Klinghoffer: More Scientists Praise Axe’s Book

A week ago we wrote Klinghoffer: Scientists Praise Axe’s New Book. We thought we were done with that subject, but look what just showed up at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog: More Scientists Praise Douglas Axe’s Undeniable.

Wowie! Even more scientists are praising the Discoveroid book. This is impressive! Like the earlier one, this 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:

One of the refreshing things about Doug Axe’s new book [Amazon link] is his confession that you don’t have to take his word for it. Or anyone else’s, for that matter. Despite being a molecular biologist who has done the lab research to confirm the impossibility of unguided nature chancing upon functional proteins [Hee hee!], he shows how, even without that, the design intuition most of us share embodies sound science.

[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh — intuition! [*End Drool Mode*] Klinghoffer continues:

We don’t need to rely slavishly on what scientists say because, in an important sense, we are all scientists, capable of judging a big scientific idea like evolution, if not necessarily the technical details, for ourselves.

Yeah — we don’t need those fancy-pants scientists! We know what we know, and that’s all we need to know. Moving along, we’re told:

Evolution’s defenders in the world of science love to overawe the public with those details, but we can look past and through them. Its defenders in the media tend toward a precious, almost worshipful regard for scientists, but as Dr. Axe reminds us, professionals in the sciences are human just like us. All that having been said, it’s interesting to hear from those professionals — biologists especially — who agree with Dr. Axe on his main point. And indeed endorsements for the book have continued to come in.

We looked at those who praised Axe’s book in Klinghoffer’s last post. They were either Discoveroids, like Behe, or people who had previously shown that they were favorable to the Discoveroids’ view of things. But now we want to know: Who are the latest scientists Klinghoffer is bragging about? We’ll skip the comments they made. All we want to know is their names, and then we’ll look around to see what we can learn about them.

He tells us that the first is “Russell W. Carlson, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Georgia.” We found his name in this article from 2005 at the Discoveroids’ website: 85 Scientists Join Together in Urging Court to Protect Academic Freedom and Not Limit Research into Intelligent Design Theory, which begins by saying:

Eighty-five scientists have filed an Amicus Brief in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial asking the Judge to “affirm the freedom of scientists to pursue scientific evidence wherever it may lead” and not limit research into the scientific theory of intelligent design. Not all the signers are proponents of intelligent design, but they do agree “that protecting the freedom to pursue scientific evidence for intelligent design stimulates the advance of scientific knowledge.”

The signers of the brief, identified as “Amici curiae” include such notable scientists as … Dr. Russell W. Carlson Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Executive Technical Director, Complex Carbohydrate Research Center at the University of Georgia.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Carlson was on the Discoveroids’ side in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Enough said.

Who is the next notable who praises Axe’s book? Klinghoffer says it’s “Matti Leisola, D.Sc., Professor Emeritus of Bioprocess Engineering, Aalto University, Finland.” Who is that?

Leisola’s name appears in the Discoveroids’ list of people who signed their Dissent From Darwinism. It has around 800 or maybe 900 names, far less than half of whom are biologists. It’s probably the source of endless claims from creationists that “thousands of scientists” are rejecting evolution.

The last name Klinghoffer mentions is: “Mark C. Biedebach, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Long Beach.” Would it surprise you, dear reader, to learn that his name also appears in the Dissent From Darwinism list? Well, it does.

Klinghoffer ends his post with this:

Frankly, those endorsements would be impressive from any scholar, or any thoughtful adult. They’re all the more so from scientists who, you would have to agree even against your will (if you’re a Darwinist), know what they’re talking about.

How do the Discoveroids get those gushing reviews? We suspect that they make a mass emailing to those they know are already supporters of their “theory” of intelligent design, and forthrightly ask for favorable comments. Anyway, now you’re aware that Axe’s book is highly regarded in the community of Discoveroid fellow-travelers. If that doesn’t encourage you to buy it, then probably nothing will.

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

29 responses to “Klinghoffer: More Scientists Praise Axe’s Book

  1. We don’t need to rely slavishly on what scientists say because, in an important sense, we are all scientists, capable of judging a big scientific idea like evolution, if not necessarily the technical details, for ourselves.

    I wonder how Klinghoffer would regard his own sentence if the particular scientific discipline were to be changed:

    We don’t need to rely slavishly on what scientists say because, in an important sense, we are all scientists, capable of judging a big scientific idea like quantum mechanics, if not necessarily the technical details, for ourselves.

  2. What’s more fun than reading this ID drivel is reading the readers comments on Amazon regarding the book. The comment from Herman Van Dinkastink1 regarding peer review is priceless:

    Your arrogance to to write a review when you haven’t even read the book and your ignorance to even assume that the author has no peer reviewed scientific papers published is outstanding. For the record, Mr Axe has published work in the Journal of Molecular Biology (JMB). His paper is entitled, ‘Estimating The Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds’. tell me Mr Aiken, where can I find your published work? Do you even have any?

  3. michaelfugate

    They seem to be so desperate for positive reviews that they pick this one by J W Wartick? One might think a Christian apologist would be sympathetic, but if you read the whole review….

  4. Richard Bond

    This is interesting:
    Despite being a molecular biologist who has done the lab research to confirm the impossibility of unguided nature chancing upon functional proteins.
    I thought that creatards always insist on the impossibility of proving a negative when sane people deny the existence of their god.

  5. “he shows how, even without that, the design intuition most of us share embodies sound science.”
    And …. we are supposed to take Axe’s word for it?

    Hey! I smell a creative challenge (Realthog beat me to it, but wasn’t very creative imo). Finish the following sentence:

    “because, in an important sense, we are all scientists, capable of judging a big scientific idea like”
    the lift force on an airplane. My intuitive judgment is this. Metal is heavier than air so air can’t keep an airplane flying. Also obviously an intelligent mind has designed the plane, so another intelligent mind has designed the lift force that keeps it in the air.

  6. Realthog beat me to it, but wasn’t very creative imo

    Well, huh! Always easy to imitate . . .

    In fact, we’re making two quite different points. My observation is that Klinghoffer is exploiting the propensity of his readers to assume that evolutionary science is easy to understand. The flaw in his argument becomes evident as soon as you plop in the name of a different science.

  7. docbill1351

    Biederbach! That name is familiar and, thank you, Google for refreshing my memory.

    From the Encyclopedia of American Loons:

    At present, Biedebach appears to be writing a book titled “Evolution is a Weasel Word.”

    Diagnosis: No, Biedebach. The weasel words here are “Professor Emeritus of Physiology”. Biedebach is an apologetic for fundamentalist religion, and his understanding of science is, despite his apparent credentials, sorely deficient.

    Remember Carolyn Crocker? Teacher-for-hire whose contract was not renewed because she taught creationism in a biology class. She might have sued or squawked or something and lost – don’t remember. Anyway, she went on to be the Director of the IDEA clubs for the Tooters, replacing the Gerb who went on to become “research director” or “supreme commander” or something, but only lasted a few months before she disaperated. She showed up again with some kind of hokey “Institute” that may or may not still be floating around and GUESS WHO was part of it??

    Biederbach!

    Anyway, check out the Encyclopedia of American Loons entry for the old crackpot.

    And a big THANK YOU to Klinkleklopper for devastating analysis demonstrating yet again that the only people who support the Tooters and their “work” are crackpots and loons.

  8. Charles Deetz ;)

    Sounds like a circle jerk. And I guess that’s what the online world of creationism is.

  9. docbill1351

    Russell Carlson goes back at least a decade. He was an expert witness for the creationists during the Kansas Kangaroo Kourt in 2005. Here’s part of his testimony under Pedro Irigonegaray who advocated for the science side. (As a refresher to the proceedings, Pedro simply asked each witness the same 5 questions.)

    Here is Carlson on evolution. Note the evasiveness (but not nearly as evasive as Stephen Meyer’s rambling equivocation on the age of the earth!)

    Q. Do you accept the general principle of common descent, that all of life is biologically related back to the beginning of life? Yes or no.

    A. No.

    Q. Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to prehominid ancestors? Yes or no.

    A. I don’t accept that as a fact.

    Q. I did not hear you.

    A. I don’t accept that as being a fact, a scientifically-proven fact.

    Q. If that is not acceptable to you, what alternative explanation do you propose for how the human species came into existence?

    A. That’s– I don’t– I don’t have an alternative position on that. That’s not my area.

    Q. So would it be fair to say that you do not agree with evolutionary theory as far as the common descent principles for the human species, but you do not have an answer as to how it happened?

    A. I do not– I do not have a scientific answer as to how it happened, no.

    Q. Is it your opinion that it happened as a result of intelligent design?

    A. I believe that design is a– is– is a possible– possible explanation and it should be investigated, yeah.

    Q. But you are not suggesting that intelligent design is the answer?

    A. Well, scientifically I don’t think that’s been determined yet, but I think it should be one that’s considered.

    Carlson has been a Disco Tute cheerleader for a long time. He doesn’t have a clue what “intelligent design” creationism is, but like the Tooters he promotes it because – Praise the Lord! He has effused over all of the Tooter’s books: Dembski, Wells, Behe, Meyer – the lot. Definitely a creationist of the fundamentalist variety.

  10. docbill1351

    And, finally, if you look up Matti Leisola what do you find?

    This:

    “Christianity is the foundation of modern science and explains why we can do science: a rational God created a rational man in his own image so that he is able to understand the creation with his mind. Indeed, the Creator Jesus Christ is called the Logos (Λόγος John 1:1–3), and makes sense of this orderly universe and complexity of life. Those believing in a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life are the ones with a blind faith.”

    Yep, dyed in the wool creationist and, by all accounts, crackpot.

    Woo hoo! Klinkletinkle is shooting three-for-three and should change the title of his schlock:

    “More Creationists and Crackpots Praise Dougie’s Dreck!”

  11. You guys are doing amazing research on those names. All I did was look in some of the obvious places, and when I found them I stopped.

  12. michaelfugate

    Here is Carlson’s personal testimony on his UGA page” – where he says “I have learned that the Bible is reliable and true, and that it can be trusted as a guide for my life. I have learned that God is real; that it is reasonable to believe and trust Him, and that He has been directing and guiding my life.

    He also sends one child to a Christian school (Prince Avenue Christian School) which uses Bob Jones University Press materials for “science” <

    Fifth Grade Science, taught from a Biblical worldview, introduces many scientific areas of study including Creation and Fossils, Matter, Biomes, Weather, Rocks and Minerals, and the Respiratory and Circulatory Systems.

    CP Biology High School
    This course provides a unique opportunity to explore the intricacies of God’s creation, from the smallest, microscopic cell to the wonderfully complex systems that exist on a larger, global scale. The goal for this course is for students to understand the broader concepts in biology and to apply their knowledge to real world situations. Throughout this course, students will use the scientific method as they conduct experiments and other activities to investigate biological organisms. All the information in this course will be taught from the Christian’s worldview with God as the Creator.

    Quite the weasel for not standing up for his faith when testifying in Kansas. He knew exactly what his alternative for common descent was and failed to tell the truth on the stand.

  13. docbill1351

    Quite the weasel for not standing up for his faith when testifying in Kansas. He knew exactly what his alternative for common descent was and failed to tell the truth on the stand.

    They were all weasels. For those of you not familiar with that glorious moment in Kansas history, take a stroll through the Talk Origins Archive and be amazed.

    Note how easy-breezy the creationists talk when being tossed softball creationist questions by the School Board creationists. It’s all lucky-ducky talky-talky. Then when mean old Pedro asks them the age of the Earth they suddenly develop hearing loss and a stutter, can’t quite get the words out.

  14. docbill1351

    Question: In your opinion, what is the approximate age of the Earth?

    Answer: From what I’ve been able to determine, the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

    Simple, huh? Here’s Stephen Meyer, P H freaking D, answering the same question: (Q is Pedro Irigonegaray for science, A is Meyer by remote link)

    Q. Can you hear me now?

    A. I can indeed.

    Q. I have a few questions for you first that I want to establish for the record. In your opinion, your personal opinion, what is the age of the earth?

    A. Do you want my personal– why are you asking me about my personal–

    Q. You’re here to answer my questions. First of all, what is your personal opinion as to what the age of the earth is?

    A. I understood I was being called as an expert witness.

    Q. What is your personal opinion as to what the age of the earth is?

    A. I’m unclear. I understand–

    Q. The question is simple. What is, in your opinion, the age of the earth?

    A. Well, I’m just wanting to clarify the ground rules here. I thought I was being called as an expert witness, so why are you asking me about my personal–

    Q. That’s not the issue. Now, please answer my question. What is your personal–

    A. I would like to understand the ground rules first. Why am I being asked about–

    MR. IRIGONEGARAY: Mr. Chairman, if he’s not going to answer my questions, I’d ask that his testimony be stricken from the record.

    A. I’m happy to answer your question. I’d like to know why you’re asking about–

    Q. (BY MR. IRIGONEGARAY) The “why” is not for you to determine.

    MR. SISSON: Mr. Chairman, I understand Mr. Meyer’s request to reflect some confusion about the ground rules, and it is quite appropriate for him to ask that the chair of the committee, namely yourself, speak to him concerning the appropriate ground rules. Thank you.

    CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: Dr. Meyer, can you hear me now?

    A. Yes, sir.

    CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: My name is Steve Abrams, chairman of the science subcommittee. And even though these hearings have been called about the Kansas science curriculum standards and particularly how they relate to the minority report and particularly to the question of the philosophical claims and the religious claims of science and how to teach science in Kansas, we are allowing the counsel for the majority and the counsel of the minority great latitude in trying to establish their case. And Mr. Irigonegaray has elected to ask virtually every question– every witness questions about their personal opinions about certain things. And so we have granted him that latitude, and so I would say that’s where we’re going.

    A. You would like me to cooperate with that?

    CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: You can either answer “yes,” “no,” or “I don’t know,” or whatever you want to do, but that– yes, I’d like you to cooperate.

    A. It’s a transparently obvious strategy to impeach the credibility of your witnesses, but I will cooperate. So my answer to your question, Pedro, is that I– my personal opinions and my professional opinions are the same. I think the earth is 4.6 billion years old. I think the universe is–

    Q. (BY MR. IRIGONEGARAY) No, just the earth. I didn’t ask you about the universe.

    A. My opinion of–

    Q. Mr. Meyer, please just answer my question. I’m not asking you other opinions.

    MR. SISSON: I’d simply request to make a point here, ask the Chairman if I may make a point. Mr. Chairman, would you instruct the witness that there is no subpoena power here and that he is under no compulsion to answer and he would suffer no penalty if he chose to decline to answer.

    CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: He can answer the questions to his extent. However, we would like you to answer them.

    A. Does that mean I can say something else about the age of the earth?

    CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: Mr. Irigonegaray is going to ask the questions that he thinks important and he may repeat the question. And he will ask– my guess is it will be a yes or a no answer or some side of an answer like that. If you feel comfortable answering that, say “yes,” or if you don’t know, say you don’t know, whatever it is. I mean, be truthful and answer however you feel comfortable answering.

    A. Right. But may I say anything more about the age of the earth, then?

    Q. (BY MR. IRIGONEGARAY) I’m the one asking questions here, Mr. Meyer, and all you need to do is to answer my question.

    A. Okay. I think the age of the earth is 4.6 billion years old. That’s both my personal and my professional opinion. I speak as someone who is trained as a geophysicist–

    Q. I’m not asking you about that. I just asked you for a number, and you have given it to me.

    A. Okay. That’s all you want is the number?

    Q. My questions are pretty clear, Mr. Meyer.

    A. You’re not interested in the answer, you’re interested in the–

  15. taught from a Biblical worldview, introduces many scientific areas of study including Creation and Fossils, Matter, Biomes, Weather, Rocks and Minerals, and the Respiratory and Circulatory Systems.
    And what is the Biblical worldview on fossils, matter, biomes, weather, rocks, minerals, respiratory and circulatory systems?
    Most of those words are not in the Bible. The word “rock” does occur. And there are discussions of weather – like the storehouse where snow is kept.

  16. michaelfugate

    Wasn’t Peter the rock on which Jesus was to build his church?

  17. Meyer: “… I speak as someone who is trained as a geophysicist” Yes, he has a BA or BS in “geophysics” and worked for an oil company for a couple of years, but I don’t think that qualifies him as a “geophysicist.” He, like other creationists, live in a vitae-inflated universe.

  18. Strange that Klinghoffer didn’t name all those important “scientists,” rather, he’s very selective and limiting whom he wishes to acknowledge, perhaps hoping no one will check their backgrounds, as SC has done.

  19. michaelfugate

    At some publication called “World” Marvin Olasky touts all the wonderful anti-evolution books being published and thinks evolution is in trouble…

    https://world.wng.org/2016/06/challenging_darwin

  20. My intuition tells me that Klinghoffer is incapable of making a logical argument, unable to understand modern science, and unwilling to tell the truth. I don’t need to rely slavishly on him to tell me otherwise.

  21. docbill1351

    Meyer: “… I speak as someone who is trained as a geophysicist”

    Yeah, that line got to me at the time and it still bugs me. Meyer is full of [edited out]. I worked for an oil company. I know real geologists ™ and real geophysicists ™, they are my friends, and Meyer is no geophysicist. He may have worked in that department for the 18 months he was with ARCO before getting laid off, but there is no way a BS-level graduate would ever be called a “geophysicist.” With a BS even back in 1980 you’d be hired on as a technician or maybe a data logger, but you simply wouldn’t have the education or experience to do real geophysics.

  22. michaelfugate says:

    At some publication called “World” Marvin Olasky touts all the wonderful anti-evolution books being published and thinks evolution is in trouble …

    World is very close to the Discoveroids. Some Discoveroids have published there. Klinghoffer recently wrote in praise of that Olasky article.

  23. michaelfugate

    @SC, not surprised. I ran across it looking for reviews of Axe’s book. Olasky even praised Weikart which pretty much shows him to have a limited skill set.

  24. Wow, Docbill, that was a gas to read. I haven’t met such stubbornness to evade questions since I read some of the transcripts of the Nurnberg trials.

  25. Throughout this course, students will use the scientific method as they conduct experiments and other activities to investigate biological organisms. All the information in this course will be taught from the Christian’s worldview with God as the Creator.

    How do they reconcile the 2nd sentence with the first? Do they even realize that there might be a conflict?

  26. michaelfugate

    As with Meyer’s books, Axe’s is really more about his belief in God than anything else…

    And finally quoting my [Kinetics of RNA polymerase beta subunit synthesis and acid end product transport in Escherichia coli
    Axe, Douglas D.. California Institute of Technology, 1990.] Ph.D. thesis: “I should express my gratitude to and dependence upon the One who made both the universe and the mind with with which I seek to comprehend it. I have accomplished nothing of significance apart from Him, nor will I ever.”

  27. Per Douglas Axe:
    “I have accomplished nothing of significance apart from Him, nor will I ever.”
    And he’s still struggling to accomplish anything of significance. Maybe the One can’t be found, or doesn’t care to be bothered.

  28. The question here isn’t “how many” scientists side with Axe and other creationist crackpots. It’s “what percentage” of scientists. And that’s a small number indeed.

    One can go further and ask a follow-up question: “What percentage of highly ranked scientists reject evolution?” “Scientists” who support creationism tend to be C- and D-listers.

    Of course, creationists will claim that these people are being persecuted for their beliefs by a scientific establishment that fears, or knows, they’re right. It’s all a plot, you see.

  29. It isn’t so much the number of scientists. It takes only one scientist, if that scientist is right. And it isn’t a matter of how good they are as scientists. (Newton was right on mechanics and he was wrong about alchemy.)

    The problem is that even if there were vast numbers of brilliant scientists who have problems with evolution, if they aren’t able to produce something out of those doubts – if there is no alternative to evolution – if there is no suggestion as to what happens, when and where, how or why, so that there is that variety of life on Earth – then there is no point to their doubts.