How to spot a hidden religious agenda
As a book reviews editor at New Scientist, I often come across so-called science books which after a few pages reveal themselves to be harbouring ulterior motives. I have learned to recognise clues that the author is pushing a religious agenda. As creationists in the US continue to lose court battles over attempts to have intelligent design taught as science in federally funded schools, their strategy has been forced to... well, evolve. That means ensuring that references to pseudoscientific concepts like ID are more heavily veiled. So I thought I'd share a few tips for spotting what may be religion in science's clothing.
See comments below.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
While I am on vacation, I'm reprinting a number of "Classic Insolence" posts to keep the blog active while I'm gone. (It also has the salutory effect of allowing me to move some of my favorite posts from the old blog over to the new blog, and I'm guessing that quite a few of my readers have…
Dave Thomas has written an op-ed opposing a bill in New Mexico that would promote Intelligent Design creationism in the classroom under the guise of academic freedom. This is a standard ID game; carefully word the bills so that they refer vaguely to some evidence that doesn't exist, so that they…
Sastra here.
I'm about halfway through, and really enjoying, Robert Price's new book, Top Secret: The Truth Behind Today's Pop Mysticisms.
Bob Price has an interesting background: he started out as a roaring Pentacostal Minister, gradually grew into a high-end Christian theologian, and eventually…
Sastra here.
I'm about halfway through, and really enjoying, Robert Price's new book, Top Secret: The Truth Behind Today's Pop Mysticisms.
Bob Price has an interesting background: he started out as a roaring Pentacostal Minister, gradually grew into a high-end Christian theologian, and eventually…
Greg,
This is the Amanda Gefter article that was pulled from the New Scientist website because of creationists threats to sue.
I'm sorry if my formatting misled you about the authorship of the piece. The author is Amanda Gefter (whose name I put at the top of the piece) and it was originally published in New Scientist. Following a legal complaint New Scientist recently removed an online copy from its website, and I just put a copy on my blog because I think the absence of the piece from the web causes more damage than I could do by publishing it in my little blog--it seems quite harmless to me, though I understand that New Scientist's lawyers may give more cautious advice.
Oh, interesting. The blogosphere can be that way. I had a bunch of people on facebook congratulating me for getting a column at slate, but it was Rebecca Skloot getting the job...........
Well, I will revise and let the comments speak for themselves...
what is bernard d'espagnat agenda? god??
Good link. It's a shame that the lawyers got to New Scientist. Juries keep giving huge awards for idiotic lawsuits, making frivolous lawsuits (and therefore the threat of frivolous lawsuits) profitable. I'd sure like to see smarter juries so that these things become unprofitable. I know, but it's good to have dreams.
If you want smarter juries, you've got to keep the dumb ones from reproducing.
Nathan: If the juries are selected at random in the States as they are in Canada, does that mean we have to skew the whole population to the smarter end of the scale in order to kill off the "less-fit" juries?
(I'm intentionally misinterpreting your comment because I don't want to think of what a jury reproduction would look like -- probably a bit too much like a scene from Eyes Wide Shut for my taste, too many arms and legs everywhere!)
"If you want smarter juries, you've got to keep the dumb ones from reproducing."
I let that go, but been eating at me. I was thinking that education would be a better place to start than eugenics. With education you don't have to engage in forced sterilization to give a kid a good knowledge of science.