Tuesday, October 11, 2011

A Reason to Doubt the IDiots


David Klinghoffer is one of the most entertaining bloggers at Evolution News & Views. His version of logic never fails to bring a smile to my face.

Klinghoffer's latest posting is: A Reason to Doubt the Real, Rather than Pretended, Confidence of Darwin Advocates.
Much of the debate about Darwinian evolution is conducted in public online forums. If interpreted with some care, these give a convenient way of measuring the real confidence of leading spokesmen on the Darwin side. I don't mean the level of bluster -- they're all full of bluster -- but rather what they really must feel at some level deep down.

If you follow the top Darwin blogs you'll notice how eagerly and often they go in for mocking extremely marginal and daffy creationists. PZ Myers specializes in this. So too, in his books, does Richard Dawkins. How about answering the arguments of a real scientist who advocates intelligent design on scientific rather than Bible-thumping grounds -- a Douglas Axe or Ann Gauger, for example? How about a thoughtful critique of The Myth of Junk DNA or Signature in the Cell? A response to serious science bloggers like ENV's Casey Luskin or Jonathan M.?

Uh, no, thank you!

It's quite a contrast with intelligent-design advocates who, like them or not, wrestle with the top scientists and thinkers on the other side, while ignoring the small timers.
I really don't think this merits further comment by me.1 I'll let the words stand for themselves. I hope you were as amused as I am.

1. I assume those "serious scientists" don't read Sandwalk, Why Evolution Is True, Panda;s Thumb, Thoughts from Kansas, or dozens of other blogs and books that refute the nonsense spouted by those "serious scientists."

Image Credit: conservababes


  1. Haha! The Myth of Junk DNA! Nice one IDiot!

  2. I read that without reaction until he described Casey Luskin as a "serious science blogger". Bwahahahahaha!

  3. "serious science bloggers" and Casey Luskin in the same sentence? I really did LOL.

  4. I had never heard of Ann Gauger. She seems to have published in that respected journal, Bio-Complexity. Have you ever noticed her?

  5. Here are the Google search results for "Luskin"restricted to Pharyngula.

    Turns out that Luskin is a favorite chew toy down PZ's way, and little wonder given Luskin's prolific writings and limited understanding.

    The fact that they highlighted The Myth of Junk DNA while you're in the middle of fisking it chapter-by-chapter is icing. Please let us know if Wells comes up with an insightful rejoinder to the genetic load argument for junk DNA (hah).

  6. On which side of that divide does one put Klinghoffer?

  7. How about a thoughtful critique of The Myth of Junk DNA or Signature in the Cell?

    You mean like these, at Jeffrey Shallit's blog Recursivity:

    Stephen Meyer's Bogus Information Theory

    More on Signature in the Cell

  8. A quick googling reveals PZ has talked extensively about Dembski, Behe, Meyer, and Luskin among others. Dawkins has also talked extensively about Behe and even written reviews about his books. Is Klinghoffer hoping his readers don't know how to use Google?

  9. The answer is simple, it's not a reflection of the blogs choosing who to comment on, it's a refelction of the sample they have to choose from.

    They comment less on what Klinghoffer calls "real scientist who advocates intelligent design" because there are so few of them among the giant mass of thumping fools.

    Compare that to the sample of scientists who support evolution and the signal to noise inverts itself.

  10. Larry,

    I admire your sense of humour. I read that shit and I got a headache. The IDiots' prideful display of hypocrisy and dishonesty is too much to me. I try not to take them too seriously, but I just can't. I despise them deeply and thoughroughly.

    Anyway, continue smiling. I will just rest and tell myself that there are worse things than in-your-face hypocrites and liars. Maybe I'll watch a cartoon ...

  11. Is Klinghoffer hoping his readers don't know how to use Google?

    Meh, his clientele is too stupid. I bet that even if they know that he is lying, they will just applaud and say things like "Yeah, why are they so afraid of our ID scientists!?"