Is It Time for the Discoveroids To Get Nasty?

This one at the creationist blog of the Discovery institute may signal a whole new era in their war against Darwin’s theory of evolution, and maybe science in general. It’s titled Stephen Meyer, Eric Metaxas: Are Atheists Gaslighting Us?, and 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]:

Stephen Meyer and Eric Metaxas talked about their respective new books — Return of the God Hypothesis and Is Atheism Dead? [Links omitted!] The two are in agreement about a great deal, and in fact Eric in his book employs arguments for intelligent design developed by Meyer and other ID theorists, with full credit.

Thrilling news — two creationist authors talked about their new creationist books, and they agree with each other. Whoopie! Also, for those not familiar with his name, according to Wikipedia, Eric Metaxas “is an American Christian author, speaker, and conservative radio host.” Then everything gets strange. Klinghoffer says:

But one interesting question where they don’t quite overlap emerges in the conversation. [What could it be?] Metaxas gently chides Dr. Meyer for his graciousness to opponents in the world of scientific atheism.

Meyer is too gracious? What behavior does Metaxas want? Klinghoffer tells us:

Eric raises the question of whether the atheists [Scientist = atheist?] are gaslighting us — given how absurd their defenses against theism seem to be. He notes directed panspermia and the multiverse as illustrations.

There’s an ark-load of stuff in that. Aside from the claim that “evolution = atheism,” there’s the delightful word gaslighting. It means “to cause a person to doubt his or her sanity through the use of psychological manipulation.” And how do we get creationists to doubt their sanity? Metaxas says we’re always ranting about directed panspermia and the multiverse. BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Frankly, your Curmudgeon has never known anyone on the evolution side who seriously cared about those things, but Metaxas thinks they’re bedrock concepts. Klinghoffer continues:

This suggests to Metaxas that the proper response, even to distinguished scientists like the late Steven Weinberg or Stephen Hawking, is laughter and ridicule, not respectful engagement.

Metaxas is a really classy guy! Let’s read on. Klinghoffer says:

It’s an idea…but I come down more on Steve Meyer’s side on this one. Not because I’m persuaded that there is an obligation always to be winsome. There’s a time for peace and a time for war, after all.

That’s what he said — in the great debate between evolution and creationism, there’s a time for peace and a time for war. Klinghoffer finishes with this:

But if the objective is to persuade and enlighten, then you have to take opponents’ ideas seriously, present them in their strongest and most sophisticated form, and then dismantle them, as Meyer does in his book. [Hee hee!] That aside, it’s an entertaining and illuminating episode of The Eric Metaxas Radio Show. Metaxas is a great host and interlocutor, as always. You’ll find it here. [Link omitted!]

It’s a good thing the Discoveroids are still in a peaceful mode. We shudder to think what would happen to us if they were unleashed.

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

14 responses to “Is It Time for the Discoveroids To Get Nasty?

  1. I am waiting for a book jointly authored by Ken Ham and Stephen Meyer, the great lights of current creationism.

  2. I guess they ran out of faith that Jesus can handle it. You don’t back a rat into a corner when it runs out of faith.

  3. Puck Mendelssohn

    “This suggests to Metaxas that the proper response, even to distinguished scientists like the late Steven Weinberg or Stephen Hawking, is laughter and ridicule, not respectful engagement.”

    Reverse the polarity of that statement, and apply laughter and ridicule to the arguments of the ID Creationists, and it is completely true.

    Honestly, who can possibly care about these cosmological arguments for ID Creationism, anyway? Until the ID Creationists show us that the universe is ACTUALLY fine-tuned — that the constants of physics are in some way capable of varying depending upon which IKEA build-a-universe kit you buy — then who cares? Why are the constants what they are? I don’t know. Who is likelier to figure that out — a leading theoretical physicist, or Stephen Meyer? I suspect the odds favor the physicist.

  4. I see Metaxsas come up frequently. Here’s his entry in American Loons:

    http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2018/04/1995-eric-metaxas.html

  5. chris schilling

    There’s a ball of pus the size of a bus (clap, clap, clap, clap)
    Deep in the heart of Metaxas
    And an open sewer like a river of manure (clap, clap, clap, clap)
    Deep in the heart of Metaxas
    There’s a love for God, which strikes me as odd (clap, clap, clap, clap)
    Deep in the heart of Metaxas
    For humanity’s sake, I shall drive a wooden stake (clap, clap, clap, clap)
    Deep in the heart of Metaxas

  6. @Puck Mendelssohn
    If the parameters of physics are fine tuned for life as we know it …
    Then life is a consequence of natural law.
    E.g.
    If the laws of nature are fine tuned for life, then the 2nd law of thermodynamics is tuned for the origin of life.

  7. That should say “the 2nd law of thermodynamics”

    [Voice from above:] So let it be done!

  8. It’s always cute when they discover a new term to abuse.

  9. given how absurd their defenses against theism seem to be. He notes directed panspermia and the multiverse as illustrations.

    How are those defenses against theism. He seems awfully loose with his language. There is no “defense” against theism anyway.

  10. Charles Deetz ;)

    I think Metaxas is rolling over his political jabber into the creation debate, where it is really a stretch in either direction. Gaslighting is a powerful accusation, and is not what is happening here.

  11. Nasty, disturbing, uncomfortable things! Make you late for dinner!

  12. This suggests to Metaxas that the proper response, even to distinguished scientists like the late Steven Weinberg or Stephen Hawking, is laughter and ridicule, not respectful engagement.

    I bet he saw this somewhere about creationist kooks and now he regurgitates it back at scientists. Like how when people were calling out the fake news, and then the fake news people regurgitated it back and started calling real news fake news. Regurgitation: it’s a great defense mechanism.

  13. It’s gotten to the point where now the only thing that gets called fake news is the real news. Because if you call fake news “fake news”, then you sound too much like the regurgitating idiots that go around saying “fake news fake news” all day. You have to think of other phrases to call it besides “fake news” and hope the regurgitators don’t get wind of the new words.

  14. Stephen Kennedy

    hans435 makes a good point, the DI is sounding more and more like AIG every day.