As a follow up on the recent articles on ID advocates making offensive comparisons between evolution advocates and various bad guys, try this one on for size. Commenting on the Klinghoffer article and the claims of persecution by Sternberg (which he accepted uncritically as gospel truth, of course), Russel Husted offered up this breathless and ridiculous comparison:
And then ... ah yes, the open-minded, fair-minded, always-willing-to-hear-a theory-out, always-searching-for-truth community of "Evolutionist Theocrats in Science" realized their most feared heresy had gotten a respectable hearing. Orthodoxy was threatened! Move over Galileo! Move over Abu Al-Zarqawi. You ain't seen zealots in action til you've seen Evolutionists do their thing!...Do you get just a hint of how poor Galileo must have felt when the religious authorities (on scientific orthodoxy and doctrine) came down on him? And just how the religious authorities of scientific orthodoxy, today, imitate their terrorist brothers in Iraq in making sure "there ain't gonna be no democracy or 'free thinking' here!"?
Russ and I have had a couple of exchanges in the past (not to be confused with Rusty Lopez of New Covenant), one on the subject of increasing information in the genome and another on gay marriage. In the first exchange, he was quite gracious. He realized he was wrong, admitted it, and apologized. In the second, he dropped a hodgepodge of confused nonsense about people marrying their dogs and how kinky gays are and then left. But this kind of irrational, offensive crap is far beyond the pale of decency. The more the IDers say things like this, the more ridiculous they look. Remember, you can only cry wolf so many times before people stop listening to you.
- Log in to post comments
I wish I were as certain as you with regard to the "crying wolf" syndrome. Given our society's current hostility toward science and suspicion of intellectuals in general, I'm not so sure. A roomful of idiots can easily shout down their numerical inferiors; if the majority feels more kinship with the wolf criers, they will add their voices to the fray. It's easier than checking the facts. Ours is a culture that craves simplicity, even at the expense of honesty.
I have to agree w/Rob. People will believe that there is a wolf/devil/thing to fear til the cows come home to roost. I mean, wasn't this what you posted just days ago?
Stupid is easy.
It is indeed depressing to read stuff like this, but it's worth noticing that the story which Russ accepted uncritically as gospel truth - i.e. the Klinghoffer version - is indeed one of zealotry in action. So in a way what Russ said is not so bad; if that were in fact what had happened, he'd be right to complain. He's guilty more of gullibility than anything else. (That rhetoric sure is nuclear though - man!).
The public in general appear not to appreciate that science is analytical, not descriptive. "Analytical", in so far as it's understood, may be seen as elitism.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42837
Lax views on cause and effect - a contributing factor
It is indeed depressing to read stuff like this, but it's worth noticing that the story which Russ accepted uncritically as gospel truth - i.e. the Klinghoffer version - is indeed one of zealotry in action. So in a way what Russ said is not so bad; if that were in fact what had happened, he'd be right to complain. He's guilty more of gullibility than anything else.
If the accusations against the Smithsonian are true, there is a very serious problem that needs to be fixed and Sternberg has been mistreated. But to compare that to terrorists beheading people? That's ridiculous. It's the comparison that is offensive, even if the accusations are true.
In the second, he dropped a hodgepodge of confused nonsense about people marrying their dogs and how kinky gays are and then left. But this kind of irrational, offensive crap is far beyond the pale of decency
The guy is a dolt, but let's get something straight--or clear or whatever. Just because something is offensive, does not mean that it is erroneous. (I use "erroneous" instead of "wrong" because "wrong" has "moral" overtones.) It is clear to anyone paying attention that the guy is not only a dolt, but also someone who posts things that have nothing to do with reality.
True, but something erroneous, that is also offensive, is worse than something that is only erroneous (ceteris paribus of course).