Klinghoffer is insulted the sensuous curmudgeon f gas regulations ireland

As we like to do, first we’ll mention the science, then we’ll give you the creationism. This appears at the website of EcoWatch, which describes itself as “a leading news website reporting on environmental news, green living, sustainable business, science and politics.” Their headline is The Thinking Error at the Root of Science Denial.

It was written by Jeremy P. Shapiro, who is said to be “a Clinical Child Psychologist and an Adjunct Faculty Member of the Psychology Department and Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences at Case Western Reserve University,” but we can’t find him listed in their directories. Anyway, Shapiro says, with our bold font:

Currently, there are three important issues on which there is scientific consensus but controversy among laypeople: climate change, biological evolution and childhood vaccination. On all three issues, prominent members of the Trump administration, including the president, have lined up against the conclusions of research.

This widespread rejection of scientific findings presents a perplexing puzzle to those of us who value an evidence-based approach to knowledge and policy. Yet many science deniers do cite empirical evidence. The problem is that they do so in invalid, misleading ways. Psychological research illuminates these ways.

In my view, science deniers misapply the concept of “proof.” Proof exists in mathematics and logic but not in science. Research builds knowledge in progressive increments. As empirical evidence accumulates, there are more and more accurate approximations of ultimate truth but no final end point to the process. Deniers exploit the distinction between proof and compelling evidence by categorizing empirically well-supported ideas as “unproven.” Such statements are technically correct but extremely misleading, because there are no proven ideas in science, and evidence-based ideas are the best guides for action we have.

I have observed deniers use a three-step strategy to mislead the scientifically unsophisticated. First, they cite areas of uncertainty or controversy, no matter how minor, within the body of research that invalidates their desired course of action. Second, they categorize the overall scientific status of that body of research as uncertain and controversial. Finally, deniers advocate proceeding as if the research did not exist.

They seem to misinterpret any limitation or flux in evolutionary theory to mean that the validity of this body of research is fundamentally in doubt. For example, the biologist James Shapiro (no relation) discovered a cellular mechanism of genomic change that Darwin did not know about. Shapiro views his research as adding to evolutionary theory, not upending it. Nonetheless, his discovery and others like it, refracted through the lens of dichotomous thinking, results in articles with titles like, “Scientists Confirm: Darwinism Is Broken” by Paul Nelson and David Klinghoffer of the Discovery Institute, which promotes the theory of “intelligent design.” Shapiro insists that his research provides no support for intelligent design, but proponents of this pseudoscience repeatedly cite his work as if it does.

Okay, there it is. A flat-out criticism of the Discovery Institute. And here’s the response at the Discoveroids’ creationist blog: Next Time I Need a Therapist, I’m Staying Away from Jeremy P. Shapiro. It was written by David Klinghoffer, a Discoveroid “senior fellow” ( i.e., flaming, full-blown creationist), who eagerly functions as their journalistic slasher and poo flinger. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

It’s well known that in seeking psychotherapy you take a risk. You are putting yourself, at your most vulnerable, into the hands of someone who maybe went into the business because he’s a sympathetic listener and insightful student of human nature. Or maybe because he has issues of his own, that he might be blind to but is unconsciously working out through interactions with patients.

I’m not a “creationist,” … . But get this. Jeremy Shapiro, like many others, creates a false, black-or-white dichotomy between science supporters and “science deniers.” This allows him to dismiss the “deniers” without addressing our arguments. Yet his “insight” into us is that it’s in our thinking that “a spectrum of possibilities is divided into two parts, with a blurring of distinctions within those categories. Shades of gray are missed; everything is considered either black or white.”

Intelligent design is itself a “Third Way” that is neither creationism nor Darwinian evolutionism. Instead, it is a non-Darwinian theory of evolution that recognizes evidence of intelligence and creativity operating behind the many changes in life over the past several billion years. It follows the intellectual path sketched by Alfred Russel Wallace, who with Darwin co-discovered the theory of evolution by natural selection but opened his perspective later, to Darwin’s dismay.

Unlike Shapiro, I don’t pretend to offer a glib psychological assessment of a stranger, linking him with a range of mental illnesses on the basis of a single article he wrote. But there is a marked tendency on the part of Darwinists and other defenders of privileged scientific orthodoxies to lash out at skeptics with false choices between “science” and “science denial.” It is highly manipulative and dishonest. The use of the labels “science denier” and “creationist” to tar open-minded thinkers is utterly pernicious.

Darwinists are “utterly pernicious.” BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Here’s a small sampling of Klinghoffer’s scholarly creationist oeuvre,which most of you have seen before. He has attempted to link Charles Darwin to: Hitler, and communism, and Stalin, and the Columbine shootings, and Charles Manson, and the Ft. Hood Massacre, and Mao Tse-tung, and Dr. Josef Mengele.

All this matters because it’s one way that the orthodox belief on evolution is enforced on doubters, though smears and mind games. Ask yourself: If the evidence for Darwinism is so strong, why do they resort, again and again and again, to these tactics?

The history of science has many examples in which holes, cracks and unexplained phenomena do eventually require a new hypothesis. This is how science works. Regarding evolution, that Darwin got some things wrong (e.g., heredity), doesn’t, despite the claims to the contrary, negate his overall hypothesis regarding the power of natural selection. Until the theory of population genetics progressed in the early 1900s, Mendelian inheritance was thought to argue against Darwinian evolution. Again, this is how science works. Ignorance regarding a particular evolutionary mechanism (e.g., epigenetic effects) or the origin of a particular species doesn’t negate the fact that evolution has and still is occurring. Though there are sometimes vigorous (and sometimes petty) disagreements among biologists, they are not evidence that design is a better alternative. Indeed, on close inspection, biological systems look more like they are cobbled together, constrained by prior evolution, than designed in any “intelligent” fashion. If there is a conspiracy among evolutionary biologists, it is to require solid evidence for extraordinary claims. Creationists and ID advocates are notorious for not having any.