Now, I won't listen to the podcast - it will be creationist bullshit - but David's post about said podcast is so lacking in self-awareness, so cluelessly ironic, so steeped in desperate creationist insecurity, and so obviously projecting that insecurity, that Dunning-Kruger doesn't even begin to explain it.
The subject of Klinghoffer's post (and, presumably, the DI's creationist-propaganda podcast) is a favorite creationist topic: Darwin.
According to this post (and the propaganda podcast?), Darwin was somehow convinced of the truth of evolution (i.e. reality) before his voyage on the Beagle, and thus his scientific insight was (according to Klinghoffer) "largely a case of 'cutting the toes to fit the shoe' — theory first, worry about the data later."
What Klinghoffer seems to be ignorant of is the fact that Darwin didn't formulate the idea of evolution. The idea that organisms had evolved was around well before Darwin's time (see here, and here). Darwin's great insight was the theory of natural selection as a mechanism of evolution.
Thus, whether Darwin accepted or understood evolution before his defining voyage on the Beagle is irrelevant. He fully formulated his theory of natural selection after his Beagle adventure.
But what Klinghoffer (and, presumably, the DI's shitty-creationist-propaganda podcast) is really trying to imply was that Darwin was an "atheist", and therefore Darwin's "atheism" somehow influenced his scientific conclusions.
But this assertion appears to be bullshit (see here, and see also Darwin's Beagle Diary).
And further, this creationist-bullshit-assertion is also irrelevant. The fact of evolution and the overwhelming scientific support for natural selection theory more than hold up regardless of whether Darwin was an atheist or a fucking evangelical wack-a-loon. Darwin's personal beliefs matter naught.
But this is what intelligent design creationists like Klinghoffer and the rest of the DI are reduced to: vacuous red herrings.
And now we get to the clueless-creationist irony. The absolute lack of self-awareness, and Klinhoffer's desperate creationist projecting. According to Klinghoffer:
Why does it matter? Because Darwinists follow much the same path today. Blindness to evidence of design in biology, the refusal to consider this evidence, is a function of the backwards relationship between theory and data.Klinghoffer and the DI desperately want their "Darwin-was-an-atheist" claim to "matter". But, sadly, as I point out above, it doesn't matter.
And that last sentence perfectly describes intelligent design creationists (or any creationist). The fact that Klinghoffer has no clue that he is projecting the very baselessness of intelligent design creationism speaks volumes about the religious motivations of his DI propaganda crap.
One need simply ask themselves a simple question: Without reference to evolutionary theory, what "data" and/or "evidence" do creationists present?
The answer, as always, is none. ID creationists cannot present "evidence" for "design" without evolutionary theory. All of their "evidence" consists of "criticisms" of evolutionary theory, logical fallacies, and/or scientific ignorance.
Klinghoffer's post is a fine example of this type of impotent creationist "argument". He presents no independent "data" supporting ID, just baseless assertions that have no bearing on actual science.
Just another ID creationism fail. Sad.
Nice marmot.
0 Comments