Klinghoffer: A Bed Doesn’t Make Itself

They’re desperate for something to write about at the Discovery Institute. It seems that all they have these days is that book by Doug Axe. They’ve just posted about it yet again. The thing is titled Evolution Makes a Child’s Error, and it’s by Klinghoffer. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Below [there’s a video in the post], protein chemist Douglas Axe briefly clarifies what Darwin got right, and what he got wrong. [Hee hee!] The problem with evolutionary theory is this: It assumes that natural selection — true as far as it goes, in the sense that helpful variations, judged for survival and reproduction, will outcompete less helpful ones — can account for clever inventions in the history of life. All clever inventions.

Can evolution account for “clever inventions”? Not according to the Discoveroids. We’re told:

But as Dr. Axe explains, we know from our experience as human inventors that novelties are never devised the way Darwin imagined nature does it — with every single step along the way yielding an advantage. In human creativity, work without advantage must precede the emergence of the final product or any part of it. That requires a preconceived intention.

Who claims that “every single step along the way” is advantageous? Most mutations are useless. The genome is loaded with them. Some are harmful, and those don’t have much of a future. Every now and then, something is beneficial, and because of natural selection, it gets preserved and becomes common in the gene pool. Doesn’t Axe know that? Apparently not. Let’s read on:

Our intuition, trained by experience, recognizes as much at a glance. As Dr. Axe explains in his new book, [yeah, yeah, we know about the book], this intuition is a form of science and is born out by science.

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

Not every intuition is accurate or insightful, obviously, but this one is. Every human life that reaches adulthood is a long-term experiment repeatedly confirming it. That’s why it is properly termed “scientific.”

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Creationist intuition is scientific! Here’s more:

It’s a lesson that every child has to learn: profitless work, step by step, guided by forethought, must come before enjoying the reward. A bed doesn’t make itself, as Axe points out, any more than an omelet does. To imagine otherwise is really a child’s error.

A bed doesn’t make itself! Remember that, dear reader. It’s wisdom for the ages. One last excerpt:

Undeniable [Axe’s book] is getting fantastic reviews on Amazon, by the way.

As your unfailing intuition will inform you, dear reader, Amazon reviews are the highest form of peer review.

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

11 responses to “Klinghoffer: A Bed Doesn’t Make Itself

  1. michaelfugate

    That is an argument that Sean McDowell currently at Biola used in one of his apologetics books – could be one he wrote with Dembski. It was lame 10 years ago….

  2. “Undeniable [Axe’s book] is getting fantastic reviews on Amazon, by the way.”

    I gave that book a review on Amazon. Not a very fantastic rating.

    Because of such I’ve been keeping an eye on the reviews. There is a positive one by a Raelian. Good stuff for the DI!

  3. Charles Deetz ;)

    The new unfalsifiable hypothesis method, intuition? Right up there with eyewitnessing and memory recall. The infallible brain. Just ask all the guys who ever were jailed even though they were innocent. Good grief.

  4. RetiredSciGuy

    A bed doesn’t make itself; but then, a bed is not a living thing.

    So, what’s your point, Klingy?

  5. A bed, being an artificial object, is an indicator of intelligent design without the additional feature of making itself. It’s a completely meaningless statement.

    Humans make things, but i think the issue here is how humans themselves came to be, not how the things they make come to be. Axe’s analogies are completely irrelevant.

    Excuse me for stating the obvious. They know this. They are just liars.

  6. RetiredSciGuy

    I’m surprised no one has yet made the observation that Dr. Axe doesn’t appear to be the sharpest tool in the workshop.

  7. michaelfugate

    All work and no play makes Doug a dull Axe?

  8. “It assumes that natural selection ….. can account for clever inventions in the history of life. All clever inventions.”

    Can natural selection account for any clever invention? If it can account for some then Klinkleclapper must point out for which clever inventions natural selection can account, for which not and how come. If it can’t account for any then “helpful variations, judged for survival and reproduction, will outcompete less helpful ones” doesn’t make any sense.

    Of course according to Evolution Theory natural selection doesn’t account for any clever invention. Mutations do. So Klinkleclapper is not only incoherent, but also ignorant, dishonest or stupid. Possibly all three.

    Finally Klinkleclapper fails to explain what the difference is between clever inventions and non-clever inventions. Kudos to Klinkleclapper thoughtfor demonstrating out the unbridgable gap between scientific and IDiotic thinking.

    “A bed doesn’t make itself.”
    Neither does a watch. Now what’s the name of the non-scientist again who pointed this out? Piley? Seeley?

  9. Nice review, Reflectory. You pissed off one Les, who unavoidably produced some first class creacrap.

    One general point. Whether beds are artificial or not is rather irrelevant. What matters is that beds don’t reproduce. Life typically does. And so we may expect that artifacts (for instance beds) that somehow are capable of producing offspring which are not entirely identical plus undergoing some procedure of selection will result in evolution as well.
    To which IDiots and other creacrappers undoubtedly will reply that such experiments are designed and hence disprove evolution.

  10. Something about being a Tooter eventually drives you off the deep end. At one time Axe actually wrote sciencey-sounding bunk. Now, he doesn’t even do that. Seems that the Tooters have given up on even the pretense of science.

    Their current line of “thought” is “Ook! Ook! Design! PTL!”

    They’re not even good at YEC! They’re totally nothing.

    Just think, in 20 years they went from Dumbski’s Nixplanatory Theory to “a bed doesn’t make itself.” There has to be a word to describe progress like that!

  11. How do these people dress themselves? Or do they?

    But as Dr. Axe explains, we know from our experience as human inventors that novelties are never devised the way Darwin imagined nature does it — with every single step along the way yielding an advantage.

    Of course, Darwin imagined no such thing. He argued that “every single step along the way” that did yield an advantage would tend to survive, and that after enough steps, true novelties might emerge.

    As Dr. Axe explains in his new book, [yeah, yeah, we know about the book], this intuition is a form of science and is born out by science.

    “Borne” out. And if “intuition is a form of science,” does that mean we should trust it when it says the universe revolves around the earth? After all, we can actually see the sun, the moon and the stars rising, crossing the sky and setting. Do those wicked Darwinistic scientists want us to ignore the evidence of our own eyes as well as our gut instincts?