Klinghoffer: Evolution Is a Worthless Theory

We found a devastating criticism of evolution at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog: The “Exquisite Design” of Human Biology. It was written by David Klinghoffer, a Discoveroid “senior fellow” (i.e., flaming, full-blown creationist), who eagerly functions as their journalistic slasher and poo flinger. We’ll give you a few excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis.

There is a certain characteristic shallowness to the storytelling exercise that is evolutionary biology. Evolutionists spin a narrative about life’s history, about events that no one can or ever will witness.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Klinghoffer has embraced Hambo’s “Were you there?” rebuttal of evolution. Then he says:

They’re trying to explain how complex, functional living systems come into existence, and the imaginative tale-telling gets them out of having to grapple with what it takes, practically, for any complex living being to fight the battle of staying alive in the first place.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Contrast the pathetic failure of evolutionists with the exquisitely detailed narrative of the Discoveroids, which precisely explains how the intelligent designer — blessed be he! — accomplished the miracles they attribute to him. Klinghoffer tells us:

Evolutionists don’t worry much about how living things work, the irreducible complexity of it [Hee hee!], or how other complex systems work, either. For insights on function you have to go to physicians – and engineers. That’s a point underlying much of the writing done by two of our contributors, Steve Laufmann and Dr. Howard Glicksman.

Klinghoffer provides a link to a podcast by those two geniuses. Then he gushes about what they say:

All of biology displays a range of characteristics consistent exclusively with engineered systems. … Laufmann summarizes, listing 40 parameters that need to be satisfied for human life to go on at any moment: [quote omitted].

After listing those “parameters” — oxygen, red blood cells, kidney function, etc. — Klinghoffer shifts to another issue:

It’s true that theists must explain the existence of evil in the world, a problem that has resisted many tidy attempts at a solution. But atheists have a far, far greater challenge because they have to explain everything else – life, beauty, love, the cosmos, the full panoply of wonders around us.

[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh! [*End Drool Mode*] Because Darwin failed to explain “beauty, love, the cosmos, the full panoply of wonders around us,” his theory is obviously worthless. Klinghoffer closes with this:

As evidence against design, they [evolutionists] can point to things in life that cause pain, cease to work properly, or don’t seem to serve a purpose at all (that we can currently identify). But then, pity them, they are saddled with explaining everything else.

That was a powerful indictment of evolution. Admit it, dear reader — Klinghoffer has presented an irrefutable argument.

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

24 responses to “Klinghoffer: Evolution Is a Worthless Theory

  1. docbill1351

    Laughableman and Icky-Glicky, aka, PT Barnum and Alfred E. Neuman.

    The Tooters have gone full-metal jacket crazy pants out-of-the-closet creationist with a couple of the knuckley-ist kreationist krackpots EVAH!

  2. Klinghoffer declares

    All of biology displays a range of characteristics consistent exclusively with engineered systems.

    Beg the question much, Klingy?

    Why not “All of biology displays a range of characteristics which are not found in engineered systems”, e,g., reitierative generational reproduction with variations optimised over time in a feedback-loop with the environment, tolerance of suboptimal performance in non-reporductive functions, physical descent from a parent system, &c &c

  3. IIf evolution consisted of “telling tales about …”, then what is intelligent design but saying that maybe those tales aren’t true?
    What value is there in saying that something did something somehow, somewhere, some time, for some reason but it wasn’t evolution?

    As far as engineering, what is engineering but using the laws of nature?

  4. “for any complex living being to fight the battle of staying alive in the first place”
    Of course Klinkle clunkles his way through Evolution Theory as well, just like Ol’Hambo uses to do. Nope, staying alive isn’t priority. Passing your genes is. As some “exquisitely designed” spiders convincingly demonstrate – the males get eaten by their female partners after impregnating them.

  5. Klingy could use good course in contemporary biology, especially genetics and biochemistry, not to mention evolution and engineering. Engineered biological systems? Hardly. More like cobbled together from inefficient parts. Photosynthesis is a good example, gene expression is another. And how about mammalian development in which parts of the embryonic excretory system become part of the reproductive system? Surely there are more efficient, more creative designs an intelligent designer could have used. Yet, despite this, living things are very good at homeostasis and reproduction, which per Megalonyx, no human engineered system can do. Klingy certainly deserves SC’s “poo flinger” epithet.

  6. Michael Fugate

    So it is only about theism after all.

  7. But atheists have a far, far greater challenge because they have to explain everything else – life, beauty, love, the cosmos, the full panoply of wonders around us.

    Silly me, I didn’t realize that biologists were now responsible for explaining everything else. Then again, it is kind of easy to explain everything when your own standards of logic and reasoning are basically limited to your Bronze Age mythology.

  8. Michael Fugate

    This is nice article on how Darwin’s “Origin” influenced Thoreau…
    https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v546/n7658/full/546349a.html

  9. About explaining tings. Maybe atheists don’t explain “everything else”. Evolutionists are only interested in explaining the variety of life, which they are doing a better job than anyone else.
    And the anti-evolutionists have decided not to be in the business of explaining anything. Not even explaining their own contradictions. Or why they are so afraid of being related to the rest of life.

  10. A couple of weeks ago I posted a message in this blog about a report from Phys.org dated June 2
    https://phys.org/news/2017-06-approach-antibiotic-therapy-dead-pathogens.html
    It was about research which was using evolutionary biology suggesting a way of attacking the problem of bacteria resistance to antibiotics.

  11. Scientist:
    I would still rather have my mammalian apparatus rather than a cloaca.

  12. Man, I don’t know why this one gets my goat more than the Discotute usually does. I think it must be the line about “evolutionists” not really caring about learning about complex systems or how life works when most of what we know about complex systems and how life works required the work of evolutionists. It’s just such a cruel and pointless argument.

  13. “. Evolutionists spin a narrative about life’s history, about events that no one can or ever will witness.” Ugh. Lets all be willfully ignorant says kloopledink. Its one book burning festival after another at the Discotute !

  14. Ross Cameron

    Darwin also failed to explain how nutters continue to exist. Shouldn`t evolution have eliminated these parasites on humanity known as creationists. Therefore, ID wins. 🙂

  15. Eric Lipps

    If “staying alive” were the evolutionary prime directive, an indestructible, immortal eunuch would be a rip-roaring Darwinian success.

  16. Mark Germano

    Stay tuned, kids, for the next episode, when lil’ Davey Klinghoffer tells us, straight faced, that middle school students should learn, not just the weaknesses, but the strengths, too! You know, all those strengths Dave keeps talking about!

    So let’s see them strengths… Dave? Dave, did you forget to bring the strengths of evolution again? You just had them, Dave! I saw you put them in your pocket. Awww, jeez, Dave, we can’t take you anywhere.

  17. Christine Janis

    @dweller42. Spot on —– creationists seem to think that science somehow arises spontaneously, like fruit on a tree. Just about all of the scientific knowledge that they use against “evolutionists” came from people they would use that word for as an insult.

    The creationists leaders know this very well, of course, but you see things written by creationist followers that leads one to think that they imagine that most real science is done by creationists, and that the “debate” just represents a small band of Dawkins acolytes doing a lot of squawking.

  18. pete moulton

    Dr Janis, I have a question for you. Klinghoffer claims to have graduated from Brown, an institution with which you are quite familiar, I believe, As all the Curmudgeon’s regular readers know, Klinghoffer’s ignorance of all things scientific is abject and encyclopedic. He writes as if he’s never in his life opened a legitimate science book, nor read a single page of one. My question is this: is it possible for someone to earn a bachelor’s degree from Brown in any field without taking at least a minimum amount of scientific coursework?

    There’s an ironic twist to this too, btw. A number of my foundational biology classes used as their main texts books written by Paul B. Weisz, a professor at Brown University.

  19. KeithB: Cloacas work, but yes, I too prefer the mammalian apparatus. Quite a successful evolutionary experiment, isn’t it?

  20. Michael Fugate

    Monotremes have cloacas and the penis only transports semen, semen and urine. The echidna even has a four-headed penis.
    https://curiouscox.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/echidna-penis-i-echid-you-not/

  21. Christine Janis

    The penis only transports urine in mammals that don’t have a cloaca (marsupials and placentals). (I think that’s maybe what you intended to say!)

  22. Michael Fugate

    Yeah, forgot a bit of that sentence – thanks!

  23. It’s true that theists must explain the existence of evil in the world, a problem that has resisted many tidy attempts at a solution.

    That’s a trivial problem compared to showing that a supernatural realm exists at all, that within that realm whatever deity they believe is the designer actually exists, and explain the what, when, where, and how that their designer acted. If one can demonstrate that the supernatural and the designer exists, the problem of evil should be be simple. Evil was created by an evil designer. Or maybe a mad alien scientists, equally plausible.

  24. @Ed:
    IMHO, the first task is to describe what, when, where, why and how a design results in the natural world as it is, rather than any of the infinity of other possibilities. How, for example, the supernatural deals with natural limits, or what supernatural limits there are. The only designs that we know about are not enough to produce something – that takes actions on materials.