Discoveroids: The Corrosive Effect of Darwinism

Creationists are always complaining that they are losing influence. Ol’ Hambo rants about it all the time — see, for example, Ken Ham: Everybody’s Leaving His Church!

Although the Discovery Institute insists that they’re a science outfit, they somehow seem to have the same concerns as ol’ Hambo. Take a look at Klinghoffer’s latest at the Discoveroids’ creationist blog: Why It Matters: New Survey Quantifies the Impact of Evolutionary Ideas on Faith and Ethics. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

I remember driving our kids to school one morning a few years ago when an NPR story came on the radio, “More Young People Are Moving Away From Religion, But Why?” A young man name Kyle Simpson, raised as a Christian, explained the relationship between scientific ideas and his lost faith.

Then Klinghoffer gives us what he says is a quote from the young man in the NPR story — and the bracketed material is in the Discoveroid post:

I don’t [believe in God] but I really want to. That’s the problem with questions like these is you don’t have anything that clearly states, “Yes, this is fact,” so I’m constantly struggling. But looking right at the facts — evolution and science — they’re saying, no there is none.

Egad — evolution and science destroyed the young man’s faith! Klinghoffer says:

“There is none” — no God, he meant, according to those twin authorities, the moon and sun, “evolution and science.” The radio story, based on a roundtable discussion with earnest young people from a variety of backgrounds — Christian, Jewish, and Muslim — was heartbreaking. As we all listened, I thought of the frightening world my children are growing up in, so full of moral and spiritual challenges, from which their upbringing provides no guarantee of shelter.

“Heartbreaking.” A “frightening world” in which there is “no guarantee of shelter.” After that he tells us:

Kyle Simpson is quoted in an important new report from Discovery Institute, “Darwin’s Corrosive Idea: The Impact of Evolution on Attitudes about Faith, Ethics, and Human Uniqueness.” The 17-page report quantifies the influence of scientific ideas about biological origins in ways that go to the heart of how human beings picture our place in the universe.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That’s a great contribution to science. Klinghoffer then gives us a convenient link to their valuable report: New Survey Shows Darwin’s Far-Reaching Impact on Faith and Ethics — Download Now. If you go there, before you can download the report, you need to give the Discoveroids your name, zipcode, and email address. Otherwise, you’ll see only a few descriptive paragraphs, including this:

Now, for the first time, a new nationwide survey has revealed just how corrosive an impact Darwin’s theory has had on faith and ethics in America.

Okay, back to Klinghoffer:

It’s surprising but true that no one until now has gone to the trouble of objectively verifying something that, equally surprising, isn’t clear as common sense to many people. Isn’t it obvious that the question of origins — arguably the ultimate question people can ask about the world — must have a profound impact on beliefs about God, and about our most basic moral values? It may be obvious to you or me, but it’s not to a good many otherwise thoughtful adults in education, the media, spiritual leadership, and other fields.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That’s a vital issue for a science organization like the Discoveroids. Later on, Klinghoffer discloses that in making their report, they polled a SurveyMonkey Audience. As we said in Discoveroid “Poll” Favors Teaching Nonsense:

None of these “polls” are conducted by an independent polling company, but by the Discovery Institute themselves, using the audience provided by SurveyMonkey (Wikipedia article). At the SurveyMonkey website, they tell us: “We’ve got millions of real people in our survey panel ready to tell you what they think.” In other words, although most people hang up when a polling outfit calls, SurveyMonkey has a population they’ve already selected that wants to be polled, and are eager to sound off on whatever is presented to them. Also, it seems that if you want to make a survey of this audience, you can write your own questions.

Klinghoffer then describes the horrific findings of their survey. For example:

• 67 percent of atheists and 35 percent of agnostics believe ‘the findings of science make the existence of God less probable.

• Nearly 7 in 10 atheists and more than 4 in 10 agnostics say that for them personally, unguided chemical evolution and Darwin’s mutation/natural selection mechanism have made the existence of God ‘less likely.’

Science is evil! Klinghoffer continues:

We care about biological and chemical evolution for two reasons. First because any intellectually curious person must wonder about the origins of life, and any serious, critical person is not going to just passively submit her intellect to the majority viewpoint. But secondly, because we intuitively recognize the corrosive effect of ideas that attribute the wonder of life solely to blind, unguided churning by dumb material forces.

Good points! Do you “passively submit” your intellect to the majority viewpoint? And do you recognize the “corrosive effect” of Darwin’s ideas? Klinghoffer finishes with an invitation for you to download the Discoveroids’ valuable report. Your Curmudgeon won’t bother with it, but if you care to accept Klinghoffer’s invitation, go right ahead.

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

12 responses to “Discoveroids: The Corrosive Effect of Darwinism

  1. michaelfugate

    …and any serious, critical person is not going to just passively submit her intellect to the majority viewpoint.

    According to Pew, 89% of the US believes in God – does Klinghoffer passively submit to this majority viewpoint?

    http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/u-s-public-becoming-less-religious/

  2. Perhaps if the fundamentalist churches would stop preaching creationism as THE TRVTH and focused instead on helping their flocks be more compassionate, kind, accepting, and loving (in other words, “Good Christians”), they would become more successful in keeping their youth as members.

    It must be hard for the Ken Hams of the world to see that preaching blind faith is not a viable long-term answer. Either that, or they’re making too much money doing it to stop. I suspect the answer is somewhere in the middle.

  3. Meant to put a close quote after “Good Christians.

    I must confess that I have blind faith in the Mighty Hand reaching down…

    [*Voice from above*] And lo, your faith is justified.

  4. OT, but as for Trump claiming that climate change is a Chinese hoax, they must have started back in 1978. Read this article in the February, 1978 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=0goAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA1&dq=1978+Bulletin+of+the+Atomic+Scientists&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwip14jzyrDQAhXDNSYKHbtCCzgQ6AEIPzAJ#v=onepage&q=1978%20Bulletin%20of%20the%20Atomic%20Scientists&f=false

  5. (The article I’m referring to is titled “Is Mankind Warming the Earth”, and starts on pg. 10.)

  6. Klinghoffer tell us: “But secondly, because we intuitively recognize the corrosive effect of ideas that attribute the wonder of life solely to blind, unguided churning by dumb material forces.”

    Well, your “intuition” is wrong again Kilnghoffer. In every empirical study I’ve ever seen, there is no discernible difference in the moralities between highly secular and highly pious societies except insofar as the poverty rate correlates positively with both crime and religious belief. Compare Sweden and the U.S. for example.

    Interesting side note that Klinghoffer, Axe, et al. confirm with their explicit endorsement of all these “intuitive” arguments: Divine Intuition: Cognitive Style Influences Belief in God

    ” “A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in
    total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the
    ball cost?” The response $0.10 springs immediately to mind, but
    the correct answer is $0.05. Choosing the attractive but incorrect
    answer signals greater reliance on intuition and less reliance on
    reflection.”

    People who tend to respond with the intuitive but wrong answer (and to other questions demonstrating the same thing) tend to believe in God at a higher rate than those who reflect and get it right.

  7. michaelfugate

    I realize that everything the DI does is data-free, but let’s be generous and say that belief in God was 99% in 1859, after 100 years in 1959 it was still above 95%, and even after 150 years it was still above 90%. Somehow I don’t think evolution is having much effect on God-belief in the US.

  8. And the USA was so much moral in 1859.

  9. It irks me to no end that what other people believe is so important to Klinghoffer and Pals, but when questioned about their beliefs, it’s irrelevant, or on special days, persecution.

    But it’s especially Klinghofferian to whine about evolution’s effect on religion, while leaving out it’s importance in improving our understanding of medicine, agriculture, and ecosystems. I’m sure I’ve forgotten some things.

  10. Hey MG, you’re not going to demand consistency from IDiots like Klinkleclapper, are you? Consistency is for atheist communist fascist nazi-darwinist materialists, not for profound thinkers (as deep as a saucer with water) like Klinkleclapper, who see beyond the walls of materialism.

  11. When they start feeling insecure about scientific support for Genesis, creationists always try to change the subject to morality, claiming, as the good Rev. Rives does, that belief in evolution is morally corrupting. That this has nothing to do with whether the theory of evolution is true or not, they tiptoe past.

  12. Eric Lipps:
    “That this has nothing to do with whether the theory of evolution is true or not, they tiptoe past.”

    Nice!