Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Topic

David Klinghoffer

David Klinghoffer muses on the (almost) Cancelation of physicist Eric Hedin

Klinghoffer: Hedin's persecutor, Jerry Coyne, "was a prominent academic, enjoying maximum career safety at the University of Chicago. Let’s be honest: between the two, there was no contest. Coyne could move against Hedin without fear, and he did. On the other hand, Hedin’s career was on the line, and both knew it." Sounds like Darwinism as she is spoke. Read More ›

If you get canceled, like paleontologist Gunter Bechly, where do you go?

Klinghoffer: Dr. Bechly recently penned a blockbuster 14-part series debunking Kimberella as a solution to the Cambrian Explosion. In case you missed it, it is a monumental, and morally important, piece of scholarship. The Cambrian event, a massive saltation, remains an unsolvable mystery for Darwinists, with all that implies about the evidence for purpose and design. Read More ›

Apologies for displaying an African man in a Bronx Zoo monkey house conveniently leave out the Darwinian motivation

David Klinghoffer: The truth is that placing a man in the Monkey House was intended as an education for the public in Darwinian evolution. As John West has said, Ota Benga was “only one of thousands of indigenous peoples who were put on display in America in the name of Darwinian evolution.” Read More ›

Does Darwinism help produce anarchic nihilism?

A vid, less than three minutes, by John West, presents some evidence. From David Klinghoffer: But see how much nihilism has been justified and advocated by some very smart and influential people in the name of evolutionary theory. Read More ›

“Race realism” (Darwinian racism) pops up again: the John Derbyshire commemorative edition

An American conservative thinkmag published geneticist Razib Khan, glorifying Darwinism, and he turned out to have apparent racist links. Then someone with even more pronounced apparent racist links rose to defend him. Read More ›

“Rube-Bait”: Kevin Williamson vs. David Klinghoffer: Round 3

Williamson lives in a time when people don’t need to know correct facts so much as correct positions. Popular Darwinism thrives in that atmosphere because even to raise problems with a Cool theory. however serious the problems, brands one as unCool. You are never supposed to have problems with a Cool theory. Read More ›

“Rube-Bait”: Kevin Williamson vs. David Klinghoffer: Round 2

Recently, we covered Evolution News and Science Today editor David Klinghoffer’s response to a sneer by Kevin Williamson against ID at National Review (where Klinghoffer used to work, incidentally). Klinghoffer cited a number of respectable thinkers who have held Darwinism in little esteem—which led to our publishing a separate and different long list of such thinkers here at Uncommon Descent. Meanwhile, Williamson replied to Klinghoffer (“Irreducible Perplexity”), who fired back: Here’s what is missing: serious public debate. Telling scientists to “slug it out” in professional journals and not try to persuade others is like asking a free-market advocate to persuade his Marxist colleagues before he dares offer his case to the public. What makes Kevin think entrenched Darwinists are willing Read More ›

Intelligent design as “rube-bait” and David Klinghoffer’s response

Klinghoffer offers his vid, The Information Enigma by way of rebuttal. But rebuttal almost misses the point. Today’s Darwinism is a snipe on Twitter, a swipe in passing, a slogan on a whiteboard, a well-practiced rant - not something it would make sense to ask anyone to support with reference to facts or coherent ideas. Williamson’s got that right. No arguing with fashion. Read More ›

Fake news on the ID controversy still includes babies with tails

Last year, David Klinghoffer offered some thoughts on fake news about controversies in evolution in popular media that bear repeating: The supposedly objective investigative news site ProPublica hit all of them — codes, creationism, Kitzmiller v. Dover — in a recent article, going after then-Education Secretary nominee Betsy DeVos, who had mentioned “critical thinking” in her appointment hearing. When a colleague and I challenged their reporting, focusing on a distortion of our education policy that could be verified by published documents on our website, an editor brushed us off, claiming it came down to a “matter of opinion and debate, not fact.” I’ve documented my correspondence with the editor, which I found very revealing. I might have let it drop Read More ›