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.