The Discoveroids Say They’re Winning

It’s really amazing, when you stop to think about it. The Discovery Institute has failed at every one of their endeavors — except finding a generous source of funding. We’ve gone through the woeful list of their flops several times — see, e.g.: Discovery Institute: How Much Longer? Most people with their experience would realize that their efforts have failed — but not the Discoveroids.

What’s the Discoveroids’ response? They claim success! Yes, dear reader, as incredible as that sounds, it’s exactly what they’re doing. You can see it in two recent posts at their creationist blog, both by Klinghoffer. The first is Richards, Gonzalez: Privileged Planet Evidence Mounts.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We’ve posted several times about that book, for example, see Discoveroids: Privileged Planet, Again, and most recently Discoveroids Say Earth Is Obviously Unique.

Now they’re claiming that the evidence is mounting. One excerpt should be sufficient:

The place we inhabit here on Earth bears the marks of a design intended to make scientific discovery possible, but so does the time we live in. How convenient. Or as Dr. Richards puts it, “The time when scientists can exist in the universe is also the best time for doing science, which is a confirmation of our argument.”

Powerful stuff, huh? We’re here — and not only that, we’re here now. If that doesn’t convince you, then you’re a hopeless Darwinist fool!

Okay, that’s how it is with one Discoveroid book. But wait — they have another post about another book. It’s Yale’s David Gelernter: Darwin’s Doubt Is “One of the Most Important Books in a Generation”. Klinghoffer says, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

This is important. Yale University computer scientist David Gelernter is a polymath, a brilliant writer, artist, and thinker. Famed both for his specific scientific expertise, and for his cultural, political, and historical reflections, he’s also now a confessed Darwin skeptic.

A creationist computer scientist? We’ve run into those before. Wikipedia has an article on him: David Gelernter. It hasn’t yet been updated to reflect his descent into creationism. Anyway, Klinghoffer says:

In a wonderful essay in the new issue of The Claremont Review of Books, “Giving Up Darwin,” he credits reading Stephen Meyer’s book Darwin’s Doubt as the primary cause of his rejecting neo-Darwinian evolution, a “brilliant and beautiful scientific theory” but one that’s now been overtaken by science.

Lordy, lordy. We’ve been blogging about Meyer’s book for years — see this from six years ago: WorldNetDaily Promotes Stephen Meyer’s Book. And now the book has landed another believer. Whoopie!

Klinghoffer’s post goes on and on, and it ends with this:

Scientists, intellectuals, and ordinary thoughtful adults are giving up the old pledge of allegiance to Darwin. The evolution in thought is very gradual, admittedly, but it’s unmistakably happening.

Ooooooooooooh! It’s happening! Has it happened for you, dear reader? If not, why not?

Copyright © 2019. 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

30 responses to “The Discoveroids Say They’re Winning

  1. Klinghoffer went on to proclaim:

    “There are no Darwinist infidels in Seattle. Never! … Their forces committed suicide by the hundreds. … The battle is very fierce and God made us victorious. The fighting continues.”

  2. It must be said, Gelernter has form: Trump-endorsing, anthropogenic climate-change denying–it was only a matter of time before he added creationism to his war chest.

    See Jacoby’s review of Gelernter’s book here: Dreaming of a World With No Intellectuals

  3. Laurettte McGovern

    Of course they think they’re winning! All it takes is not to truly consider, or to willfully disregard, the opposing viewpoint and you will win all the time.

  4. Michael Fugate

    Authoritarians arguing from authority – anyone surprised?

  5. docbill1351

    Well, they have definitely won cornering the market on crackpots.

  6. “The time when scientists can exist in the universe is also the best time for doing science, which is a confirmation of our argument.”
    Huh? This one made me click to that IDiot blogpost. I could have saved myself the effort though. Does Klinkleclapper really argue that the fact that there were no scientists before our Earth was formed supports IDiocy?

  7. christine janis

    Here’s what always puzzles me about people who eulogise “Darwin’s Doubt” (which, BTW, very few scientists working on the Cambrian have ever heard of): let’s say Meyer is right —– we can only explain the Cambrian “explosion” by divine intervention. How did we get from those basal bilaterians to the fauna on earth today without Darwinian processes?

  8. @Mega: I must admit that I largely agree on one conservative point.

    “The standard conservative interpretation is straightforward: America progressed smoothly from Presidents George Washington through Dwight D. Eisenhower, but went to hell in the 1960s and has yet to recover.”
    Indeed. The main culprits are Nixon, Reagan, double Bush and Donald the Clown. But Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton and Obama are not free from blame either.
    Historians warn against formulating laws, but I’m an amateur. The decline of superpowers is strongly correlated with the quality of its leaders. Perhaps we will live long enough to see China becoming nr 1. Donald the Clown does his very best to support this dubious goal.
    None of the leaders those conservatives support (including the ones our dear SC prefers) will do substantially better.

  9. Michael Fugate

    Gelernter’s has to be flat-out one of the most ignorant articles on evolution ever written. When your only source is anti-evolution books what would one expect?

    Sample the intellectual prowess of a Yale Computer Scientist!:
    The religion is all on the other side. Meyer and other proponents of I.D. are the dispassionate intellectuals making orderly scientific arguments. Some I.D.-haters have shown themselves willing to use any argument—fair or not, true or not, ad hominem or not—to keep this dangerous idea locked in a box forever. They remind us of the extent to which Darwinism is no longer just a scientific theory but the basis of a worldview, and an emergency replacement religion for the many troubled souls who need one.

  10. @ FrankB: I take your point–but I’d still argue that “Nixon, Reagan, double Bush and Donald the Clown” are simply more recent manifestations of a much older trope, and don’t agree with the Whiggish “standard conservative interpretation is straightforward: America progressed smoothly from Presidents George Washington through Dwight D. Eisenhower”.

    Essential reading IMHO is Sarah Churchwell’s
    Behold, America: A History of America First and the American Dream
    . She carefully documents the roots of Trump et al’s populist schtick in the early 20th century. Fascinating read, if a tad depressing to realise how little we collectively learn…

  11. Karl Goldsmith

    No surprise, they only have creationists on their podcast, and he was on a year ago.

  12. christine janis

    “Meyer and other proponents of I.D. are the dispassionate intellectuals making orderly scientific arguments.”

    I recommend this review by biologist Aaron Baldwin.

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3E06SO1WP1QBA/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0062071483

    see also the comment by Nullifidian here:

    http://archive.is/YOnq1

    “This is either egregious dishonesty or work so slapdash that it shows that nobody cared if they were telling the truth or not, which isn’t any better.”

  13. Michael Fugate

    The basic conservative argument is “things are bad now, but they had to be better in the past. If we just went backward…” When 99% of the population professed a belief in God, we weren’t better off by almost any standard. Now we have theocrats wanting to exempt themselves treating those they don’t like as human. They can’t learn from the past because they can be bothered to study it.

  14. Nobody has described what happens when Intelligent Design takes place so that things turn out as they are in the world of life.
    More generally, no one has suggested an explanation for what happens in the world of life as an alternative to evolution. Common descent with modification is a pretty good first explanation for a pattern of a nested hierarchy. In the case of biology, the explanation has passed many different tests. But even if there were difficulties, there is no candidate for an alternative.

  15. @Mega reminds me of my bad memory:

    “don’t agree with the Whiggish …..”
    Neither do I – I forgot to add it. Because Civil War, for instance.

    @ChristineJ: the two reviews can be summarizes as “IDiot business as usual”.

    @MichaelF: “The basic conservative argument is …..”
    Actually no. What you describe is the ambition of reactionaries. Donald the Clown with his silly MAGA is not a conservative, because he’s longing for a mythical past.
    Conservatism means preserving and protecting what works well and cautiously and gradually improving what doesn’t. The proverbal conservative Edmund Burke supported the American protests that resulted in the Independence War and held similar views on Irish Home Rule. Our dear SC consistently fails to make a good case for social conservatism due to his ignorance regarding Labour movements, socialism in general, Adam Smith’ view on the role of government and even evolution theory (what do our dear SC and Klinkleclapper have in common? – The silly idea that ET justifies social darwinism, in the case of our dear SC in economy).
    The remarkable fact is that the many environmentalists are conservatives. See, the climate change that’s going on right now may very well put the western social order in danger. A social conservative true to his/her principles would, like Burke and unlike our dear SC, plead for appropriate measures exactly to protect everything valuable in western societies.

  16. Michael Fugate

    Works well for whom? The US independence worked well for a small minority, but despite its lofty rhetoric, it was only interested in life, liberty and happiness for rich, white males.
    I am not sure I would call them conservatives – maybe pragmatists would be better. Many environmentalists are as prone to myths as are modern social conservatives.

  17. @FrankB
    … his silly MAGA is not a conservative, because he’s longing for a mythical past…
    I don’t know what he is longing for, but “make America white again” is about a mythical, but with reference to an all-too-real past.

  18. Michael Fugate

    My reference to conservatives being pragmatists refers to individuals like Burke and some conservationists.

  19. One should add that the word “Gelernter” translated from German means “learned”, meaning a wise, highly educated individual. This, together with the detailed picture of “polymath, brilliant writer, artist, and thinker” should make it clear that he is the one who can see through the falsehood of Darwinism.

  20. @Megalonyx

    Thanks for the Jacoby link. Good stuff.

  21. Steve Gerrard

    “America progressed smoothly from Presidents George Washington through Dwight D. Eisenhower.”

    Yes. Take the Civil War, for instance. Smooth sailing!

    “The time when scientists can exist in the universe is also the best time for doing science…”

    Yes. Existing does in fact does make it easier to do science.

    Are they getting a little panglossian about ID, and our best of all possible worlds?

  22. Somebody’s been studying the Trump playbook. Keep saying “winning” and the sheep will believe it.

  23. Back in 2004, the Discoveroids were writing science fiction about the wonderful world of 2025 when evolutionists have been laughed off the stage and Intelligent Design has become the ruling scientific paradigm:
    https://world.wng.org/2004/04/whatever_happened_to_evolutionary_theory

    https://world.wng.org/2004/04/the_demise_of_naturalism

    By 2019, we can already tell that some of the developments they predicted kinda, sorta failed to take place, but there are still six years to go! They may win yet!

  24. @hnohf
    There is a long history of predictions of the demise of evolution. There is a famous essay by G. R. Morton: “The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood of Creationism” which collects a large number of such predictions, going back nearly 200 years.
    http://www.talkreason.org/articles/More.cfm

    One might begin to take yet another prediction seriously, maybe, perhaps, when someone starts to work on an alternative. There aren’t any signs that I have seen where anyone is interested in formulating an alternative. There is more interest in predicting the demise, which is much easier.

  25. hnohf, the Discoveroids were riding high in 2004. Kitzmiller was decided the next year, and it’s been steadily downhill ever since.

  26. Remember the Wedge Strategy? It was drafted in 1998. 2003 would mark five years. How many of the Five Year Goals were within reach in 2004?

  27. Michael Fugate

    They could never escape revealed religion and pre-enlightenment philosophy. They could never line up those claims with empirical evidence – mostly because it unclear what was revealed. Enlightenment thought and science is feared as a pathway to atheism often via deism – yet they crave their authority.

  28. TomS Is the Wedge still alive? Now they have Project Blitz. https://www.blitzwatch.org/

  29. Eric Lipps

    The place we inhabit here on Earth bears the marks of a design intended to make scientific discovery possible, but so does the time we live in. How convenient. Or as Dr. Richards puts it, “The time when scientists can exist in the universe is also the best time for doing science, which is a confirmation of our argument.”

    Blech. Dr. Richards’ argument is ridiculous. Of course the best time for doing science is when there actually can be scientists to do it. The same goes for place. That doesn’t mean the universe was designed to allow it.

    Once again a creationist insists that the universe was divinely created (no one can be fooled by his refusal, at least in the material quoted above, to mention You-Know-Who) in order for humans to exist. But even Genesis doesn’t make that claim; indeed, the creation account therein suggests humanity was an afterthought, created to fit into a world already in existence. Evidently they are ignorant not only of science but of the Bible as well.