Klinghoffer Says Science Is ‘Fake News’

This was the year creationists discovered the “fake news” issue and attempted to use it in their favor, starting with: Klinghoffer Says Evolution Is ‘Fake News’, followed by Ken Ham Is a Victim of ‘Fake News’, and most recently WND Exposes ‘Fake News’ from NASA.

Today the Discovery Institute is once again using the ‘fake news” label against those of us who understand reality. Their latest at their creationist blog is “Fake News” Isn’t a Phony Concept, as Media and Wikipedia Coverage of Intelligent Design Shows, written by Klinghoffer. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

There is an informal, leaderless mob out there that has shown itself perfectly willing to distort the truth about ID and feed that to a trusting general audience. This is important, not less important than anything else in the public square since it bears on the ultimate question of how life itself came to be as it is.

Your Curmudgeon has never distorted the meaning of intelligent design. We always start with the Discoveroids’ own definition of their “theory” — see Discovery Institute: Intelligent Design Redefined. Then Klinghoffer says:

It’s not about so-called “creationism.” [Hee hee!] It’s a controversy that goes back to Plato and Aristotle, in a millennia-long debate with Epicureanism about purpose in the universe.

Yes, good science is always about the purpose of the universe. After that he tells us:

We’ve documented in excruciating detail the axe-grinding and distortions from a wide range of media sources whenever ID or academic freedom come up for coverage. There are a couple of big themes. The fake news equates ID with creationism, and it claims that design proponents seek to teach ID in public schools. We’ve shown again and again that these notions are false. We talk with reporters. Write to them. Argue with them. Many simply refuse to listen, much less correct what they say.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! See Curmudgeon’s Guide to “Academic Freedom” Laws. Klinghoffer continues:

And then there is Wikipedia, which has done more to mislead readers about ID than any other single source. It’s entry on intelligent design opens by calling the theory “pseudoscience,” a “religious argument for the existence of God,” which are all fake charges, and it goes on from there.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Let’s read on:

The interesting psychological issue here turns upon the question of whether these people in the media and at Wikipedia are deliberately lying or not. Maybe the critics of the “fake news” concept find it hard to believe that they are, since that would amount to a conspiracy, but a strange one with no leadership or discernible organization. I don’t believe they are lying, though. At least not deliberatively. Instead, on certain ideologically and personally charged subject, people see what they want to see, and you can’t talk them out of it.

Yes, it’s hard to get people to abandon reality and turn instead to Oogity Boogity! Another excerpt:

What drives the self-deception? It’s been called worldview-induced blindness, but it also includes something more personal, the picture of yourself you carry around in your head. Pride very much enters into it. The complex of forces can make it difficult to see things other than how you wish to see them. There’s also an echo chamber dynamic where the memes become self-reinforcing. The result is fake news.

And it’s so unfair! Klinghoffer concludes with this:

The example of ID is an illustration of how it happens, and that it happens, all the time. If it does so with regard to a contentious issue like evolution, it’s not hard to imagine that it occurs in the context of even more incendiary topics in current events. No, “fake news” isn’t fake. At least with regard to intelligent design, it’s quite real.

Does anyone out there actually believe Klinghoffer’s version of reality? Or do they know what they’re doing and do it anyway because they think it’s for some greater purpose? We’ve always wondered about that.

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

31 responses to “Klinghoffer Says Science Is ‘Fake News’

  1. Fake news and the concept of persecution of creationism is gold for creationist organizations feeding their narrative to an uninformed, uneducated public.

  2. Klinghefner has given us a charming, textbook-worthy exemplar of psychological projection!

    Just…breathtaking!

  3. “Deliberatively”?

    And then there’s this:

    And then there is Wikipedia, which has done more to mislead readers about ID than any other single source. It’s entry on intelligent design opens by calling the theory “pseudoscience,” a “religious argument for the existence of God,” which are all fake charges, and it goes on from there.

    But it is pseudoscience, right up there with astrology, and anyone who thinks it isn’t a religious argument hasn’t been paying attention. The judge in Kitzmiller didn’t buy the ID’ers’ denial, and neither should anyone else.

  4. Michael Fugate

    If it weren’t for theists, who would be backing ID?

  5. Gosh, I thought Philip Johnson had cleared things up, and more than once,

    The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn’t true. It’s falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth? When I preach from the Bible, as I often do at churches and on Sundays, I don’t start with Genesis. I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves.

    ———

    Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.

    ———

    This isn’t really, and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy.

    Where do the infidels at Wikipedia get off using using people’s own words to discredit them?

  6. In fairness, Klinghefner very nearly got it right; a small correction, and all is well!

    What drives the self-deception teleological suppoisitions based on a priori religious conviction grounded in nothing more substantial than personal intuition? It’s been called worldview-induced blindness, but it also includes something more personal, the picture of yourself you carry around in your head. Pride very much enters into it. The complex of forces can make it difficult to see things other than how you wish to see them. There’s also an echo chamber dynamic where the memes become self-reinforcing. The result is fake news.

    The money shot has got to be that phrase, “Pride very much enters into it,” which is the cornerstone of the ‘I ain’t no kin to no monkeys’ axiom of the DI’s whole ‘human exceptionalism’ schtick.

  7. “suppoisitions”?

    Remind me to never again let Popeye type up my posts…

  8. From SC’s excellent link to the definition of IDiocy:

    “Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine [or at least claim] whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof.”
    Still no IDiot, I repeat, has stepped forward to do such a determination regarding Oumuamua. Ain’t that peculiar? Asking the question is answering it, I guess.

    Klinkleclapper whines: “whether these people …. are deliberately lying or not.” just after “It’s a controversy ….. about purpose in the universe.”
    Since about 250 years teleological explanations are not scientific anymore. Pretending that a teleological explanation is scientific cannot result in anything else than pseudoscience. This is exactly why ID is IDiocy. However that is not enough to call IDiocy creacrap. After all teleology does not necessarily contradict Evolution Theory. One reason IDiocy qualifies as creacrap is the lie that a teleological explanation can and must replace Evolution Theory.

    “Does anyone out there actually believe Klinghoffer’s version of reality? Or do they know …”
    Our dear SC forgets that IDiots, like all creacrappers, don’t care about coherence and consistency. For them it’s totally possible to actually believe their creacrap, knowing what they are doing and doing it anyway for a greater purpose – exactly because that greater purpose justifies what they believe.

  9. Michael Fugate

    I wonder when they will remove evolution from the “approved” word list?
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/16/cdc-banned-words-fetus-transgender-diversity

  10. KenP “thought Philip Johnson had cleared things up”.
    And if that is not enough the introduction of the Wedge Document is crystal clear:

    “The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is on of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization is build.”
    “Discovery’s Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. The Center explores how new developments …. raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.”
    “We are …. [broadening] the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories. which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design.”
    Just realize that in IDiot language (scientific) materialism means methodological naturalism. The lie – the fake news, if you prefer – is that they can reject the scientific method and still pretend to do science. What they abhor is Laplace’ probably apocryphal but oh so accurate “Je n’ai pas besoin de cette hypothese”.

  11. There is a story being reported by the New York Times and Politico that from 2007-2012 that the US Army was investigating UFOs. Apparently it eventually died because everybody lost interest as it was not turning up anything worth pursuing.
    I wonder whether there will be a push for some government department to investigate ID?
    If so, will someone sue the government for supporting a particular religion? What if a newly constituted Supreme Court OK ID?

  12. David “F. M.” Klinghoffer (to borrow a characterization of DJT allegedly made by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson — a man who should know whereof he speaks):
    “We’ve documented in excruciating detail the axe-grinding and distortions from a wide range of media sources whenever ID or academic freedom come up for coverage.”

    “Wide range of media sources”? In other words, he’s saying “We are right; it’s the rest of the world that’s got it wrong!”

  13. Wikipedia is absolutely correct when it labels ID as “religious argument for the existence of God”. The Design Argument has always been the strongest of the three major arguments for the existence of God. Then first David Hume and later Darwin came along and took the wind out of the argument. It is still a strong argument for God, if you can see God acting as primary cause through secondary causes, which we detect as ‘the laws of nature’.

    Wikipedia is also correct by labelling ID as “pseudoscience” because science doesn’t consider supernatural causation, even if it exists. It’s called “methodological naturalism” and the ID fellows simply don’t like. They want a scientific proof for the existence of God.

  14. So, some verse in that holly buy-bull says that “In the beginning was the word……”. Well, I was a US Marine for 4 years and did a tour in the vile Vietnam war. We also had a saying about the Corps. In the beginning was the word. Ten seconds later, it was changed. That was our response to our ever changing orders for any given day during the 13 months in Vietnam. I’d bet the whole bloody farm that very same applies to that holly buy-bull. Of course I’m just an old, broken down heathen/pagan and a very sarcastic son of a b***h.

  15. Klingy again:
    “…on certain ideologically and personally charged subject [sic], people see what they want to see, and you can’t talk them out of it.”

    So true, so true! Like, for instance, religious mythology.

    Age of the Earth: “God created the light enroute 6,000 years ago and gave it the characteristics to make it only appear to be coming from 13.7 billion light years away (or wherever)”.

    Diversity of species: “God just made a few different kinds so that they would all fit on the Ark. All the diversity happened just after they got off the boat.”

    The Grand Canyon: “Caused by The Flood. Ain’t God’s work wonderful!”

    Climate change: “Only God is powerful enough to cause the climate to change. Besides, God loves us, so He’d never let the climate change!”

    Any other observable reality that contradicts religious teachings: “God works in mysterious ways. We’ll never understand until we join Him in heaven.”

    And so it goes…

  16. Once again, just because a creationist says it, that doesn’t mean that they got it from the Bible.
    It shoud be obvious that the Bible does not say anything about the Grand Canyon. Nobody in the Ancient Near East knew anything about the Americas. But , in case that that is not enough, in the whole of the story about the Flood, there is noting about the Flood making changes in the Earth.

  17. “And then there is Wikipedia, which has done more to mislead readers about ID than any other single source.”

    And, of course, Klinghoffer, the DI, WND, AIG and ICR have done their utmost to mislead about science. Though the term “fake news” is increasingly hard to define, it seems to fit these folks.

  18. Can anyone think of more misleading source about the Bible than creationism?

  19. News flash: Archaeologists have discovered that the bibles (all 476 versions) are FAKE NEWS!

  20. Michael Fugate

    If asked, what would be Klinghoffer’s answer to the question, “What is the purpose of the universe?”. How would he justify his answer?

  21. As SC has pointed out there are many examples of IDers promoting religion. Here is one of the latest and most flagrant ones. 1,000 page book arguing against “Theistic Evolution” including as one of its 3 sections a (Click on “read more” to see table of contentsection titled “Section III: The Biblical and Theological Critique of Theistic Evolution” with chapters such as “Theistic Evolution Is Incompatible with the Teachings of the Old Testament”

  22. TomS:
    “[I]n case that that is not enough, in the whole of the story about the Flood, there is noting about the Flood making changes in the Earth.”
    In fact it seems while the flood was tearing a big ditch in North America, it somehow treated the middle east so gently the first thing “Righteous” Noah did after getting off the boat was to raise a crop of grapes, make wine and get sozzled. I wonder if that little gem of a story appears anywhere in Hambo’s Bemusement Park.

  23. I help edit that Wikipedia page. We’re probably gonna have a lot of work to do. There’s always crackpots, like that guy who thought he was the reincarnation of Charlemagne, but I have a feeling it’s going to get worse with DI’s active encouragement of vandalism.

  24. Christine Janis

    @ Ted Lawry. Yes, it is indeed ironic that Klinghoffer should be bemoaning the fact that people confuse ID with creationism right at the time when the DI has put out this book “Theistic Evolution” which touts YEC and a literal interpretation of the bible. But then they did always want to have it both ways — science to the lawyers, religion to the donors.

  25. @Christine Janis, please give more details of that book. Amazon lists about a dozen with “Theistic evolution” in the title, and I thought the DI were Old Earth creationists.

    Let me also, surprisingly, agree with Klinghoffer regarding the Wikipedia article on ID: “Intelligent design (ID) is a religious argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as “an evidence-based scientific theory about life’s origins”,[1][2] though it has been found to be pseudoscience.[3][4][5]”. I would have thought a disingenuous appearance of even-handedness more rhetorically effective. Rapiers, not bludgeons

  26. Of course fact and reason would be fake news, would you expect less from the land of Trump? For religious fundamentalists and many social conservatives it’s about their little feelings, logic need not apply. If they feel it it must be true.

  27. @Paul, Ted borked the links a bit but I think it is
    https://www.crossway.org/books/theistic-evolution-case/
    Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique / ed. by J. P. Moreland, Stephen C. Meyer, Christopher Shaw, Ann K. Gauger [et al.]. – Crossway, 2017.

  28. Thanks. From chapter titles as given in free excerpt, https://static.crossway.org/excerpt/theistic-evolution-excerpt/theistic-evolution-excerpt.pdf: “Biblical and Theological Introduction: The Incompatibility of Theistic Evolution with the Biblical Account of Creation and
    with Important Christian Doctrines” and “Theistic Evolution Undermines Twelve Creation Events and Several Crucial Christian Doctrines”, both by biblical literalist infallibilist Wayne Grudem.

    Case proven

  29. From the chapter by Wayne Grudem, “Biblical and Theological Introduction”, pp. 61-77, there is a section “A. What This Book Is Not About” where the author makes it clear that “This books is not about the ageof the earth.” The standard “Old Earth Creationisms” are mentioned . And he does characterize one approach to the Bible as “a mistaken kind of wooden literalism” (his use of italics).

  30. So (I presume you have the book!) the charge of DI publishing a book that favours YEC is not, after all, valid?
    Grudem certainly holds interesting views, such as, in Business for the Glory of God, “Wayne Grudem introduces a novel concept: business itself glorifies God when it is conducted in a way that imitates God’s character and creation. He shows that all aspects of business, including ownership, profit, money, competition, and borrowing and lending, glorify God because they are reflective of God’s nature.” But YECism? I don’t know of any evidence for that

  31. I don’t have the book. I just read some of the excerpts given online.
    If there were anything that might be interesting, I might ask my local library for an inter library loan.
    Like a hint about an alternative. (Fat chance. )