-intuitive that such a creature would spend billions of years tinkering with life on earth in order to create humans. How could humans be interesting at all to a creature who can create whole universes?

    I think I’ll trust my intuition on that one.

  8. @Ed
    I find it self-contradictory that an all-powerful supernatural agent is a designer. Design takes account of bounds, while nothing is out of bounds for the all-powerful. “Necessity is the mother of invention.” Or, as William Paley put it, ” Contrivance, by its very definition and nature, is the refuge of imperfection.”

  9. The problem of billions of years of designer tinkering is solved elegantly by Ol Hambone in a single sentence.
    “If we cannot trust the Bible about the earth’s age, then we cannot trust its gospel message”
    Being an idiot is so fantastically simple. Pass the mac and cheese dear.

  10. Doctor Stochastic

    Good intuition comes from experience. Experience comes from bad intuition.

  11. RetiredSciGuy

    Klingy, quoting Axe:
    “…scientists are fallible mortals after all…”

    Yep. That’s why we have peer review.

  12. “If you don’t believe what I tell you, then you can’t believe the Gospel.”

    And who is denying human fallibility?

    Where does the Bible say that kids were playing with dinosaurs? That the Flood had anything to do with fossils or the Grand Canyon? That there was micro-evolution of species after the Flood? That there were trained animals powering a tread-mill on the Ark? That a mostly wooden building built on a concrete base has anything to do with with a floating refuge for animals?

  13. michaelfugate

    @RSG, that’s also why we do science; it is a tool that allows us to objectively evaluate our subjective experiences.