This is the news you’ve been waiting for, dear reader. For the last month, ever since we wrote Who Will Be the Discoveroids’ Censor of the Year?, the suspense has been building to almost intolerable levels. [*Spoiler alert*]: In the comments to that post, one of our long-time readers correctly guessed the answer.
Now — at last! — the suspense is ended. Klinghoffer just posted this at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog: Happy Darwin Day! Our 2018 Censor of the Year Is Wikipedia. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:
Today is the birthday of Charles Darwin, aka Darwin Day, which we recognize each year as the occasion for naming a Censor of the Year, or COTY. As Darwin himself said, in a scientific context, “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” But through intimidation and silencing of views counter to evolutionary orthodoxy, such a “fair result” is just what our Censor seeks to undermine.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! As we pointed out before, the Discoveroids aren’t the only proponents of a “theory” who are subject to such censorship. There’s also Flat Earth “theory,” the Time Cube, Moon landing denial, etc. We never mentioned this before, but your Curmudgeon is also the victim of censorship. No respectable journal will publish our brilliant theory that the Cosmic Aardvark created the solar system. Anyway, Klinghoffer says:
Thank you, readers, for your nominations. For 2018, we’ve chosen what is I think our best, or rather worst, COTY yet: the omnipresent online encyclopedia, Wikipedia. Let’s review the facts briefly.
[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh! [*End Drool Mode*] Yes, in retrospect, it seems inevitable — ever since Discoveroid Günter Bechly Has Been ‘Erased’. Anyway, here’s a bit of Klinghoffer’s fact review:
Intelligent design poses an ultimate question: Does nature offer evidence of purpose and design, or not? All thoughtful people must ask themselves that. Today, the natural first recourse for the questioning individual is to turn to Google. Looking up ID online will bring you immediately, the first entry, to the Wikipedia article. It commences with a lie:
[He quotes the Wikipedia “lie”:] Intelligent design (ID) is a religious argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as “an evidence-based scientific theory about life’s origins”, though it has been discredited as pseudoscience.
Klinghoffer fails to mention that Wikipedia’s second paragraph refers to Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, which clearly supports what their first paragraph states. Instead, he elaborates on what he says is a “lie”:
Actually, three lies. Here’s the truth [Hee hee!]: ID is a scientific not a religious argument. It is a theory of evolution, of why the forms of life originated and changed over the past 3.9 billion years. An alternative to the increasingly shaky neo-Darwinian theory of blind churning, it argues exclusively in scientific terms, never from religious authority. It’s an argument for design in biology and cosmology, not for the “existence of God.” Compatible with methodological naturalism, it candidly professes that science sheds no light on the source of the design in life, other than to say that source operates with purpose and forethought. And while it has certainly been attacked in scabrous terms, it hasn’t been “discredited.” Far from it. Even an atheist philosopher like Thomas Nagel concedes that ID poses a “fiendishly difficult” challenge.
Nagel? [*Groan*] We discussed his view long ago — see Discovery Institute: How They Spent Kitzmas. After that, Klinghoffer rants on and on for several paragraphs. We’ll skip all that. Here’s the end of his post:
Fortunately, the public is increasingly sensitized both to fakery on the Internet (“fake news”) and agenda-driven behind-the-scenes shenanigans at online behemoths like Twitter and Facebook. And as we’ve pointed out, it’s not only ID that is misrepresented on Wikipedia. It can only be hoped that skepticism will spread, and drive Internet users to examine other sources and, yes, to think and read for themselves, without being led by the nose.
So there you are, dear reader. From now on, if you want The Truth™, you’ll know to avoid Wikipedia.
Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.