This is a strange one from the Discovery Institute, but that’s not surprising. Everything they churn out these days is strange. It appears at their creationist blog: Scientists Aren’t Exempt from Feelings, Any More Than the Public Is.
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. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:
Amanda Freise makes a fine point in a post for Scientific American, It’s Time for Scientists to Stop Explaining So Much. [It’s an article at their blog.] She’s a PhD student in molecular and medical pharmacology at UCLA and has evidently made a study of research on science communication. She concludes that scientists shouldn’t be shocked if loading more technical information on the public doesn’t dissuade them from skeptical views on certain controversial issues.
We’ve all seen that nothing will change a creationist’s mind. Does Klinghoffer agree? We’ll find out:
She doesn’t mention evolution, but she could have done so. Freise explains that many of her colleagues still hold a “widely discredited” idea, the “deficit model,” which says that if only people could be supplied with enough of the right information, they would come around and believe what they are supposed to. It’s not so, however.
Very true. That’s what keeps the Discoveroids in business. Then he quote from the Scientific American blog article, but we haven’t verified the quote:
There are other approaches to communication which provide alternative methods to opening dialogue with skeptical audiences. For instance, contextualization suggests that science must be presented in the context of a person’s values, beliefs, and personal experience. Scientists accustomed to making decisions purely based on evidence, without the influence of feelings or personal values, may find this to be an onerous task.
It’s difficult to imagine trying that with a creationist. What is Klinghoffer going to do with this? His post is chaotic, and we’re still not sure. See if you can figure it out:
I don’t expect that Amanda Freise will be sympathetic to this — after all, she seems more interested in redirecting skepticism toward an embrace of orthodoxy [Hee hee!] — but engaging with “personal experience” is exactly what some of the best evolutionary skeptics do.
Ah yes, the “best evolutionary skeptics” — presumably the Discoveroids — like to engage with personal experience. That’s how science should be done! Klinghoffer continues:
Advocates of intelligent design appeal to the daily observation that only intelligent agents generate information of the kind we find in computer code, magazine articles, and the like, the very same kind of information we find in DNA.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! DNA is just like a magazine article! Here’s more:
Douglas Axe in his new book, [link omitted], shows that the intuition of design in nature is valid, being based on our “personal experience” of how expertise is brought to bear in invention. As he points out, a bed is not made, an omelet is not made, unless someone makes them. It’s no different with organisms: with the design of an orca, a spider, or a crane.
No comment necessary. Moving along:
In the evolution controversy, the context we know best, here’s how the dynamic works. So much hinges on the dread of “creationism.” No one should ever forget the power of that scare word, “creationist,” with all it implies by way of not only scientific but social opprobrium. Though ID is emphatically not creationism, being called “creationists” is something ID proponents face every day. This is the major way in which the orthodox, including scientists, confuse the public in order to tamp down dissent and skepticism.
It’s good to know that being called creationists really bothers the Discoveroids. We intend to continue calling them such — because that’s what they are. Another excerpt:
In the minds of many, in science and in the media, merely to question the evidence that Darwinian processes explain life is to shame and taint yourself through association with “creationism.” Of course this would make even Alfred Russel Wallace, co-discoverer with Darwin of the theory of evolution by natural selection, a “creationist.”
Wallace was a creationist, at least late in his life — see Discoveroids Adopt Alfred Wallace as Godfather. On with the article:
However absurd, the term “creationist” is an effective prophylactic against thought, which is why, if I had my way, it would be retired from all discussion. Language should clarify and distinguish, not muddy and blur. Any lower standard is a hallmark of propaganda.
Creationism is a “prophylactic against thought.” And now we come to the end:
But propaganda is effective even with scientists. No, they are hardly more exempt from the “influence of feelings” than the public is. Recognizing that, and its flipside — that intuition can sometimes be valid, cutting through reams of obscure technical data — would help advance the conversation about evolution. Maybe about some other controversies in science, too.
Feelings, intuition, and personal experience. That’s the method humanity used to practice, before the Age of Enlightenment. And it’s still the preferred method of the Discoveroids.
Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.