On rare occasions we upset many of our readers by posting about your Curmudgeon’s political thinking. Twice before we’ve mentioned that although Republicans may appear to be the anti-science party, they have no monopoly on idiocy. Our last post on that touchy topic was a couple of years ago: Is Your Political Party Really Pro-Science?, in which we said:
Our conclusion is that both parties, like the population as a whole, are mostly ignorant of science, but they tend to have confidence in science where it doesn’t conflict with their other opinions — like religion, environmentalism, “social justice,” etc. In other words, the parties are driven by ideology, not science.
There’s been some news coverage recently about a column by Jonah Goldberg in National Review, of which he is a Senior Editor. The title is Who Are the Real Deniers of Science? When denying science is a progressive moral imperative. It’s mostly about climate change — which Goldberg doesn’t deny. Instead, he discusses government policies about it, some of which are purely political and very debatable. Evolution isn’t mentioned at all.
In deference to our readers’ sensitivities, we ignored Goldberg’s article. However, a post about it just showed up at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog: Leaving Evolution Skeptics Out of a Discussion of Suppressing Scientific Dissent.
It was written by David Klinghoffer, a Discoveroid “senior fellow” (i.e., flaming, full-blown creationist), who eagerly functions as their journalistic slasher and poo flinger. We’ll give you a few excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis.
After quoting from and mostly praising Goldberg’s article, he says:
He [Goldberg] goes on, and there’s hardly a word to disagree with. Except there is no mention of the subject on which censors have done the most to silence dissenters. That subject is Darwinian theory, of course. Not one word.
So what? Creationism — ooops, intelligent design advocacy — isn’t what Goldberg wrote about. Klinghoffer is furious at the omission. He tells us:
I’m unsure how you’d prove this, but it’s certainly my sense that the intimidation directed against Darwin doubters puts in the shade the intimidation directed at, say, skeptics on climate change.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That’s because the “Darwin doubters” have as much scientific credibility as Moon-landing deniers. Klinghoffer thinks otherwise, of course. Let’s read on:
The social intimidation is so intense that even conservatives [like Goldberg, presumably] leave evolution out of a discussion about denying scientific dissent.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We might have missed something, but we’ve never seen the slightest hint that Goldberg is a creationist. If he didn’t mention the Discoveroids’ pet issue of the “social intimidation” faced by creationists, it’s probably because he doesn’t think it’s worth mentioning.
Klinghoffer continues with an example of someone who fears that if he came out positively for intelligent design, “I would probably be in danger of losing my job.” Regarding that presumably closeted creationist, Klinghoffer says:
He’s correct, and he’s chosen the right word to describe the treatment of ID scientists: “persecution.” Say the wrong thing, think the wrong thing, and your career is over.
Oh, the horror! Here’s how Klinghoffer wraps it up:
That’s likely true in some contexts for climate skeptics, but to the same extent? I’m inclined to doubt it.
Actually, Darwin deniers and other creationists can often find jobs teaching at bible colleges. As for climate change skeptics, your Curmudgeon doesn’t follow that issue, so we have no idea what alternatives they have. Klinghoffer may not know either. He’s only concerned about creationists. Hey — if the Discovery Institute were to shut down, what employment alternatives does he have? That’s probably what’s really on his mind.
Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.