Thursday, July 25, 2013

David Klinghoffer Asks a Serious Question?

Well, maybe not really serious. His latest post on Evolution News & Views (sic) is about something called "Darwinian censorship" ["Shut Up," They Said: On the Medved Show, John West Discusses Darwinian Culture of Censorship].

At the end, he asks ...
When did you last hear of a Darwinist willing to seriously entertain -- not merely condemn and shout down -- counterarguments. The most frequently employed argument in the Darwinian arsenal at the moment is "Shut up."
It seems to me that real scientists and philosophers have spent a considerable amount of time addressing the claims of Intelligent Design Creationism. I could even argue that they have spent too much time given that IDiots rarely pay attention.

In my own area of expertise, I've addressed many of the claims made in Darwin's Black Box, The Edge of Evolution, Icons of Evolution, The Myth of Junk DNA, Science & Human Origins, and Signature in the Cell. I've also discussed dozens of blog posts over the years.

And I'm not alone. There are hundreds of articles and posts by dozens of scientists and philosophers. David Klinghoffer's question is ridiculous. Perhaps he's confused because he demands "seriously entertain" and he's disappointed when we seriously entertain their arguments and conclude that they are silly. Perhaps he will only accept that we have "seriously entertained" their arguments when we agree with them? That wouldn't surprise me, it's perfectly consistent with creationist logic.


  1. He just attacks, truth means nothing to him.

    He had a blog for a while (It's still on the web, but dead--Kingdom of Priests), and some of us would throw out facts, attempt a discussion, and he'd always ignore what we said while fobbing us off with some inane tripe. We'd discuss issues, he wouldn't.

    He doesn't understand the issues. That's as close as I can come to any excuse for such a counterfactual statement. He may not recognize when ID is being addressed, rather, like most of them, once you've left the ID script you're judged as not dealing with ID. Of course one cannot properly discuss ID using ID nonsense as its basis.">Glen Davidson

  2. If you want to get an idea of what the IDiots consider a "civil discussion" go over to UD, read any thread and observe how the inmates treat each other.

    First of all, they're not always polite to each other. There is a lot of name calling and bad behavior by any standard of civility, thus, "civility" on it's own is not the major consideration.

    Second, they (almost) always agree with each other even if comments are moronic by our standards. For example, Joseph will make some obscure usually ad hom comment followed by a citation blizzard by BA77 and the rest of the inmates will "high five" the replies.

    Third, and perhaps most important, the IDiots don't even engage in discussions among themselves. Entire threads are composed of stand-alone comments, congratulations and insults. No conclusions are ever reached. Just by their handles you know exactly what they're going to say.

    True, though, whenever Luskin or Klinghoffer open their yaps you have a pretty good idea of what is going to come out.

    And that's why you can't have a discussion with an IDiot. They just don't have the capability.

    1. That must mean that evolution is true, doesn't it?

    2. That must mean that evolution is true, doesn't it?
      No, and neither was that implied. Evolution stands on it's own merits.

      .. did you expect a different answer, or perhaps more importantly, was that question for you rethorical and did you in fact believe that anyone here really believes in the manner and for the reasons you insinuated? If so, what should we think about you?

    3. @Quest

      No, it just means you have to be a complete idiot to deny the evidence that supports it, assuming you are even aware of it.

      Are you really a teacher or do you just pretend to be one on the internet ?

      Are you actually allowed to have contact with impressionable young minds ?

    4. That must mean that evolution is true, doesn't it?

      It doesn't, and no one here pretended that it does.

      The fact that such non-responsiveness to actual science is typical for pseudo-scientific putzes isn't meaningless, however.

      Above all, though, it's a bit hard to "seriously entertain" the old BS that we've heard and responded to ad nauseam, whether or not it's been ornamented with junk math or an entire book that carefully ignores the evidence for evolution and the meaninglessness of ID.

      There is some truth to the "shut up" charge that Klinghoffer makes, although he leaves out the fact that it's frequently accompanied by the note that IDiot tripe has been abundantly answered, IDiots have nothing new, and that they have never adequately explained anything about life using ID. The fact that they mindlessly repeat the same exploded nonsense is plenty of reason to tell them to shut up, unless and until they can finally respond with evidence and intelligence.

      Glen Davidson

    5. @Steve,

      I'm not denying evolution. I'm just at awe when I read Bill's "logically constructed arguments" against ID :-)

    6. @Quest

      There were no arguments against ID in Bill's comment.

      Why would you claim that there were ?

      Bill was addressing the character and behaviour of those who infest IDiot blogs.

      No one, except you, has claimed that this is an argument for ID or for evolution.

  3. To Klinghoffer and his pals "seriously entertain" means "acknowledge ID as science." Anything short of that is condemning them and shouting them down ... merely because they keep lying.

  4. The most frequently used argument is "where is the evidence?".

  5. I do not think we tend to say 'shut up', but when we do the reasons are easily understandable. We hear the same, tired misrepresentations over and over that have been refuted over many years. ID/C has no new ideas, makes no bona fide discoveries, and has no interest in conforming to facts. I await when they have something new and interesting. Meanwhile...
    'Thermodynamics....' Shut up.
    'Lack of transitional forms....' Shut up.
    'Irreducible complexity....' SHUT UP.

  6. David Klinghoffer is accusing US of saying "Shut up."

    This from a blog where NO COMMENTS ARE PERMITTED.

    BTW, I'm still banned from UD and Biologic Institute's Facebook page, and Ray Comfort's Facebook page. Thanks guys!

  7. Actually the fact that its reached this height of accusations/denials of organized evolutiuonisms response to ID/YEC is proof of a cosmic change in the intellectual discussions of origins.
    If they are ignoring you too much then your noteworthy enough for this to happen.
    ID/YEC has progressed so fast so far that everyone is expecting the wall to finally crumble.
    I don't think 15 years will pass before evolutionism is dropped as a viable mechanism for the glory of biology.
    Just keep kicking at the dark until you see daylight as the singers sing.
    Rember YEC was here first. Lets share the spoils.

    1. Ah booby, they've been saying that for over 150 years and evolution is no nearer to crumbling then it was back then. Far less so.

    2. I don't know what they said back in the old days.
      There were few people who could raise a audience for criticisms of evolution. it moved in small circles. Then fewer people with the right degrees. back then they were insisting on authority more. Now its authority and making the case.
      Creationism can now do it Just on the case.
      Now evolution will not last long with such greater attention.