Klinghoffer: Intelligent Design Is Theistic Evolution

From time to time, the Discovery Institute relaxes it’s usual self-censorship and admits that they’re just a bunch of creationists. For example, see Casey Admits the Designer Is the First Cause, and before that they emerged out of their closet, pranced around wearing ecclesiastical garb, and confessed that their “scientific” designer — blessed be he! — is transcendent. That means their designer exists beyond time and space, in that inaccessible and incomprehensible realm known only to the gods, and before that Klinghoffer Admits Intelligent Design Is Theism.

Today they’re making another admission — that their “theory” of intelligent is nothing more than Theistic evolution, about which Wikipedia says:

Francis Collins describes theistic evolution as the position that “evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God”, and characterizes it as accepting “that evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God”.

As you probably know, Francis Collins is, among other things, president of The BioLogos Foundation. The Discoveroids have always opposed BioLogos — see Discovery Institute Battles BioLogos — but now they seem to be reversing their position. That’s no problem, because contradictions never bother creationists, to whom facts and logic mean nothing.

Their latest post is Gallup Poll Is Blind to Support for Intelligent Design, written by Klinghoffer. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Looking at a Gallup poll we reported on back in May, Yale Divinity School communications director Tom Krattenmaker spots what he sees as good news. He writes in a USA Today op-ed [Creationism support is at a new low. The reason should give us hope] that Americans are veering from creationism, not in favor of a purely materialist evolutionary process, but rather a curious new “hybrid view”:

We discussed that 2017 Gallup Poll on Evolution back in May. Klinghoffer quotes what Krattenmaker wrote:

Not surprising, in view of our growing secularization, the percentage of Americans taking the strict evolution view — no divine role — has grown significantly since the 1980s, from 9% to 19% in the latest Gallup survey.

But the latest movement in public opinion shows one-time creationists taking refuge not in the “no-religion” zone but in “both/and” position. The percentage of people choosing the hybrid view — around 30% in 2014 — was eight points higher in Gallup’s poll.

These tea leaves tell us that more people are refusing the all-or-nothing choice between faith and science and opting instead for a third way: Acceptance of the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution while seeing a divine role in the process. “Divine evolution” is a term some use for it.

“Divine evolution”? Klinghoffer tells us:

“Divine evolution” is not a term I’ve heard before. But “intelligent design,” which Krattenmaker doesn’t mention, would seem to fit – a theory that recognizes objective evidence [Hee hee!] of guidance in human and other evolution, whether by a divine or other source of intelligence. On the identity of the designer, ID per se is agnostic.

Did you follow that? Klinghoffer is virtually admitting that intelligent design “would seem to fit” theistic (or divine) evolution. He continues:

What Krattenmaker may be picking up on is the progress of design theory in shaping the public discussion of evolution.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The Discoveroids have made no scientific progress, so all they have to brag about the occasional drooler who adopts their meaningless terminology. Klinghoffer finishes by complaining that the Gallup questions are obsolete:

That’s something, however, that the Gallup poll is unable to recognize since they’ve been asking the same questions since 1982 when the modern ID movement did not yet exist.

Actually, the poll questions are quite sufficient. Gallup has been asking:

Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings?

1. Human beings developed over millions of years, but God guided this process.

2. Human beings developed over millions of years, but God had no part in this process.

3. God created man in his present form.

Gallup’s first question is entirely sufficient for any drooler who believes intelligent design. The Discoveroids have previously admitted that their designer — blessed be he! — is a transcendent first cause, and Klinghoffer’s new post admits that intelligent design would seem to fit “divine evolution.” We see no need for Gallup to add a fourth option. Their original three are entirely sufficient.

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

10 responses to “Klinghoffer: Intelligent Design Is Theistic Evolution

  1. Michael Fugate

    The problem with 1. and with intelligent design, creationism, and theistic evolution is what exactly this god did or is doings. No one seems to be able to produce a consistent answer; it ranges from sparking the universe 14+ billion years ago and nothing else to forming humans out of dirt, spit and breath a few thousand years ago.

  2. Eric Lipps

    If I were Klinghoffer (eww) I wouldn’t take comfort in people moving from straight-up a’Bible-a’poundin’ Genesis creationism toward “intelligent design.” Whether folks at the Discovery Institute and its kindred fertilizer dumps want to admit it or not, ID is one reluctant step toward Darwinism. For one thing, I understand that the DI is friendly territory for so-called “old-earth” types, otherwise known to pure creationists as heretics and apostates.

    I predict further steps in that direction. First a quick dash through ancient-astronaut territory (aliens created us–aliens, I tell you!), then a jaunt through some sort of Lamarckism with a religious flavor and finally a grudging acceptance of Darwinian evolution. In three hundred years or so, real hard-core creationists might be where flat-earthers (yes, there are some left) are now–still nuts, but a tiny minority of harmless nuts, not cranks with friends in President Donald Trump’s Cabinet.

  3. Hans Weichselbaum

    ID insists on God having to intervene from time to time to fill in the gaps, make a bacterial flagellum or something else which is ‘irreducible complex’. Most theologians (with the notable exception of Alvin Plantinga) regard God as having created nature as a closed system and self-sufficient. That would be ‘theistic evolution’.
    If ID drops their demand of ‘direct intervention’, that would deny all their previous claims!

  4. What we must understand is that the lines between Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Intelligent Design and theistic evolution are so vague that we’re rather talking a spectrum than sharply defined categories. So we should not be surprised to see Klinkleclapper abuse the similarities of the latter two.

  5. 2. comes closest but not close enough. It should say

    2. Human beings developed over millions of years but no imaginary beings had any part in it because they’re imaginary.

  6. If intelligent design creationism is just “theistic evolution”, then why do the Discotuters deny and denigrate evolution at every turn?

  7. @Michael Fugate:
    what exactly this god did or is doing
    ID was founded on the principle of not answering the “who, what, when, where, why or how”, just that there is something wrong with evolution. By removing any substantive, they could present it as not being a religion, and they could distance themselves from having to defend Ark-ology etc. while not actually rejecting that base of support.

  8. Christine Janis

    “First a quick dash through ancient-astronaut territory (aliens created us–aliens, I tell you!)”

    And, of course, the obligatory nod to the “fact” that even Richard Dawkins agrees with this

  9. Michael Fugate

    TomS, but who would believe that is what ID stands for? Not from anything they say or do – ID is all about believing in an agent God and nothing more. They believe that belief in God will somehow solve all problems, yet it never solved anything in the past. Their “history” from Weikart and Flannery are worse than their “science” from Axe and Behe. Not to mention crap philosophy from Meyer, crap ethics from Smith, and crap theology from everyone on site.

  10. @Michael Fugate:—
    I’m sorry that I gave the impression that I gave the impression that I was defending ID.
    I have been bringing up the lack of substantive content to anti-evolution for many a year. ID is merely an empty advertising slogan in a negative political campaign.