Discoveroids: Science Is Oogity Boogity!

This may be the boldest post ever from the Discovery Institute. It’s titled Scientist as Shaman — Seeing Through the Sham. 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. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Ira Berkowitz is ID the Future’s Jerusalem correspondent. In a new podcast he talks with Rabbi Moshe Averick about the shamanistic role that our culture recruits scientists to fill.

ID the Future is a series of Discoveroid podcasts, which they crank out instead of doing publishable science research. We’ve never listened to any of them, and we’re not going to start now. Regarding the “shamanistic role” that science plays in our culture, Klinghoffer gives an example:

Think, for example, of the late Stephen Hawking and how his fevered pronouncements in his final years were received.

Yes, Hawking was nothing but a crazed witch doctor. Then Klinghoffer tells us:

It’s a wonderful discussion. [Hee hee!] Averick is the author of [Who cares?] Be sure to listen to the end for an awesome story about a sage who foresaw, in the 1920s, how the choice between destructive modern technology and its alternative, the ancient project of teaching human beings to be humane, would play out in decades to come.

Undoubtedly it’s another pitch to bring back the good old days — see Discovery Institute: Enemies of the Enlightenment. He continues:

Download the podcast or listen to it here.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We won’t soil our blog with that link. You wanna listen to that stuff? Go ahead, click over to Klinghoffer’s post and find the link for yourself. Meanwhile, Klinghoffer goes on:

This exaggerated respect given to scientists in all matters, treating them as “high priests,” is obviously relevant to debates about biological origins. These debates often incorporate philosophical assumptions, not derived from scientific data, that in turn drive our understanding of what the data mean.

The Discoveroids sound more and more like ol’ Hambo every day. Another excerpt:

It’s only because of the sham role of the scientist as “medicine man” that we don’t see these assumptions for what they are — including, as Evolution News [the Discoveroids’ creationist blog] mentioned earlier today [link omitted], “the arbitrary rule of methodological naturalism.”

Regarding the Discoveroids’ dislike of methodological naturalism, which is the essence of the scientific method, see Bring Me An Angel Detector!

Here’s how Klinghoffer ends his brilliant post:

Recognizing that arbitrariness is an important step toward deflating the power of such a rule, with its great potential to corrode human dignity.

Yes, dear reader, until you recognize the shamanistic nature of science, you’ll always be a fool! Meanwhile, Klinghoffer’s human dignity is intact.

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

26 responses to “Discoveroids: Science Is Oogity Boogity!

  1. Karl Goldsmith (@KarlGoldsmith)

    “that in turn drive our understanding of what the data mean.” That sounds like Ken Ham, We all have the same evidence, but it doesn’t speak for itself. All evidence must be interpreted based on a belief system.

  2. And so …
    What is the alternative to evolution?
    What happens, when, where, how …?

  3. “the arbitrary rule of methodological naturalism.”

    What’s klinggripped’s alternative: a “destructured supernaturalism” or a “my-subjectivism-is-truer-than-yours”? It would be great that he finds the time to explain us how to observe the non-observable or how to acquire knowledge about the non-existent in a non-arbitrary way. That would be fun.

    As far as silliness doesn’t kill, he’s safe.

  4. Michael Fugate

    Naturalism is arbitrary? Science would be just as useful if we said “the gods did it” rather than give a naturalistic explanation or say we don’t know?

    The human exceptionalism nonsense is an arbitrary rule that is killing everything in its path. They keep hiding behind their “pro-life” banner, while hiding their heads in the sand on climate change, pollution and mass extinction.

  5. “These debates often incorporate philosophical assumptions, not derived from scientific data,…” RIGhtttt! Once again idiots trying to make BS sound intelligent! Take your philosophy and shovel it!

  6. “This exaggerated respect given to scientists in all matters”
    Makes me wonder why Klinkleclapper and co are so keen on getting IDiocy accepted as science iso what it is – theology. Or perhaps he just gave up and tried a different approach (of course even more stupid).

  7. @and now it’s TomS who thinks he’s clever:

    “What is the alternative to evolution?”
    Goddiddid – duh.

    “What happens, when, where, how …?”
    That’s theology – consult the Holy Book of your preference.

  8. Sorry IDiots – non-scientists don’t get to change the definition of science. Tough.

  9. In the oil and gas exploration industry, whenever we made a decision about taking oil leases or drilling an oil prospect, we always used goat intestine soothsaying, secret chants, superstitious witch doctor spells and flood geology textbooks written by Discoveroid manic depressive writers with a GED and a felony conviction.
    We never used the scientific method, or the modern sciences of geology, geophysics or paleontology. Thats why gasoline and motor oil are so easy to find nowadays. A couple of times more than a bottle of distilled water. Yup.
    It was all magic and miraculous events that did all that. Ask my friend Joe. From N.Y.C.. Personally ? I recommend Klinklehooper and Dana Loesch over at the NRA hook up. They’d be like Ol Hambo at 78 speed with a flaming nozzle turbocharged stainless steel exhaust and a flock of swirling angels singing hallelujah !!! …………Cheers.

  10. @FrankB
    I didn’t find anything about what happens, when, where, why, how or who concering the majority of forms of life: the microbes.
    I didn’t find anything about the similarities and differences among the few forms of life which it did mention. Nor about their genetics, biogeography, paleontology, ecology or embryology.

  11. Yes, all these ID devotees detest methodological naturalism. They forget that back in the Middle Ages theologians insisted on a sharp distinction between theology and natural philosophy. Natural philosophy (today’s science) wasn’t allowed to come up with supernatural causation. That was seen as a cheap refuge.

  12. Klinghoffer, completely off his face at synagogue, got wasted on a deadly cocktail of Intelligent Design and rabbinical lamentations, fell into the Moshe pit of screaming fans, and couldn’t claw his way back out.

    @Michael F:

    Your second paragraph summed up the situation depressingly well.

  13. @Desnes Diev
    Methodological naturalism is not an arbitrary decision.
    Around the turn of the 20th century there a number of serious scientists who believed in supernatural agencies of various sort. In the case of ESP, that stayed around for quite some time. From time to time, someone comes up with something like astrology or homeopathy or ufology, only to have it debunked.
    Yet evolution-denial has uniformly gone beyond that. No one has proposed an alternative explanation for any of the major phenomena that evolution so clearly accounts for. The creationists do not offer a supernatural account for, for example, the obvious similarities between humans, chimps and other apes. To give them the most, they point out puzzles about evolution. That is only a political negative advertising campaign, not a serious inquiry about the ways that things work.

  14. I wish these guys would stop using computers, the Internet, and other technological marvels that rely on mind-bogglingly complex “shamanistic” science. If science is all a sham, none of their gadgets should even be possible.

  15. Michael Fugate

    One wonders why they want so badly to be seen as scientists if science is built on faulty premises.

  16. @MF
    You expect consistency?

  17. Michael Fugate

    Well they are consistently authoritarian and consistently bad at constructing arguments.

  18. You can bet if we stooped to the kind of rhetoric beloved of Klinghoffer, with phrases like “great potential to corrode human dignity”, he’d be ridiculing us for being Darwinist alarmists, or some such.

  19. @TomS complains: “I didn’t find ….”
    Then you should follow a course “comprehensive” reading at a renowned creacrap institute like Ol’Hambo’s or one recommended by Klinkleclapper That will “open” your eyes. Not that they are ever capable of agreeing on some important points, but that’s not the point – something as silly as consensus is left for science, which just has been thoroughly debunked.

    “Methodological naturalism is not an arbitrary decision.”
    According to Klinkleclapper – and what better authority on this matter can we find? Ol’Hambo, I guess, but I bet he will agree – the choice for methodological naturalism is arbitrary. That’s a huge difference (beats me what exactly) so your comment is nothing but a strawman (according to Klinkleclapper and co).

    @Ochwill gets it totally wrong: “flood geology textbooks written by Discoveroids”
    Klinkleclapper and co believe in an Old Earth and hence reject flood geology. Of course this distinction is only important when stoopid evilutionists like you and me criticize creacrap. Otherwise what really matters is one and just one thing: evilution is wrong, no matter how (and specifically “I’m no kin of no monkey”).

    @Hans recounts some history of science: “That was seen as a cheap refuge.”
    And still you insist that creacrap science stagnates! If this is not “scientific progress” then nothing is (personally my bet would be on the latter).

    @ChrisS tries to make some money: “You can bet …..”
    Nobody here is going to fall for this one. Not only coherence and consistency, also hypocrisy is a secretly but widely accepted creacrap method. Double standard is one of its pillars. Replacing (I refer to TomS) it by something like methodological naturalism in order to avoid this is tooooootally arbitrary. Just because. Or perhaps something. For today I’ve dived deep enough again, if I want to keep my mental health.

  20. @MF
    Excuse me, but I can’t resist …
    Happy arguments are all alike; every unhappy argument is unhappy in its own way.

  21. It’s simple. Science works, supernaturalism doesnt. Been that way for a long time. Unfortunately the supernatural has an emotional appeal that often overrides the rational, especially when religion promises a better afterlife.

  22. FrankB awesome post.But time to come up for a gulp of air in preparation for tomorrow’s creacrap deluge .

  23. Agreed. Maintain your precious bodily fluids, free from creationist indoctrination; creationist infiltration; and creationist subversion. Drink only distilled water, and refrain from all intimate relations for the next 24- 48 hours.

  24. @Scientist
    A creationist might complain that you are making an assumption that supernaturalism wouldn’t work. Just add to our explanation of something-or-other that there is a supernatural agent – and voila, you have a working explanation including a reference to the supernatural.

    The response is to point out Ockham’s Razor.

    For example, some of the supporters of Darwin in the 19th century wanted to add to the “random variations” on which natural selection works, that the variations were chosen by God (working in his mysterious ways, acts of God may seem random to us). That “works”, but it doesn’t add anything to the explanatory power of evolutionary biology.

    Restricting is a merit in explanations. Something which is to be pursued, not avoided.

    Of course,the situation is worse in the case of creationism. They may make the claim that “there is a better explanation than one restricted to natural evolution” (ignoring that restriction is desirable trait in explanations) they never get around to describing their alternative (whether better or worse)
    explanation.

  25. t’s a wonderful discussion. [Hee hee!] Averick is the author of [Who cares?] Be sure to listen to the end for an awesome story about a sage who foresaw, in the 1920s, how the choice between destructive modern technology and its alternative, the ancient project of teaching human beings to be humane, would play out in decades to come.

    Teaching human beings to be humane has gone on right alongside the development of “destructive modern technology.” Unfortunately, it hasn’t succeeded any better in the past century than it ever had before.

  26. So the DI has stacked their decks with really real scientists who, Klinghoffer now insists, we shouldn’t take as an authority on anything. Motion granted, Mr Klinghoffer.