Discoveroids Say Science Is a Cargo Cult

We’ve often said that the creationists at the Discovery Institute have created an imitation of the accouterments of science. They have their own, in-house “peer reviewed” journal, BIO-Complexity, their own creation science research facility, the Biologic Institute, and their own “peer reviewed” vanity press operation, (Discovery Institute Press). This has caused intelligent design to be described as a cargo cult.

Keep that in mind as we look at the latest item at the Discoveroids’ blog: Science as Cargo Cult – More Thoughts on the “March for Science”, written by Klinghoffer. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

When even Slate turns against a “progressive” event like this weekend’s March for Science, you know something’s wrong. Harvard Medical School instructor Jeremy Samuel Faust complains about the weird, mindless cult-like atmosphere infusing much of the adulation directed at “Science.”

He’s talking about this article at the Slate website: The Problem With the March for Science. It’s just what Klinghoffer has been looking for. He quotes from the thing:

Being “pro-science” has become a bizarre cultural phenomenon in which liberals (and other members of the cultural elite) engage in public displays of self-reckoned intelligence as a kind of performance art, while demonstrating zero evidence to justify it.

[…]

[T]he march revealed the glaring dissonance of opposing that trough of ignorance by instead accepting a cringe-worthy hive-mind mentality that celebrates Science as a vague but wonderful entity, what Richard Feynman called “cargo cult science.” There was an uncomfortable dronelike fealty to the concept — an oxymoronic faith that information presented and packaged to us as Science need not be further scrutinized before being smugly celebrated en masse. That is not intellectually rigorous thought — instead, it’s another kind of religion, and it is perhaps as terrifying as the thing it is trying to fight.

See what happened? Feynman’s remark is described in this Wikipedia article: Cargo cult science, which says: “Cargo cult science comprises practices that have the semblance of being scientific, but do not in fact follow the scientific method.”

The Discoveroids, who are running a cargo cult, found someone who wasn’t impressed by the crowds at the March on Science, and who suggests that the crowd’s attitude toward science resembles a cargo cult. That’s all we have here — and it’s an observation that could probably be made about any crowd at any public demonstration — but it’s a gift from heaven to the Discoveroids. Klinghoffer readily admits:

This is…well, frankly it’s remarkably close to our own take on the event.

Isn’t this great? From one guy’s blog article criticizing the crowd at a public demonstration — which had nothing to do with any specific scientific teaching — Klinghoffer feels that his creationist career has been vindicated, so he unleashes his hatred of science itself:

And then there’s the very different view that says science has closed all the books and figured out everything in need of being figured out. The debate is over, and properly so. Thus the public needs only to absorb a set of doctrines, while scientists themselves engage in a kind of apologetics campaign. The conclusions are preset and only need to be conveyed for the public’s benefit. In this perspective, that of many of the science marchers, science is rendered as a kind of religious faith. That may explain why it treats rival religions the way it does.

Science is a religion? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Now Klinghoffer sounds like ol’ Hambo. After that he refers to some Discoveroid video that says:

[A]dvocates of materialist ideology habitually portray science as being in a state of perpetual warfare with Judeo-Christian faith.

The Discoveroids, whose view of the world is inherently mystical, certainly agree with that. This is the end of Klinghoffer’s brief post:

In fact, the latter tradition [religion] was the “seedbed” of science, as Jay [that’s Jay Richards, a Discoveroid “fellow”] points out, not its persecutor. But the rival religion, Science as Cargo Cult, feels an imperative to compete with and blacken the reputation of its competitor. Hence the myth of unending warfare between the two.

It’s incredible. Now that someone has described some crowds at a public demonstration, the Discoveroids can promote a whole new dogma. They’ll be saying that all of science, especially “Darwinism,” because of its “materialism” — i.e., its disregard of the supernatural — is a cargo cult. “True” science (which would certainly include the Discoveroids’ “theory” about a supernatural designer) grew out of and is compatible with religion, and that’s why materialist science is at war with it.

All clear now? We’re the cargo cult, and the Discoveroids are the true scientists. Yes, it’s beyond bizarre, but we can expect to see more this theme in future Discoveroid propaganda.

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 “Discoveroids Say Science Is a Cargo Cult

  1. Klinkleklankle is projecting again. Rubber and glue argument.

    As for the Slate article … meh. Written by a medical doctor with a bad case of science envy. Total fluff which is why Klunkleknuckle fell in love with it.

  2. Michael Fugate

    Klinghoffer forgot to quote this part:

    For one thing, scientists are legendary flip-floppers. That’s actually a strength of genuine science, not a weakness. When the facts change, opinions must follow suit, not vice versa. We need to work to fix the problems of poor research and science comprehension if we’re ever going to have a reasonable case against those who disparage science, and as the march showed, we still have plenty of work to do on this front.

    This does not render science deniers correct on any particular topic. Far from it. They indeed remain the primary enemy and are wrong on the issues a staggering majority of the time. But in the long run, the propagation of bad science that feels like good science—and the inability or unwillingness of well-meaning progressives to distinguish it from the truth—only strengthens the hand of the opposition.

    and this:

    Let’s face it: People like science when it supports their views.

  3. Hey David, There were likely ten times more actual scientists at just the Houston Texas March For Science than on your ENTIRE evolution attacker list of bible scholars and Discoveroid crackpots. Nice try .

  4. Charles Deetz ;)

    This post seems like a good example of a term I’ve learned since the rise of Trumpism … gaslighting … confusing the audience to a point they don’t know who or what to trust. Luckily, DI audience it teenie-tiney.

  5. What is the theory of Intelligent Design? What is the alternative to standard science? What happens when a non-natural agency acts, if it doesn’t involve evolution, so that there is a nested hierarchy (tree) of life? What are the rules that the non-natural follows, or is it just “anything goes”?

  6. When one of these dimwits can show how their religion produces as much advancement as our ‘cargo cult’ I’ll consider their point of view! Till then they are dribbling manure down their chins!

  7. Same ole same ole from the DI. They never have anything new to offer, so just find some other group, study, paper, event, etc. that they can jabber about.

  8. So far, science is the best explanation for phenomena. It works, and when it doesn’t its theories get modified. Devotion to ancient texts doesn’t find oil, cure disease or go to the moon. And, the ID movement has yet to make a single positive contribution to science.

  9. I recall some very lively discussions and observations on this site among readers after the Curmudgeon wrote a terrific article about creationism and cargo cults.The article and comments were one of many high water marks here. Today, Klunkledunkle has sunk to a new low in morality for his paid science hater role opposing logic, the scientific method and progress.

  10. “it’s beyond bizarre”
    I wholeheartedly agree. This needs to sink in for a while, because before I can start mocking this crapola I first need to get something like a grip on it.

  11. Klinghoffer: “When the debate stops, so does the science.” Umh no, science progresses by building on past successes, which requires ending the debate and moving on, once the questions have been answered beyond a reasonable doubt. The debate is occasionally reopened if new evidence is found, but that hasn’t happened to evolution yet, if anything the new evidence reinforces the old.

    What Klinghoffer really means is: “If the “debate” stops, I won’t get paid.” As Upton Sinclair said: “It is hard to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on him not understanding it.”

  12. Ceteris Paribus

    Klinghoffer’s “Cargo Cult” conjecture is maybe just a teeny-weeney bit above his available reasoning powers. I’m still waiting to find out if he has solved this classic creationist conundrum: “If Adam cries out in the Garden of Eden, but there is yet no Woman there to hear the cry, then is Adam still wrong?

  13. Ross Cameron

    Bet klinghopper–sorry–hoffer heads straight for a doctor if he feels a tad unwell. Y`know doctors->medicine->science.

  14. Klinkleclapper also is totally OK with science every time he turns on his computer to pollute the internet.

  15. Richard Bond

    Actually, although he blows it up out of all proportion, Klinghoffer has a hint of a smidgeon of a point. Some of the marches seemed less interested in science than in post-modernism, identity politics, and the regressive left. This plays into the hands of those who, for various reasons, are anti-science. In recent days Jerry Coyne has written on his web site along these lines, and explained that he would not join his local march.

    Obviously science cannot be totally free of politics, but ID’s anti-science is strongly political, and if we let excessive politics into science, we are fighting on ID’s home territory.

  16. And then there’s the very different view that says science has closed all the books and figured out everything in need of being figured out. The debate is over, and properly so. Thus the public needs only to absorb a set of doctrines, while scientists themselves engage in a kind of apologetics campaign. The conclusions are preset and only need to be conveyed for the public’s benefit. In this perspective, that of many of the science marchers, science is rendered as a kind of religious faith. That may explain why it treats rival religions the way it does.

    According to this argument, science must never be seen as having truly answered any question. However, I’m sure K. thinks the Bible’s answers on any subject it touches are absolutely and unquestionably true.

  17. @Eric Lipps
    Always with the caveat that the Bible’s answers are the ones that agree with me. One must not be so literal as to take geocentrism. Or the silence of the Bible about evolution.