Klinghoffer: Embrace Your Creationist Intuition

When we saw the latest post at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog we thought: Aaaargh!! Yet another post by Klinghoffer in praise of the new book by Doug Axe. We read it anyway, and although it’s blessedly brief, it’s a gold mine of Discoveroid entertainment.

The title is For Failing to Have a Considered Opinion on Intelligent Design, the Technical Literature Is No Longer an Excuse. Klinghoffer says, with bold font added by us:

The daunting details of technical literature on evolutionary biology function as a shield for evolution theory against scrutiny.

That’s the first sentence. Think about it. The enormous quantity of peer-reviewed research in support of evolution is a shield against considering something as goofy as the Discoveroids’ “theory” of intelligent design. Well, yes it is. We have evidence and the Discoveroids’ don’t, so they have nothing that’s worth considering.

In the Discoveroids’ own words, their Definition of Intelligent Design is as follows: “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” As we’ve often said before, they have a limited répertoire of arguments to support their claim. Their “scientific” arguments all boil down to two oldie-goldies: (1) William Paley’s watchmaker analogy — if something looks designed, then by golly it is designed; and (2) the God of the gaps — anything not yet fully understood is “best” explained by a supernatural agency.

So it makes sense that they feel defensive about having nothing in the peer reviewed scientific literature that supports their nonsensical “theory.” But their latest tactic is to complain that all our evidence is being unfairly used as a shield against them. Okay, what else does Klinghoffer have for us? He says:

An achievement of Doug Axe’s new book [link omitted] is to lower that shield and permit thoughtful readers of all backgrounds to evaluate the merit of our near-universal intuition that life is designed.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Feelings override evidence! Let’s read on:

In a brief video conversation, Dr. Axe explains that his purpose in writing the book was to use his own training as a scientist to answer those like “Science Guy” Bill Nye who, without equivalent training and without having given the needed study to the subject, deny the design intuition.

If you care, you can find that video at Klinghoffer’s post. We haven’t looked at it. This is from Klinghoffer’s final paragraph:

That technical literature also serves as an excuse for the complacent. … With the publication of Undeniable [Axe’s intuition-based book], that excuse looks even more unsatisfactory than it did before.

There you are, dear reader. You’ve always had an intuition that Oogity Boogity was the ultimate answer to all questions, but you suppressed it. Now, thanks to Doug Axe, you’re free to embrace your inner idiot.

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

19 responses to “Klinghoffer: Embrace Your Creationist Intuition

  1. The daunting details of technical literature on evolutionary biology function as a shield for evolution theory against scrutiny.

    Okay, I’ve ruminated about this before but I think here we have the proof that Klinghoffer is a false-flag conspiracy designed to destroy the Disco ‘Tute from within. Surely even some of the Discodroolers, on seeing that sentence, must wipe their chins momentarily dry and wonder . . .

  2. We have evidence and the Discoveroids’ don’t

    We have something positive to say, and the Discoveroids don’t.

    They say that there is a better explanation for certain features of the world of life, yet they never get around to telling us what that explanation is.

  3. michaelfugate

    The daunting details of technical literature on evolutionary biology function as a shield for evolution theory against scrutiny.

    One could pretty much say this about any academic subject. If one is unwilling to work to understand something and doesn’t want to admit that he or she is lazy (god forbid admitting stupidity), then Klinghoffer’s option makes some sense.

  4. What about the shield set up to keep me from competing in the Olympics?

  5. Dave Luckett

    An unknown entity performed an unknown act or acts at an unknown place and time for an unknown purpose, causing nondescript consequences which resulted in living things with all possible modifications already by unknown means “front-loaded” into them, hence the origin of the species.

    That’s it. That’s their “theory”. That’s all of it. There isn’t anything more, or if there is, it consists of more vacuity.

    This worst of this is not that there exists a group of fools stupid enough to utter something this idiotic, it’s that there exists a larger group of fools or villains willing to pay them to do it.

  6. Plus: And whatever happens, it can’t involve evolution.

  7. Christine Janis

    And the in house journal, Biocomplexity, where all this evidence for ID could be published without scrutiny, remains relatively empty.

    No, no need for actual evidence — they now have a *book* —- a book that says that if you really really feel in your heart that something must be true, then that’s real science, folks. Take *that* Science, Nature, and Proceedings of the Royal Academy.

  8. Klingy’s wet dream: Explosions rocking the bridge of the starship USS Darwinprise, and Chief Engineer David “Scotty” Hume bellowing

    The shields are buckling, Cap’n! She canna taek much more!

  9. Imagine the USA ever builds a starship and baptises it “Darwin”. There would be much gnashing of teeth…

  10. The European Space Agency did name its Martian lander Beagle 2

  11. “TomS – What about the shield set up to keep me from competing in the Olympics?”

    I suspect the Discoveroids are on an inevitable path to embracing the language of the SJWs. We can expect that the typical biology lecture will soon be regarded as a cesspit of micro-aggressions flaunted by those unwilling to check their academic privilege – ie. knowledge.

  12. My intuition tells me that if a technical literature existed, replete with “daunting details,” supporting ID, that evolutionary biologists would engage with it and it would be legally taught in schools.

    Lacking research which might result in technical papers, the IDiot’s answer is to substitute intuition. And they wonder why they get no respect?

    Of course, the catch 22 is that if they did actual objective research, they would not produce results supporting design. The one thing that would earn them credibility is the thing they dare not do.

  13. Ceteris Paribus

    There is a valid precedent to Doug Axe’s premise that lots and lots of new publications using creationist “intuition” as their methodology will ultimately be much more valuable than concise, genuine, scientific research.

    Axe is employing the same logic and reasoning as was used in the gold rush days of California . No one there ever hit the “mother lode”, but many managed to eke out a profit using the slogan “Here’s to low grade ore. And lots of it!”.

  14. Our intuition tells us the sun revolves around the earth, and that the earth is flat, and that the earth is unmoving.

    Intuition also tells us that if we find fossilized seashells in the rocks lying about around the Creation Museum in Kentucky, then the entire earth must have been flooded at some time in the past.

    Yes, trust your intuition. If you’re not smart enough to understand the technical literature, it doesn’t matter — it’s all written just to confuse you, anyway.

  15. If Klinkleclaper would take his own illogic seriously he would remove the GPS system from his car – it works thanks to Einstein’s Relativity.That one says that the speed of light is constant. Concrete: if object A moves to the left and B to the right, both with the speed of light then the A’s speed relative to B’s speed is also the speed of light.
    Experiment, very suitable with a drinking buddy in a bar: explain this to him/her, provided (s)he doesn’t have a background in physics. You’ll observe how counterintuitive this seems to drinking buddy. According to Klinkleclapper Relativity must be “even more unsatisfactory” the more often you repeat this little experiment.

  16. It’s satisfying to see the Disco Tute give up on science altogether. First non-scientist creationist Dumbski took a hike. Then their best “science” writer, the Attack Gerbil, left. They have been reduced to a roadshow displaying the academic corpses of Behe and von Sternberg. Meyers gets paid for doing absolutely nothing. Annie Green Screen doesn’t even do green screen “science.” Axe has given up all pretense of being a scientist and has gone full mystic on us; what’s next, Axe, transcendental meditation? Watch out for the copyright infringement!

    I don’t think the Tooters could even afford to buy Savvy Sarah a used Binford 3000 Bible-Babble CutterPaster; she has to work by hand, poor thing.

    It seems the only constant in the Tooterverse is old Klankerwanker, our morally bankrupt [edited out] slinger who doesn’t care what he writes because nobody cares what he writes. Hope the old sod gets paid by the word.

  17. Dave Luckett

    Forget about drinking buddies, mnbo. It is counterintuitive to me, in spades. I can’t imagine how it works. I can only say that every measurement has confirmed that it does work, and be damned to intuition.

    The DI is in much the same situation as I am with regard to the Theory of Evolution, except that they can’t bring themselves to acknowledge that intuition is wrong.

    The Universe we inhabit is a deeply weird place, and the more we find out about it, the weirder it gets. Well, that’s the way it is. Deal with it.

  18. As far as my intuition, it seems obvious to me that there is a physical relationship among many forms of life. At the very least, that humans are relatives to other primates, and It is not at all difficult to understand and accept that most of the tetrapods share ancestry. And similarly about other large groups of life.
    I would suggest that one of the reasons to deny relationship with the other primates so vehemently is that it is so intuitively true.

  19. I’m with TomS. I don’t find evolution by natural selection counterintuitive at all — quite the contrary: it seems absolutely commonsensical that this should be the mechanism. It took me a bit longer to get my head round genetic drift, but even this process doesn’t seem counterintuitive, just somefink that needs a bit of finking abaht.