Discovery Institute: Darwin Was a Fraud

It could be only our imagination, but it seems that the Discovery Institute is becoming increasingly extreme in their anti-science propaganda. An example is what we found at their creationist blog today: Darwin and Data — “Cutting the Toes to Fit the Shoe”, by Klinghoffer. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Science historian Michael Flannery had a really rich and fascinating discussion with CSC research coordinator Brian Miller about Darwin’s materialism — its origins and the fruit it finally bore.

[*Groan*] Flannery is the Discoveroids’ favorite historian. He’s some kind of librarian at the University of Alabama, and he’s also an adjunct instructor of history and sociology — splendid qualifications for a Discoveroid. He’s very keen on the non-existent Darwin-Hitler connection — see Discovery Institute: Hitler, Hitler, Hitler, Part VI.

What was the result of Flannery’s “really rich and fascinating discussion” with another Discoveroid? Klinghoffer says:

The popular picture of Charles Darwin casts him as the assiduous, objective gatherer of scientific data, only reluctantly reaching the conclusion he did: life as the product of strictly unguided material forces. In fact, as Professor Flannery explains, the groundwork or “template” of Darwin’s materialism had been established years before, through the influence of family and friends — notably at the University of Edinburgh where he joined the free-thinking Plinian Society and met Robert Edmund Grant.

For some reason, they don’t mention that after Darwin left Edinburgh, he went to Cambridge to study to become an Anglican clergyman, but he eventually gave that up to pursue his nature studies. Anyway, Klinghoffer tells us:

The seeds of his thinking were planted well before our scientist embarked on the Beagle or set foot on the Galápagos Islands. It was largely a case of “cutting the toes to fit the shoe” — theory first, worry about the data later.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! No one can read Origin of Species and conclude that Darwin didn’t care about data, but Klinghoffer’s audience would never read read the book, so their minds are open. He continues:

Flannery tells how the great man, his family, and followers contributed to the myth of Darwin as a fact-driven scientist, much as they sought to massage the reality of Darwin’s “agnosticism,” which is a less aggressive way of saying his “atheism.”

Ah yes, “the myth of Darwin as a fact-driven scientist.” Let’s read on:

Why does it matter? Because Darwinists follow much the same path today. Blindness to evidence of design in biology, the refusal to consider this evidence, is a function of the backwards relationship between theory and data.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Darwinists today are blind “to evidence of design in biology.” And what is that “evidence”? As we’ve said so many times before, the Discoveroids’ only “evidence” for intelligent design is either the god of the gaps argument or else William Paley’s watchmaker analogy.

Klinghoffer’s brief post ends with this:

Flannery is a great source of background and insight. Listen to the podcast now [link omitted].

The amazing thing is that — thanks to their generous patrons — the Discoveroids are paid to do this sort of thing; and it actually impresses their slack-jawed, drooling, empty-headed fans.

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

11 responses to “Discovery Institute: Darwin Was a Fraud

  1. I see their “Intelligent Design Education Day” earlier this month, seems to have been held at a creationist university.

  2. OK Darwin was a fraud. So what? Show the evidence that you are not a bigger fraud!!!!

  3. @L.Long
    So what?
    The value of any science does not depend on the personalities of the scientists.
    It doesn’t matter whether Darwin had a deathbed conversion. It doesn’t matter whether Darwin plagiarized his ideas. It doesn’t matter what Darwin thought about slavery. It doesn’t matter what Darwin thought about inheritance.

  4. No one is better qualified to discuss the concept of ignoring data than Klinkledooper. However, his inability to use logic as well as his supernatural world view (ok and that check from Westie every few weeks) prevent him, as usual , from making any statement other than a fraudulent, misleading, hate sown announcement attacking established science.
    But the comedy is great , especially when combined with some SC commentary skewering each of Klunkerhinkle’s statements. Thanks I needed a good chuckle.

  5. Michael Fugate

    The only reason Flannery and Klinghoffer believe in ID is because they believe in God. So they then reason that the only way someone doesn’t believe in ID is because they don’t believe in God. The premises and the conclusions are all wrong, but what else is new.

  6. My point exactly! Whats the problem?

  7. I cannot speak of the motivations of individuals, but thoughts like these occur to me:
    There are plenty of people who believe in God but realize that evolution provides an obvious and well-substantiated account for the variety of life. Today, ID is the last resort for people who are uncomfortable with being part of the world of life, particularly (and because it so obvious) being physically related to our closest relatives, chimps and other apes. There are those theists (since Augustine) who realize that speaking stupidly about the natural world is a counter-productive way of defending the faith.

  8. Charles Deetz ;)

    Who can’t let go … those who see no actor controlling the world, or those who see someone controlling everything all the time? (Well, some of the time and not everything, although it is clear they can’t tell the difference.)

  9. Richard Bond

    The seeds of his thinking were planted well before our scientist…set foot on the Galápagos Islands.

    I shall have to re-read The Voyage of the Beagle to be sure, but I seem to remember that it was long after he left the Galápagos Islands that Darwin really started to formulate his theory.

  10. The irony, of course, is that it’s mid-level librarian at a podunk college Flannery who starts with a pre-conceived conclusion and works backwards scrambling to find a crumb of evidence. He fails bigly. Sad!

    What Flannery wrote is simply a Croc, into which he tried to shove Darwin’s foot.

  11. Klinghoffer says:

    The popular picture of Charles Darwin casts him as the assiduous, objective gatherer of scientific data, only reluctantly reaching the conclusion he did: life as the product of strictly unguided material forces. In fact, as Professor Flannery explains, the groundwork or “template” of Darwin’s materialism had been established years before, through the influence of family and friends — notably at the University of Edinburgh where he joined the free-thinking Plinian Society and met Robert Edmund Grant.

    For some reason, they don’t mention that after Darwin left Edinburgh, he went to Cambridge to study to become an Anglican clergyman, but he eventually gave that up to pursue his nature studies.

    But of course Anglicans aren’t real Christians, you see: too much like papists.