The Discoveroids’ Style of Thinking

Have you ever wondered why creationists think so differently from the rest of us? It would seem that the Discovery Institute has also been thinking about that. We found this at their creationist blog: Why the Darwin Debate Seems So Intractable. It was written by Klinghoffer. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

James Kalb is the author of The Tyranny of Liberalism. Writing in the magazine Chronicles, he offers a nice review of Tom Bethell’s recent book from Discovery Institute Press, [Hee hee!] Darwin’s House of Cards [Amazon link]. Bethell “has written an account of recent disputes over the fundamental validity of Darwinian theory,” a “clear and lively book,” “bring[ing] the story up to date.” Agreed, and thank you.

According to Amazon, 83% of the reviews give the book five stars. Wowie! Their description of it says:

In this provocative history of contemporary debates over evolution, veteran journalist Tom Bethell depicts Darwin’s theory as a nineteenth-century idea past its prime, propped up by logical fallacies, bogus claims, and empirical evidence that is all but disintegrating under an onslaught of new scientific discoveries.

Okay, so Kalb has praised the book. After that introduction, Klinghoffer tells us:

Kalb considers a question that many of our readers must have thought about: Why does the evolution debate seem so intractable? He speculates thoughtfully, considering a factor that probably gets less attention than it deserves. Darwinists and Darwin skeptics, says Kalb, bring to the evolution controversy fundamental, irreconcilable “differences in styles of thought.”

Imagine that! He quotes Kalb:

Darwinian theory pleases those who demand clear, simple accounts that seem adapted to scientific methods of investigation, and therefore offer hope of comprehensive explanations, while Darwinian skepticism appeals more to people who want accounts to be more open-ended, and more adequate to life as we find it. As a result, each side considers the other irrational.

Aha! Those hell-bound Darwinists like simple, comprehensive explanations, while creationists want “accounts to be more open-ended.” We would put that more simply: creationists prefer supernatural explanations. Klinghoffer continues:

It’s one of the irreducible aspects of human beings that we have these “styles” to our thinking, orientations that we can’t be talked out of, and that, as far as I can tell, seem inexplicable on any purely mechanical understanding of life.

Is the Discoveroids’ “style” of thinking truly inexplicable? Their “science” certainly is, but perhaps a psychiatrist could explain why some minds function like that. Klinghoffer tries to describe the two thinking “styles”:

The materialist, Darwinist style insists on a concrete physical explanation of cosmic and biological origins, while the skeptical style is far more content with leaving matters open where that seems appropriate.

If we have a “concrete physical explanation” of something, why is it appropriate to reject that and “leave matters open” to some other explanation? We’re not told. Here’s the end of Klinghoffer’s post:

Is the latter style or orientation “more adequate to life as we find it,” that is, truer to life as we actually experience it? It is in my own experience, and in my own life. I can tell you that with confidence.

So there you are. Klinghoffer tells us “with confidence” that the Discoveroids’ intelligent designer — blessed be he! — is a better explanation of life as he experiences it. Maybe he’s sincere, but he’s certainly not persuasive.

Copyright © 2018. 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

22 responses to “The Discoveroids’ Style of Thinking

  1. Discoveroids’ Style of Thinking: Is this the start of an oxymoron contest?

  2. “far more content with leaving matters open where that seems appropriate.” Code for the God of the gaps.

  3. Michael Fugate

    Kalb, typical angry, old, straight, white, Christian male. Hey, you kids get off my lawn! His apparent motto: “If the US just got rid of everyone who doesn’t look like me, my country would be perfect. We will deign to keep women around merely for cooking, cleaning and childbirth.”

    Good sense, my hindquarters.

    That said, the DI fellows are not skeptical of evolution, they “know” it is wrong. Their motto: “We know our god did something in the past and continues to do something today. We really couldn’t tell you anything that our god did or does, but the earth would stop spinning, maybe. And mutations would all be bad. We don’t even know why we know our god is involved; we just intuit common sense or something. If our views seem as incoherent as possible, well yes they are and they are designed that way; you can’t prove meaninglessness wrong, so there.”

  4. Materialists want evidence-based explanations, ID supporters want incomprehensible mysteries. After all, the greater your ignorance, the more and bigger gaps for your gods to live in.

  5. Yet again!
    There is something wrong with evolution.
    That is the most that they can say about ID.
    One doesn’t have to point out the obvious flaws, the patent absurdities, the elementary fallicies in their arguments against evolution to see that they have no alternative to evolution.

  6. Paul S Isn’t this the start of a moron contest?

    There, fixed it for you.

  7. SC nukes ’em till they glow and shoots ’em in the dark. Nice article. Magically speaking.

  8. Michael Fugate

    “The materialist, Darwinist style insists on a concrete physical explanation of cosmic and biological origins, while the skeptical style is far more content with leaving matters open where that seems appropriate.”

    In their view, if a scientific explanation interferes with their belief in god-given human exceptionalism, then we don’t want to hear it.

  9. Mark Germano

    And what he’s explaining is not skepticism.

  10. Ross Cameron

    ‘According to Amazon, 83% of the reviews give the book five stars.’ I see reports that Amazon is deleting negative reviews. Anyone had this happen? I suppose I should try it myself and see what happens.

  11. Ross Cameron

    Darwin`s House of Cards. Yawn.

  12. Yet they do not object to a scientific explanation for human reproduction.
    Even though standard Christianity says that God is my creator, sustainer and redeemer. To say that of human species, rather than the individual, is the heresy of Universalism. To confuse the indivudal with the species is the logical Fallacy of Composition or of Division.

  13. Michael Fugate

    Do they have an issue with random assortment of chromosomes in genetics? Doesn’t this take the specialness out of me being created by a god? If my father’s sperm fertilizing my mother’s egg was one of a billion from a minimum 2 ^23 chromosomal arrangements, then how would I be a determined outcome? If a god were doing it – why so many junk sperm? This from the outfit that believes there is no “junk” DNA because a god created genomes? Why the appearance of a “concrete physical explanation” if it is a lie? Common sense is not on their side.

  14. Charles Deetz ;)

    Oh, my brain hurts.

    But he has a point, after seeing the strong, but opposite reactions to the recent hub-bub between Jake Tapper and Steve “Dead-eyes” Miller, it is hard to agree on rational facts these days, or agree on what is important. What I FEEL is important or true is what what counts, apparently.

  15. I would note that like Bethell and Klinghoffer himself, Kalb appears to have absolutely no scientific background, let alone any expertise relevant to Evolutionary Biology. According to his various potted bios he is “a lawyer, independent scholar, and Catholic convert”.

    So we have another lawyer trying to tell scientists how science is wrong. Only an outlet as trivial as ENV would try to make a mountain out of this not-even-a-molehill.

  16. “Have you ever wondered why creationists think so differently from the rest of us? ”
    Actually it is not so differently from other fans of pseudo and quackscience, including Jesusmythology and your own worship of a certain Invisible Hand. The scientific way of thinking is difficult for Homo Sapiens or it wouldn’t have taken about 200 000 years to master it. We wouldn’t need 20+ years for a proper training. There wouldn’t be Nobel Price winners who believed crackpot stuff.

  17. The materialist, Darwinist style insists on a concrete physical explanation of cosmic and biological origins, while the skeptical style is far more content with leaving matters open where that seems appropriate.

    And of course, the “skeptical style” just happens to see the Bible as something to take on faith.

    This is basically a seventeenth-century view of science. Ah, those were the good old days.

  18. Twice, they use the gibberish phrase “adequate to life”. Do they not understand words and how to use them?

  19. The whole truth

    In addition to lots of other creationist/dominionist/theocratic crap that he spews, the titles of these books authored by david klinghoffer reveal that his style of thinking is religious insanity through and through:

    How Would God Vote? Why the Bible Commands You to Be a Conservative

    Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning Point in Western History

    The Lord Will Gather Me In: My Journey to Jewish Orthodoxy

    The Discovery of God: Abraham and the Birth of Monotheism

    Shattered Tablets: Why We Ignore the Ten Commandments at Our Peril

  20. Not original with me but I just think they are afraid. Afraid of dying, afraid of new experiences, afraid of people different than they are, just plain scared. The supernatural gives them an explanation, knowledge that it isn’t all chance so they don’t have to be afraid. Guns protect them because they are afraid. They are drowning in fear. It’s a bit pathetic really.

  21. But getetics is also a matter of chance, and quantum mechanics.

  22. Techreseller

    Kalb position is do not confuse me with facts. Let me go on what I “feel” is correct.