It gets so tiring to read the latest barf (i.e., technicolor yawn) emanating from the evolutionary psych and anthropology literature. What do they know that will not be overturned by the next study? How much is political correctness determining the procedure, let alone the outcome, of the findings? Do they do any better than fortunetellers at a sideshow? Why does anyone listen to these pukers, who with a mighty heave-ho try to throw their cookies farther than the last guy? It’s clear these “studies” offer little more than predigested evolutionary ejecta as sacrifices to Charlie, knowing the media will pick it up and regurgitate it faithfully for special delivery to the feet of the Bearded Buddha.
Give just one side of a controversy the press, and you will get a one-sided presentation of the issues. That happened this week in the journal Nature.
Give just one side of a controversy the press, and you will get a one-sided presentation of the issues. That happened this week in the journal Nature.
A piece by Soo Bin Park published in Nature on June 5 has all the elements of John Draper and Charles White’s “warfare between science and religion” hypothesis. (Even Wikiepedia states this portrayal is not supported today by historians and philosophers of science.) War rhetoric peppers Park’s presentation like machine gun fire: “South Korea surrenders to creationist demands,” the headline reads. According to Park, creationists use tactics, have a campaign, are making headway, and “seem to be winning its battle with mainstream science.”
Actually, South Korea’s Society for Textbook Revise (STR) seems more interested in cleaning out old errors from textbooks: the horse evolution series, portrayal of Archaeopteryx as a transitional form, and Darwin’s finch beaks. Park is alarmed that South Korea’s growing number of “creationists” (a term he uses to encompass anything from Darwin critics to Biblical creationists) have an ulterior motive, to undermine evolution itself.
Actually, South Korea’s Society for Textbook Revise (STR) seems more interested in cleaning out old errors from textbooks: the horse evolution series, portrayal of Archaeopteryx as a transitional form, and Darwin’s finch beaks. Park is alarmed that South Korea’s growing number of “creationists” (a term he uses to encompass anything from Darwin critics to Biblical creationists) have an ulterior motive, to undermine evolution itself.
As expected, Darwin critics were portrayed as religiously motivated, but evolutionists not. Park presents evolutionists as defenders who need to rise up and fight: “Silence is not the answer, says Dayk Jang. He is now organizing a group of experts, including evolutionary scientists and theologians who believe in evolution, to counter the STR’s campaign by working to improve the teaching of evolution in the classroom, and in broader public life.” Strangely, Park opposes debates. “Having seen the fierce debates over evolution in the United States, he adds, some scientists also worry that engaging with creationists might give creationist views more credibility among the public.”
As expected, Darwin critics were portrayed as religiously motivated, but evolutionists not. Park presents evolutionists as defenders who need to rise up and fight: “Silence is not the answer, says Dayk Jang. He is now organizing a group of experts, including evolutionary scientists and theologians who believe in evolution, to counter the STR’s campaign by working to improve the teaching of evolution in the classroom, and in broader public life.” Strangely, Park opposes debates. “Having seen the fierce debates over evolution in the United States, he adds, some scientists also worry that engaging with creationists might give creationist views more credibility among the public.”
Suppose a mugger accused you in court of assaulting him, and that he had a right to call on muggers to defend themselves against your threats. That’s a bit like how the Darwin Party tries to defend its Darwin-only-Darwin-only (D.O.D.O.) position on public education. They don’t want open discussion of the evidence. They want to shut down discussion. Yet when anyone questions their presumptive authority against what has been the default position of human beings for millennia (i.e., that the world and life shows evidence of intelligent design), they go bonkers and turn up the battle rhetoric.
Suppose a mugger accused you in court of assaulting him, and that he had a right to call on muggers to defend themselves against your threats. That’s a bit like how the Darwin Party tries to defend its Darwin-only-Darwin-only (D.O.D.O.) position on public education. They don’t want open discussion of the evidence. They want to shut down discussion. Yet when anyone questions their presumptive authority against what has been the default position of human beings for millennia (i.e., that the world and life shows evidence of intelligent design), they go bonkers and turn up the battle rhetoric.
If you only read Nature, you would be indoctrinated in the following propaganda:
If you only read Nature, you would be indoctrinated in the following propaganda:
1. Creationism has been a threat to science only in the U.S., but now South Korea poses a new threat.
2. Creationists have “anti-evolution sentiment,” but evolutionists do not have the reverse.
3. “Mainstream science” is a monolithic block threatened by another monolithic block called creationism.
