The Discoveroids Are In Danger!

Everyone knows about the Inquisition. That’s what happens when religious lunatics are in power. Nothing even remotely comparable has occurred recently — at least not in those countries affected by the Age of Enlightenment.

Despite the incredible benefits the Enlightenment has brought us, creationists keep trying to roll back the centuries, as we wrote at the start of this humble blog — see Discovery Institute: Enemies of the Enlightenment. If you haven’t read that, it might be worth a few minutes of your time.

Before proceeding further, dear reader, we recommend that you unplug your irony detector. Otherwise, what we’re about to show you will surely cause the thing to explode. You ready now? Okay, we’re talking about this amazing post at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog: “Nobody Expects the Darwinist Inquisition”? I Do. 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]:

As a reader and supporter of Evolution News, you must have noticed the same thing I have. It’s an ominous sight to observe the two waves approaching each other. [What the *bleep* is he talking about?] On one side is an intensifying drive to police social media, where countless people get most of their information. On the other are biologists who (according to a Darwinist scientist!) spend a fifth of their time fretting about how to “combat intelligent design,” as we reported here the other day.

Only a hopeless ignoramus gets his information from social media. As for the alleged “intensifying drive to police social media,” they’ve posted about that a few times before, but it was too goofy for us to bother with. However, you can visit their creationist blog and take a look at this from a week ago: Thanks to the Sacrifices of Many, There’s Talk of Censoring Us. Okay, let’s return to Klinghoffer’s post today, where we’re told:

One prominent scientific journal, BioEssays, has already brought the waves together. They have called for Internet censorship of intelligent design, identifying Discovery Institute by name as being in need of special attention by the censors. If giants like Facebook and Twitter don’t follow through on the threat, then says biologist Dave Speijer, the government should “Make them.” It’s only because we are changing how people think about life and its origins — thanks to you! — that we have attracted this malice.

The Discoveroids have mentioned that BioEssays article a few times, but they never link to it. Oh wait — they did once: Bad Faith Reasoning, Predictable Chaos, and the Truth. Klinghoffer then says:

Don’t doubt that their idea has a bright future with what journalist John Zmirak calls Darwin’s “Inquisition.” “Nobody Expects the Darwinist Inquisition,” as Zmirak says in a headline at The Stream [link omitted], a wry homage to a famous line from a Monty Python sketch. Well, I expect it!

Klinghoffer expects the inquisition — as if the Discoveroids were important enough to be worth censoring. Why would anyone want to bother with them? We let communists speak and write — racists too. All kinds of weirdos have freedom of speech in our society. Why would anyone even think of wasting any effort on the Discoveroids? But Klinghoffer is expecting it, and he tells us:

Zmirak adds that ideology isn’t all that motivates the would-be Internet police: “It’s the classic will to dominate, to bully and rule your neighbor.”

Do you want to bully and rule your neighbor, dear reader? We didn’t think so. Klinghoffer continues:

As editor of Evolution News, I appeal to you this month to join us in resisting these moves.

Klinghoffer wants to resist the evil he fears. He explains why dark forces are gathering to destroy him:

“A universe designed and replete with meaning” is a vision that strict Darwinists can’t stand. [Hee hee!] They will do what they can to suppress it. The fact that a designed universe is supported by responsible science [Groan!], as we make clear here every day for our growing audience, is what really drives them to the edge.

Does the brilliance of the Discoveroids’ blog drive you to the edge, dear reader? Actually, it may be Klinghoffer who is at the edge. Judge for yourself as we read on:

Every indication suggests that before long, they will take action against those who argue in public for design in life and in the cosmos.

See what we mean? And now, like all creationists, Klinghoffer ends with a demand for money:

Please consider donating now to the Center for Science & Culture and its campaign for Evolution News and for freedom of speech. They’ve already come for the professors. Next they’ll come for us. Expect it.

So there you have it. We thought nothing could be goofier than the Discoveroids’ “theory” of intelligent design, but now we found something to rival it — their belief that a science inquisition is coming for them. This is the most hilarious thing they’ve posted in a long time. What do you think of it, dear reader?

Copyright © 2020. 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

18 responses to “The Discoveroids Are In Danger!

  1. Michael Fugate

    Pure projection.

  2. Laurette McGovern

    “Next they’ll come for us.”

    It’s a risk I’m willing to take

  3. Jim Roberts

    Y’know, it occurs to me that there’s a way to not get dinged for not saying say true stuff: say true stuff. Kind of radical, I know.

  4. “Bad Faith Reasoning, Predictable Chaos, and the Truth.”
    That’s definitely worth a read. I enjoyed “spreading misinformation can be linked to climate science denial, vaccination avoidance, and a resurgence of pseudo‐scientific racism.”

    “Klinghoffer expects the inquisition”
    The article also makes clear what that inquisition will look like: “In such cases search engines could have mandatory color coded banners warning of consistent factual errors or unscientific content, masquerading as science.”
    Yeah, exactly like the torture devices of the Spanish Inquisition.

    “biologist Dave Speijer, the government should “Make them.”
    Kclunkcerdunkcer is lying. Unsurprisingly. This is what Dave Speijer wrote: “The tech giants will never agree to that.” Make them.”

    “Does the brilliance of the Discoveroids’ blog drive you to the edge, dear reader?”
    Yes – to the edge of stomach ache from laughing.
    Hey, where can I apply for a job at the Darwinist Inquisition?

  5. chris schilling

    “It’s only because we are changing how people think about life and its origins…that we have attracted this malice.”

    Delusions of grandeur, and persecution complex, in the one sentence. Big accomplishment!

  6. Michael Fugate

    Growing audience? Are they counting people stopping by to laugh?
    I don’t see the numbers of creationists changing and given how many creationists there have always been just what are they claiming to have changed?

  7. Dave Luckett

    Oh, dear, propaganda masquerading as journalism. Whatever shall we do?

    I suppose one coul point out that this was a problem long before the expression “social media”, or the media themselves, were invented. Does Klunkerhurler think that there were no lies on TV before the internet, on radio before TV, in newspapers before radio, in handbills before newspapers, in tavern rumours before handbills (or writing), and what Oogha told me at the sacrifice last winter before any of it? And that the remedy – it’s not a complete solution – is as perennial as the problem? Namely, testing and verification against independent sources.

    That is to say, there is no remedy in shutting liars or fools up, even if you could, which you can’t. The only redress is to consult as many different and independent sources of information as possible, from opposing parties and interests.

    And thus we come to the law of unintended consequences, as applied to the internet. It was obvious to the pioneers of this vast omnium-gatherum of sources that it would make independent verification far more easy and ready, and thus usher in an era when lying propaganda would be impossible, or at least very difficult, for how could untruth escape detection, when everything is known? Even better, consensus must follow, obviously.

    Alas, those pioneers were wrong. Utterly, tragically wrong. Their utopian vision was defeated, indeed reversed, by human incapacity. Faced with a torrent of information far larger than can be comprehended, human beings select from it what they prefer. What they prefer is various, but whatever it is, the internet provides ready confirmation of it. The result is that propaganda thrives, and with it, enhanced tribalism, the very opposite of consensus.

    The only remedy – as philosophers going back to Socrates were aware – is an education in criticism, with the principle that sources from opposed viewpoints must be available, and availed. And it requires genuine open and public discourse, a common recourse for all.

    Free speech, in other words. We need it now more than ever before. And we need a solution – far beyond my poor powers to provide – to the problem of internet sources being selected for agreement rather than for objectivity.

  8. @Dave Luckett
    I have a memory (and, yes, I know how unreliable memory is) when learning about discussions taking place on computer networks, what a boon this would be for settling arguments. I remember being frustrated by people who would make statements which could not be checked at once, but could be looked up easily, if only the discussion could be returned to a couple of hours later. And I remember being frustrated by people who denied saying such-and-such. If only there was a permanent record of what was said.

    Yes, it is a boon for people who are really interested in the truth. Such people who would gladly be corrected. I had always thought that X, but I was mistaken, it was Y; and I felt better off by now knowing Y – not mad at the world for proving me wrong.

    Alas, one of the things that I learned was that there were a lot of people who would not be happy to learn that they were wrong. So unhappy that they would not admit that in the face of proof.

  9. That should be “computer networks”

    [*Voice from above*] And so it is!

  10. Yet another fundraising appeal. Well, he had to pad it somehow, didn’t he!

  11. Is it actually Bioessays that upsets them? Or is it Twitter putting warning labels on the utterance of its most prominent contributor?

    If the latter, I have some sympathy. I’m glad that Twitter is doing what it is, but at the same time concerned at seeing tech giants deciding what does, or does not, require a fact check warning

  12. @PaulB: agreed and not only because I distrust tech giants.
    We Dutch have some experience with reappropriation (“geuzen”). Labeling as Speijer proposes easily might turn into a recommendation, because it fuels the persecution complex of pseudos and quacks.

  13. Eddie Janssen

    When I read the title I thought Ahmanson had withdrawn his funding.
    What are they going to do when that happens?

  14. Karl Goldsmith

    So it turns out they quoted his Editorial and he had this to say. “I was intrigued when I saw that a site about “evolution news” referred to it. Upon reading, wonder turned into incomprehension: How could anybody quote so completely out of context? Rather naïvely, I was stunned. In my defense, there were no clear warning signs that something was amiss with this site. However, after digging a bit further, it turned out that it is operated by the infamous Discovery Institute, a notorious “intelligent design” (aka “creationism in a tuxedo”) think tank.”

  15. Klinkleklapper says….. “On one side is an intensifying drive to police social media, where countless people get most of their information.” Yes. There are countless people who get most of their information from social media. They’re called idiots. Thats why Trump tweets so many conspiracy theories on social media. He knows Klinkleklapples idiot friends will see it and repeat whatever nonsense they see endlessly, much to his enjoyment., Klinkle gets stupider by the day.

  16. Klinkleklapper is bragging that intelligent dezine is being discussed on social media ? The land of the conspiracy theory ? And now he’s jiumping on the Trump bandwagon regarding that ? Wow….Thats a really, really deep dumpster dive there Klinkledinkle. We all knew you were ill, a liar and uneducated but now its pretty clear you’re very depraved and very very stupid. Holy cow. Get help. Its too bad people like you have the freedom to use a computer. because you totally do not deserve to use the fruits of science to spread your disinformation, reality TV rubbish on the internet. Disgraceful.

  17. docbill1351

    The Tooters wish they were persecuted. They are starved for attention. In fact, nobody pays attention to them at all, even if they know about them and I consider myself a nobody in that regard.

    Biologists I know are vaguely aware about creationism and very few have any more than a passing knowledge about “intelligent design” creationism, although to be fair a “passing knowledge” is pretty much all there is anyway.

    The NCSE keeps a sharp eye on creationist activity regarding education and a handful of hobbyists like myself are “creationist vampires” who feed off of the entertainment creationists provide.

    It’s their own fault, the Tooters. Since Dumbski and the Gerb took a hike there is nothing new under the Sun. Meyers has been writing about the Cambrian Not-plosion since he was a tadpole producing nary a ripple of interest. They’ve been reduced to reliving their high school Glory Days when Mikey the B nearly scored the winning touchdown. Missed it by that much.

  18. Michael Fugate

    This article on restarting the economy is a nice analogy for Behe-think. We need flexibility in our genes and in the proteins they produce to interact with our environment. A “perfect” gene means death if anything changes and change is inevitable. There will always be trade-offs between efficiency and flexibility. Efficiency is not analogous to best.