We know what you want. You want insanely incoherent anti-science rants; and you like creationism — as wild and crazy as we can find. We understand why you’re here, and we want to assure you that you’ve come to the right place.
Thanks to our Retard-o-tron™ with its sirens and flashing lights, we were alerted to an especially good item at the online home of many such rants — the website of WorldNetDaily (WND) — described in the Cast of Characters section of our Intro page. That explains the jolly buffoon logo above this post.
Look what we’ve got for you: Obama the Apatosaurus. The headline makes no sense to us either, but that doesn’t matter. It was written by Burt Prelutsky. That’s a new name to us, but WND says that he “has been a humor columnist for the L.A. Times, a movie critic for Los Angeles magazine and a freelance writer for TV Guide, Modern Maturity, the New York Times and Sports Illustrated.” After all that bouncing around, he seems to have found his natural home at WND. Here are some excerpts from his article, with bold font added by us:
Liberals are always given to landing on the side of what they insist is science, whether the topic is Darwin’s theory of evolution versus intelligent design or man’s ability to control the weather. That’s because they believe that scientists are, like themselves, much smarter than other people.
You have, of course, noted Prelutsky’s linkage of liberals and science. Many of you see no problem with that, but your Curmudgeon does. Our political ideas have more in common with those of Ben Franklin than with anyone now living, and he wouldn’t fit into either of today’s political parties. We’re written about that before — see Who Would Ben Franklin Support? In Ben’s mind there was no conflict between his politics and science; and it was the same with many of the Founders. Okay, never mind what your Curmudgeon and those other old fogies think, lets get on with the WND rant:
But the fact is that science, to put it as kindly as possible, is an imperfect science. Scientists are, after all, people. They are therefore as prone to being affected by greed, blind ambition and even ignorance as any of us.
We beg to differ. Scientists are far from perfect, but anyone motivated by greed, blind ambition, and ignorance would be likely to go into politics, or maybe some creationist religious sect. But Prelutsky has examples to support his claim. Get this:
For instance, for a great many years, they believed the Piltdown Man was the missing link. Instead, it, not he, was a rather clumsy hoax. We also had Pluto, which for a long time, was regarded as one of the planets in our solar system. Then, without warning, Pluto woke up one morning to find it had been demoted to the status of a plutoid.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We’ve written many times about what an ark-load of lunacy it is to use the Piltdown hoax as an argument against science — see Piltdown Man: The Creationists’ Savior. The claim that the reclassification of Pluto is an argument against science does occasionally pop up in creationist rants — but only in the most ignorant of that genre. It’s always some variation on: “Those infernal scientists were wrong about Pluto, and they’re wrong about evolution too!”
But that’s not all. Prelutsky has yet another example of the absolute failure of science:
And how many people are even aware that the Brontosaurus apparently never even existed? Unlike the Piltdown Man, it wasn’t an intentional fake. Instead, anthropologists mistakenly mixed up a few bones. What it was actually was something called an Apatosaurus.
Aha! Stupid scientists! Yes, the Brontosaurus was once considered a separate species, but after the fossils were re-examined, it was reclassified as an example of the previously discovered Apatosaurus.
We sense some kind of coherence of symptoms here. Prelutsky is consistent (in a completely bizarre way) regarding the reclassification of Pluto and Brontosaurus. He sees both as … well, evidence of cracks in the edifice of science, which indicate that the whole thing will soon tumble to the ground. But that’s not the extent of his case against science. Let’s read on:
Some would say that at least scientists eventually get around to correcting their mistakes. But until they do, they defend their beliefs by belittling doubters, generally labeling them as flat-earthers.
Yes, Prelutsky is definitely making a good point here. Scientists aren’t perfect — Pluto is proof of that! — yet they’re nasty and strident when belittling their critics. The lesson here, we assume, is that every time a scientist laughs at a creationist, the creationist should respond: “Oh yeah? What about Pluto?” That belongs in the creationist toolkit along with: “Were you there?”
We’re not yet halfway through Prelutsky’s article, but from here on it descends into other subjects: climate change, Obamacare, left-wing professors, and gay activism. We’ll let you click over to WND to read that material on your own. But maybe you shouldn’t. Aren’t you shamed enough by Pluto and Brontosaurus?
Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.