Klinghoffer Says Evolution Is ‘Fake News’

Most of you are aware of Fake news, described by Wikipedia as:

Fake news is a type of hoax or deliberate spread of misinformation in social media or traditional news media with the intent to mislead in order to gain financially or politically. If often employs eye-catching headlines or entirely fabricated news-stories in order to increase readership and online sharing.

[…]

In late 2016 fake news gained notoriety following the uptick in news-content in the Facebook newsfeed, and its prevalence on the micro-blogging site Twitter. With a large portion of Americans using Facebook or Twitter to receive news, in combination with increased political polarization, filter bubbles, the tendency for readers to mainly read headlines – fake news was implicated in influencing the 2016 American presidential election.

A harsh critic might say that the Discovery Institute has always been in the business of generating fake news in order to spread their creationist propaganda, but no one — to our knowledge — has applied that term to them. Perhaps anticipating that such a label is inevitable, the Discoveroids are launching a preemptive strike. They’re flipping the whole thing around to accuse scientists of engaging in the practice.

That’s what we see in their latest post: Theory of Evolution? Call It a “Narrative” Instead, written by Klinghoffer. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

The whole business about “fake news” misses a point that’s relevant to considering how questions of biological origins are handled in professional science literature. Nate Silver edits the political site [link omitted], but the political context of his remark is irrelevant. He tweets:

[The alleged tweet:] A story can be 100% factually accurate (narrowly true) and yet basically be BS. Many stories driven by “the narrative” have this problem.

So what? Ah, dear reader, you don’t understand how desperate the Discoveroids are to justify their existence. Klinghoffer says:

My read as a science consumer [Hee hee!] is that as in politics, so too in science. Couldn’t, in other words, much the same be said of the conclusions of many a peer-reviewed article on evolution?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Brilliant idea! So Klinghoffer, the “science consumer,” consulted an expert:

I asked Biologic Institute’s Doug Axe, author of [creationist book title].

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The Biologic Institute is the Discoveroids’ very own captive research lab, where the work is done and reviewed only by them. This was Axe’s reply:

Yes. Once a view dominates, the distinction between assumption and data is blurred. Whatever you can say without being challenged is “true.”

That’s certainly decisive. Thus fortified, Klinghoffer concludes with this:

The theory of evolution by natural selection operating on random mutations, as a sweeping explanation for life and how it got there, is a “narrative.” It presents a very smooth story, persuasive to most scientists. The facts may all be true, but the conclusion: BS.

So there you are, dear reader. Evolution is fake news. That’s what the Discoveroids say. They would never dabble in anything as shoddy as creating or spreading fake news. That’s the work of naturalists and Darwinists — like you.

Copyright © 2017. 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

17 responses to “Klinghoffer Says Evolution Is ‘Fake News’

  1. Yep. Accuse your opponents of your greatest strength – in this case that you can make a persuasive-sounding argument out of literally nothing.

  2. Michael Fugate

    One of the latest Biologic Institute team members: Mariclair Reeves

    Here is the DEDICATION from her dissertation:
    My goal is that they may be encouraged in heart, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding that you do not need knowledge to realize the emptiness of the universe without the fullness of Christ. Entering into his fullness is not something you figure out or achieve, but rather what Christ has already gone through for you.

    Characterization of the neuroprotective mechanism of selenoprotein M Reeves, Mariclair A. University of Hawai’i at Manoa, 2011.

  3. Either Klinkleklankle never actually talked to Axe, thus he is lying, or he did talk to Axe and Axe is lying. Either way, Klopperplopper plops out another Pile o’ Dung.

    Axe couldn’t get an article past a review because it would be identified as junk science. That’s why they have their own “journal” or publish obscure tracts on-line. Pitiful.

    Meanwhile, in the real world, the lead story in Science is about enzyme evolution, something Axe claims is impossible. Too bad. He might actually learn a thing or two by reading “fake news.”

  4. Except they don’t want to learn anything.

  5. Is Klinghoffer miffed he missed the train for Steve Bannon’s editorial staff or is that horribly itchy shingles rash flaring up? Should have gotten the VACCINE Klinkledinkle. Oh by the way. Your health care is cancelled.

  6. Fake news, alternative facts? Here’s the numero uno site for that:
    http://www.discovery.org/

    @Michael Fugate
    And they actually accepted that paper with such gibberish at University of Hawaii?

  7. Klinghoffer opines:

    The theory of evolution by natural selection operating on random mutations, as a sweeping explanation for life and how it got there, is a “narrative.” It presents a very smooth story, persuasive to most scientists. The facts may all be true, but the conclusion: BS.

    And K., of course, knows from BS.

    I’m interested in his tacit admission that “the facts” regarding evolution are true. This is certainly not what his fellow cretins, I mean young-earth creationists, believe; they constantly spout “alternative facts” about, for instance, radioisotopic dating methods directly contradicting the facts uncovered by legitimate researchers. (Old-earth creationists spout different nonsense.)

  8. Klinghoffer says: “The facts may all be true, but the conclusion: BS.” That’s essentially Hambo’s way of perverting things, when he (Hambo) says that we all use the same facts, but we have different presuppositions.

  9. From the dedication of Marieclair’s thesis, I thought it was about cosmology, perhaps identifying the dark matter filling the universe is in fact Christ. However, the title indicates it’s about some neuronal transmembrane protein and has nothing to do with the baby Jesus.

  10. Michael Fugate

    Apparently Mariclair’s dedication is partially plagiarized from Colossians New International Version 2:2 which states:
    My goal is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ.

    The Message Bible 2:11states:
    Entering into this fullness is not something you figure out or achieve. It’s not a matter of being circumcised or keeping a long list of laws. No, you’re already in – insiders – not through some secretive initiation rite but rather through what Christ has already gone through for you, destroying the power of sin.

    Weird two separate translations combined with quote mining – perfect for someone working at the DI.

  11. The facts may all be true, but the conclusion: BS.

    This seems to be a standard creationist tactic–pretending to agree on the facts but preferring a different “interpretation.”

    The problem with this is that a scientific theory is the single best explanation for a given set of fact, it explains all of the facts, and it is contradicted by no relevant facts. And, a powerful theory allows successful predictions to be made. None of these is applicable to creation “theory.”

    In reality (something creationists have little association with) not all interpretations are of equal explanatory power. Some are pure nonsense.

  12. Our dear SC notices: “That’s essentially Hambo’s way of perverting things”
    No matter how much Klinkle likes to clapper, we all recognize the only difference between him and Ol’Hambo is that the latter uses his favourite Holy Book as “evidence”.

  13. The Discoveroids seek credibility by pretending to do real science. It’s the whole point of advocating a “theory” of intelligent design, publishing their in-house journal, paying the rent on a so-called research lab in an office building, and all the rest.

    Kling now defines the very scientific process they pretend to be a part of as “fake news.”

    It is a strange thing to do, until one realizes that this is exactly like Ham’s practice of labeling evolution a religion. In Ham’s case, if everything is religion, then Ham’s religion is equally credible and should have equal time in schools. So in the Discoveroid’s case, if everything in science is fake news, then ID fake news should have equal time along with evolution fake news in schools.

    It is becoming more and more difficult to distinguish between the DI and AiG.

  14. @ Michael Fugate: Great catch!

  15. If I have this right, evolution has facts but a false story and Intelligent Design doesn’t have facts but is the true story. Sounds like another riff on the old “intuition” tune.

    Klinhoffer (or Axe, I forget which) says “It [the evolution ‘narrative’] presents a very smooth story, persuasive to most scientists.”

    In other words, the people who study it don’t know what they’re talking about, but Klinghoffer (or Axe, I really can’t emphasize enough that it doesn’t matter to me) has it all figured out. Of all the arrogant things that come out of the DI, this is near the top.

  16. Michael Fugate

    Yes. Once a view dominates, the distinction between assumption and data is blurred. Whatever you can say without being challenged is “true.”

    I think this describes ID exactly. They keep trotting out IC, CSI, EF, etc. without any data. They never challenge themselves; they never allow dissent on their “blog”, at their “conferences’, or in their “journals”.

  17. Are there any examples of a proposal which has been quietly withdrawn? I suppose that it is asking too much to expect an admission of a mistake. YEC tells us that it is a virtue never to make a mistake. How about ID?