David Berlinski may be one of the lesser known ID advocates, but he is surely the one who is easiest to dislike. The man has turned the striking of a pompous pose into an art form. If you want to see his gift for ignorance-fueled condescension on full display, check out this post where he interviews himself. If you can walk away from reading that without wanting to smack him (metaphorically, of course), I suggest you read it again. It would make a perfect example for Andrew Sullivan's "poseur alert" series. He sniffs, he sneers, he dismisses virtually all of biology and physics, and he says virtually nothing of substance. Throw in a few French phrases now and then and you've got the perfect pseudo-profundity.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
There's a bizarre "interview" with David Berlinski at one of the ID blogs. What's bizarre about it, and the reason I have to put "interview" in quotes, is that the interviewer and interviewee are both David Berlinski. It is nothing more than a pompous exercise in preening his ego; he arrogantly…
Please forgive me: you've probably all forgotten Fred Hutchison, the incredibly delusional right-wing paragon of hubris, but I've got to bring him up again. He wrote one of the more painful diatribes against evolution on Alan Keyes "Renew America" site (yeah, that Alan Keyes; you know we're deep in…
Sandefur has an interesting post at Positive Liberty about what he calls hyperlexicophilia, the tendency of some, particularly political philosophers, to use language to appear to say something meaningful when, in reality, they've said nothing at all. He links to the absolutely brilliant postmodern…
The blogalogue between Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan on the subject of the reasonableness of religious faith continues. We pick up the action with Sullivan's latest salvo. He is responding to the following question asked by Harris: “What would constitute “proof” for you that your current beliefs…
Meilleurs casinos Afin d'鶡luer les casinos en ligne pour un endroit sur la liste sup鲩eure là ³oyez beaucoup de facteurs qui doivent ê´²e pris en compte. Le meilleur casino devrait inclure chaque dispositif possible que le joueur est enu ven à °r鶯ir d'un emplacement de jeu en ligne de qualité®
Jeux de casino Les Jeux En ligne De Casino - Trouvez Les Meilleurs Jeux De Casino Dans L'Internet!
Poker en ligne Des centaines de joueurs ont d飯uvert le poker sur ces page depuis f鶲ier 2006
Casino en ligne Monaco Gold Casino est la promesse d?une exp鲩ence inoubliable du jeu en ligne. Conjuguant à erveille le luxe de Monte-Carlo et la sophistication multim餩a, ce casino d?une 鬩gance subtile domine le marché ¤es casinos virtuels.
Casinos en ligne Nous Avons trouvé es Casinos Pour ê´²e Les Meilleurs Casinos En ligne
I could not read all the post,anyone who thinks a scientific theory should be decided by a popular vote, must be extremely ignorant.
Gadzooks...and that's only Part 1.
Berlinski is not a real person. Very few people know this, but a freak electrical storm broke in a movie theater once, and he stepped off the screen into real life from a David Lynch film.
Debate still rages whether it was Eraserhead or Blue Velvet.
Watch the Firing Line debate to see this pompous ass get a drubbing from someone who actually knows a bit about science, Ken Miller. Berlinski's flailing, finally admitting he has no theory with which to replace evolution, and his side comment saying he does NOT support ID, left nothing more than a windbag opportunist trying to get himself on TV.
He is to science what Harry Potter's Gilderoy Lockhart is to wizardry.
And now hanging out in Paris giving the French even more reason to despise Americans:
Thanks, Dave. You're a peach.
I got about halfway through and couldn't take it anymore.
How does one even start to respond? Berlinski spews the same old IDiot boilerplate and conflates ideology, religion and science - but in an especially vile way.
OK, Mr Berlinksi. Here's a question for you: What is the theory of ID and how can it be tested using the scientific method? Your mouth runs in overdrive when you are hurling insults and whining about "Darwinism can't explain this" and "evolution can't explain that" - will you be as eloquent when you are describing how your alternative theory can be scientifically tested? Somehow I don't think so.
Like all the other IDiots, Mr Berlinski, you are long on complaints, insults and distortion, but very short on science and integrity.
I tried to stay focused, but I just kept thinking, a pompous idiot interviewing himself would have made a great "Monty Python" sketch--the Pythons excelled at making this sort of thing hilarious. Reading this "interview" by a deluded egomaniac, however, was just plain depressing. I think I'll skip part 2....
I notice that blog does not allow comments. So if Berlinski wanted to add anything to his answers to Berlinski's questions, or if he wanted to correct any mistakes Berlinski made in transcribing Berlinski's words, he'd be unable to.
Seriously, I have to ask this: what sort of circles does Berlinski hang out in, that he could actually think that an interview with himself would not look ridiculous?
From the interview. Sustitute ID for Darwinism and, et voila, the lie becomes truth: [...] Darwinism is an ideological system and when such systems come under threat, their supporters react in predictable ways. Freedom of thought very often appears as an inconvenience to those with a position to protect.
Berlinski has now finished up on his interview of himself, in Part Two.
I note that he neglected to thank himself at the end. How rude!