Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Responding to David Klinghoffer on journalists and ID


Here Klinghoffer muses,

I will never forget my personal experience with a journalist who often writes for The New Republic. In an email exchange he chastised me for thinking the universe was created a mere 6,000 years ago. He assumed that was the main issue for intelligent design advocates. I explained to him that wasn’t the case and that I’m not a YEC, that intelligent design assumes a universe more than 13 billion years old and a history of life going back more than 3 billion.

Not long after, he criticized me again on the very same point, for believing in a 6,000-year-old world. I don’t think he believed that I was lying in my previous email to him. He just could not surrender a plank in the platform of his own ignorance: The belief that this is all fight about whether in riding around on dinosaurs, cavemen went bareback or opted for more of a western saddle. He had that audio loop playing over and over in his head. He couldn’t hear a thing I said.

No, David, and he won’t, and his publication will go under before he does.

Here’s what 40 years in the field have taught me: The journalist doesn’t want to know things, he wants to know better than you.

Let’s say, for example, you can’t understand why the school taxes are so high and rising, when standardized testing shows that math and science performance numbers (best indicators of later jobs) are in the toilet – internationally. Slovakia is better’n you.

The journalist doesn’t care about that. What he cares about is that the head of admin is shacked up with the mayor, and enjoying a $300,000 salary for helping others rip off.

His paper won’t let him write about that because they are supporting the mayor for re-election, and generally support the head of admin’s no-tests, no homework policy. They can always find scantily clad high school girls to pose in favour of no effort at school, and an earnest social worker to back them up.

You take the journalist out and buy him a few, and he will admit all this. But then nothing follows.

So the only useful information he could provide you is, generally, stuff you could have figured out for yourself – if it mattered. For example, if the mayor and the head of school board admin aren’t shacked up, they may as well be for all the difference it makes that your district performs worse than Peru, while spending twenty times as much and now planning to spend more.

Okay, how does it relate to ID? David, what on earth would cause a fellow like that to actually think that facts mattered? (Other than who’s sleeping with whom, the only fact he knows that you probably didn’t.) A lightning bolt? A heart attack? Armageddon? I’m out of ideas here, and have to go back to my day job real soon.

We are the new media. He isn’t.

Note: Christian journalists are no better, but that is a horrible story for another day: The betrayal of civil rights in English-speaking democracies.

AS a right wing conservative Evangelical "WASP" Man its old news that Journalists have great agendas to influence their readers opinions by how they covers subjects. Most journalists post Water-gate are upper middle class kids trying to do important things with their jobs. They don't want to just report the Cow jumped over the moon. They see themselves as the rightful rulers of the nation. They are not like most people. Only some want to be celebrity's without agendas. by the way the Journalist in the case did remember he was ID and the difference. The Journalist was only interviewing him in the first place as a leader in creationism. Since creationism really seems to be biblical creationists(YEC) the journalist is saying it doesn't matter your beliefs but your SIDE. He was questioning a leader of the YEC despite not being one personally. He is a spokesman for the creationist army. His own opinion is irrelevant.   Thats how they see it and don't miss their chance to attack. Robert Byers
Yeah, those silly Creationists Atheists with their commitments to the bible materialism, and their rejection of common descent intelligent causes. Intelligent deesig neo-Darwinian advocates are nothing like them!
There much better!! :)
Evolution Is Religion--Not Science by Henry Morris, Ph.D. Excerpt: Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality,,, Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse - Prominent Philosopher Is evolution pseudoscience? Excerpt:,,, Thus, of the ten characteristics of pseudoscience listed in the Skeptic’s Dictionary, evolution meets nine. Few other?pseudosciences — astrology, astral projection, alien abduction, crystal power, or whatever — would meet so many. http://creation.com/is-evolution-pseudoscience C.S. Lewis: creationist and anti-evolutionist Excerpt: "In 1951 C S Lewis wrote that evolution was “the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives” and modern civilization. Evolution, Lewis explained, is a picture of reality that has resulted from imagination and is “not the logical result of what is vaguely called ‘modern science’.” http://creation.com/c-s-lewis Darwin's diabolical delusions - Ellis Washington - September 2011 Excerpt: Tragically, for over 150 years since the publication of Darwin's diabolical, anti-scientific book, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," nonpartisan science, truth, logic and deductive reasoning have been ruthlessly suppressed and replaced with state-funded Darwinist propaganda, groupthink, education atheism, liberal fascism and Machiavellian tactics as demonstrated in the Sewell case representing the ongoing battles between the Darwin Gestapo and Intelligent Design scientists. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=343445 Origins - Slaughter of the Dissidents with Dr. Jerry Bergman - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6rzaM_BxBk
I think Michael Behe does an excellent job, in this following debate, of pointing out that denying the overwhelming evidence for design in biology makes the science of biology ‘irrational’. As well Dr. Behe makes it clear that materialistic evolutionists themselves, by their own admission in many cases, are promoting their very own religious viewpoint, Atheism, in public schools, and thus are in fact violating the establishment clause of the constitution:
Should Intelligent Design Be Taught as Science? Michael Behe debates Stephen Barr - 2010 - video http://www.isi.org/lectures/flvplayer/lectureplayer.aspx?file=v000355_cicero_040710.mp4&dir=mp4/lectures
Here is an atheist professor who openly proselytizes his atheistic religion in his classroom, using the pseudo-science of Darwinism as his 'bible', and sees absolutely no conflict with the constitution, nor with censoring criticism of Darwinism from the public classroom by judicial fiat:
Dr. Will Provine on Religion and Creationism - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnMjaw8zUxQ
Yeah, those silly Creationists with their commitments to the bible, and their rejection of common descent. Intelligent deesig advocates are nothing like them! lastyearon
The UPB assumes an old universe, but ID doesn’t require one.
ID doesn't require anything. ID (the notion that an unidentified X, did some unknown thing at some unknown point in the past) is compatible with any state of the universe. There isn't a single fact that could refute ID in it's current form because it's an utterly empty hypothesis. Fossfur
It's easy to assume a position if you don't have to agree that every detail is true. We use measuring systems that work. Darwinism isn't one. News
The UPB assumes an old universe, but ID doesn't require one. Hasn't this been dealt with in the dark vaults of endless objections? Noise, noise, and more noise. Clowns to the left, jokers to the right. Who wouldn't get tired of this? material.infantacy
intelligent design assumes a universe more than 13 billion years old and a history of life going back more than 3 billion
From the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial transcript, Dr. Behe cross examination:
Q In fact, intelligent design takes no position on the age of the earth or when biological life began. A That's correct.
So who left the reservation? (HT to RTH) paragwinn

Leave a Reply