Counting the clunkers in Klinghoffer’s latest post at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog is like counting the bedbugs in a creationist’s mattress. There’s no end to it — they just keep coming.
The title is The Curious Romance of Darwinism and Creationism — And Why Intelligent Design Must Be Silenced. It’s the latest in a series of Discoveroid posts that gush over the writing of Tom Bethell, which we previously discussed in Klinghoffer Praises Tom Bethell’s New Book. Here are some excerpts, without bold font added for emphasis. That isn’t necessary here. The cavalcade of clunkers begins:
One of the many smart observations in Tom Bethell’s new book, Darwin’s House of Cards, pertains to the curious relationship of Darwinism and Creationism — and how that bears on efforts to suppress investigation of the theory of intelligent design.
Clunker count: (1) “smart” observations; (2) “efforts to suppress” investigation of (3) the “theory” of intelligent design. Explanation: those things (smart observations, efforts to suppress, and the Discoveroids’ “theory”) don’t exist. Then he says:
Darwinists seem to long for the good old days when their only opposition was from Biblical creationism. This is reflected in efforts to conflate ID with creationism, or to make the former a kind of forbidden science, off limits to discussion.
Clunker count: (1) “efforts to conflate” ID with creationism; (2) efforts to make ID a “forbidden science” which is (3) “off limits to discussion.” Explanation: ID is creationism — see Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District — so it isn’t science. The Discoveroids are free to discuss it — and they obviously do. But because it’s unquestionably a religious concept, like old-fashioned creationism, it can’t be taught in government schools, and (except for bible colleges), it doesn’t belong in university science classes — so in those venues it’s “off limits.”
After that, Klinghoffer tells us:
[F]or all that separates them, Darwinism and creationism have in common that they are both inferences from prior doctrines (respectively, materialism, or a particular way of reading the Bible). ID is different. Says Bethell, “Intelligent design is not a deduction from a philosophy but an inference from observed facts.”
Clunker count: (1) “Darwinism” is a silly term, suggesting that those who accept Darwin’s theory do so because of a mystical devotion to Charles Darwin; (2) evolution is not, like creationism, based on nothing but “inferences from prior doctrines”; (3) ID is, however, “a deduction from a philosophy.”
Isn’t this fun? It’s also tedious, so we’ll do it with only one more excerpt:
That monopoly [of the philosophy of naturalism] was challenged on another campus, Baylor University, by mathematician William Dembski.
[Klinghoffer quotes Bethell:] Dembski formed the Polanyi Institute to debate these issues, with Darwinians and ID opponents included on the board. But the Institute was shut down after vehement protests from Baylor’s biology faculty. They did not want ID to be so much as discussed.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We wrote about that clunker in Intelligent Design’s Brief Shining Moment.
This is the end of Klinghoffer’s post. We’ll leave it to you to find the clunkers:
ID, unlike creationism, challenges Darwinian evolution on its own turf. That is not acceptable. Creationism for the Darwinist is a welcome foil. On the other hand, ID, which practices science where Darwinism is ultimately an exercise in philosophy, must be silenced.
That’s it, dear reader — one of the most amazing posts ever to appear at the Discoveroids’ website, fascinating for the sweep of its audacity. Now we need to take the dogs out for a long walk to clear our mind.
Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.