Monday, July 09, 2007

Sometimes, the word "irony" just isn't enough.


Courtesy of Canada's screeching, Catholic loon (no, that would be Canada's other screeching Catholic loon), we have a perfectly plausible conspiracy theory involving, oh, the world's entire scientific community:

In the wake of frantic efforts to discredit biochemist Mike Behe's new book, The Edge of Evolution, a lawyer friend writes to say,

Asking the mainstream science community to declare that new discoveries in molecular biology and DNA render materialism inadequate to explain life is like asking someone to declare that his skills have become outmoded and obsolete, unable to solve the new problems facing us. To ask someone to declare his own obsolescence triggers some pretty strong emotions, and some powerful emotional resistance, and counter-accusations. In the words of the poet Dylan Thomas, they "Do not go gentle into that good night" and they "rage, rage against the dying of the light." Thus, the emotional vehemence exhibited by the mainstream side is what we should expect, ...

Yes, exactly. And I have seen it in so many venues - social workers discussing welfare dependency, teachers discussing the relationship between strict standards and performance, police officers discussing the usefulness of current drug laws, dieticians discussing the usefulness of weight loss diets, media people denying a liberal bias* that is confirmed by virtually every political science study - NO ONE wants to hear findings, however impeccably produced and presented, that challenge the routine thinking with which their prospects and prestige are entangled.

Denyse would have been happy to further expound on the reluctance of people to hear findings that challenge their thinking but, sadly, she was already late for her church group meeting where she was going to present on the inviolability of Catholic Church doctrine, including the Holy Trinity, transubstantiation and the joys of a geocentric universe.

Oh, and the evils of Teh Homos. That, too.

20 comments:

thwap said...

Yeah, ... religions sure were graceful in dealing with their (apparently temporary) lack of authority over explaining the universe, what?

I'm afraid that there are a lot of social workers who believe in "dependency theory." And cops who like tough drug laws. I've no idea why he thinks dieticians feel threatened by weight-loss diets.

What this particular "right-wing Catholic loon" is doing, is what most right-wing doofusi hypocritically complain about: Engaging in the dreaded 'ad hominmen attack.' Claiming that criticisms of Behe's pro-God stance must be based on irrational insecurities rather than hard science.

Here's Publishers Weekly:

"Furthermore, he repeatedly refers to the shortcomings of "Darwin's theory-the power of natural selection coupled to random mutation," but current biological theory encompasses far more than this simplistic view. Most important, Behe reaches the controversial conclusion that the workings of an intelligent designer is the only reasonable alternative to evolution, even without affirmative evidence in its favor."

Ti-Guy said...

I just can't be bothered with these people anymore; they're suffering from some sort of corruption of the spirit that requires them to see any challenge to their sophistic arguments as eminating from some dark place. People like that are sociopathic.

Denyse is also a big ol' liar. On what basis can she qualify this statement:

media people denying a liberal bias* that is confirmed by virtually every political science study.

Virtually every one? Well, list them, please.

Grog said...

As long as Behe's new book is based on the same daft thesis as "Darwin's Black Box", it remains junk science at best.

Argument by incredulity is not, to my mind, ever a persuasive form of reasoning.

Scotian said...

I see Ti-Guy noted the exact same piece of fiction unsupported by evidence in that statement that I did. For me, anyone that claims there is a "liberal media bias" in either Canada’s or America's MSM shows they are not terribly interested in reality since no such objective evidence has ever supported this claim. Inferences and speculations based on the voting practices of reporters does not mean that their work is inherently influenced, not to mention the fact that it is editors and publishers and producers that tend to have the final say on what is and is not in a media piece. Confirmation bias based "evidence" is even more suspect than the inference standard used about how reporters vote proving bias, and yet between the two is every single so called proof of liberal media bias I have seen to date, which is why I treat anyone that believes in it as inherently a waste of time to talk/argue with since they clearly are going to insist upon their own facts from their conservative approved sources are right/true and claim that facts from MSM that dispute their "facts" are a product of that same media bias and therefore false/unreliable/lies. I've been hit with that one too many times over the years to bother anymore.

mikmik said...

If they stuck even minutely to the standards they hold scientists to, Iders/creationists wouldn't even get started. They would resign before they even opened their silly mouths because the holes in logic and lack of any tangible evidence for their own unsubstaniated viewpoints are absurdly overwhelming in relation to what they claim against evolution (even if true, which they aren't).

mikmik said...

NO ONE wants to hear findings, however impeccably produced and presented, that challenge the routine thinking with which their prospects and prestige are entangled

They are living, breathing, OXYMORONIC morons. They epitomize psychologic projection so much so that it seems, at most times, every criticism or claim they make applies directly, immediately, relentlessy, TO THEMSELVES!!

amosbsk said...

The irony here is watching you fucking morons try to define "irony". You tiny-headed pukes wouldn't know irony if it actually came to life and bit you on the arse.

thwap said...

Ouch.

amosbsk, ... would you care to elaborate?

Us fucking moron tiny-headed pukes crave enlightenment.

amosbsk said...

Thwap, you fucking retard. You use an ad hominem attack to accuse O'Leary of ad hominem attacks, and can't understand why I say you are too fucking stupid to recognize irony?

Crabgrass said...

Irony is like on page 14 Chapter 1 when Trevor is the one who ends up with the donut that has ketchup instead of real strawberry jam. LOL!!

Amos? Is that right?

CC said...

I believe you're all starting to understand why I refuse to debate these imbeciles.

thwap said...

amosbk,

But it was and ad hominem attack my sweet, sweet friend! And he wrote it before I knew anything about him or the subject.

He's claiming that the critics of this Behe fellow are merely insecure about their obsolescence, without address their concerns.

And then he makes a bunch of bizarre comparisons.

Once he's done that, am I supposed to extend him some sort of debating courtesy?

I mean, you, yourself are pretty free with the content-free insults, ... and supposedly your rage is caused by our "incivility"?

It must be rough having shit for brains. You have all these great hopes, and plans, and ideas, ... but everything is inevitably just stupid nonsense, and you sink deeper and deeper into a pit of failure and despair.

You have my condolences.

Adam C said...

amosbsk, you "tiny headed puke", you, an ad hominem attack is when you besmirch your opponent's credibility rather than presenting evidence relevant to the subject of the discussion.

In this case, the subject of CC's post is that Denyse is an idiot. He presents evidence relevant to that subject, which proceeds to be discussed in the comments.

Certainly this represents a personal attack; but not all personal attacks are ad hominem. For instance, when I call you a "fucking moron", that's just me being a jerk.

amosbsk said...

Thwap, after all your blathering bullshit, you still cannot demonstrate an appreciation for what irony actually is. And O'Leary is a woman, fuck-face, which shows you to be a lazy fuck who doesn't actually read the source material, as well as too fucking retarded to understand the fucking post itself, let alone make judgements about it.

As for you, adam, you obviously cannot read. I couldn't give a shit about who uses ad hominem, my point had to do with shithead's inability to recognize irony. His use of ad hominem was only an example to show my point. Buy a fucking dictionary and look up "example" and the other words too big for your fucking little pea-brain, so that next time you feel the need to add a comment about things too difficult for you to understand, you won't come off as completely retarded, just slightly so.

thwap said...

Holy Christ,

You're an angry little thing, aren't you?

I guess it's really, really frustrating for you, so I'll try to be gentle.

No, darling, I didn't read the source material. After being subjected to decades of the right-wing nonsense that's savaged here, I don't feel that I should subject myself to more than is necessary.

So, I'm basing my estimation on this man, woman (who cares?) writer, on the snippet that CC provided.

If that sends you flying off into a towering rage of profanities and insults, I'm sorry, but it's not like I owe you anything.

The "irony" of the situation (which you've revealed yourself too obtuse to grasp) is that this idiot whom you're so enamoured of, is accusing evolutionary biologists of irrationality and sour grapes, when it's really the grasping-at-straws creationists who have been unable to reconcile themselves with the world's scientific consensus.

What I found ironic, was that this writer appears unable to muster a coherent argument as to why evolutionary biologist's are wrong and Behe is right about "intelligent design" and so she resorts to an ad hominem argument about their insecurities, rather than their scientific concerns.

And what I find amusing, is that you find our little commentary on this so infuriating that you come charging in with "fuck-face"-this, and "shit-head" that, and "retard" insults, ... probably because you're (as usual) too stupid to know you're wrong yet again.

You see, once you've displayed for all the world to see that you're an empty-headed imbecile, then you're fair game for scorn, derision. AFTER you demolish someone's credibility, your insults are just garnish, as opposed to ad hominem arguments that are intended to be all you have to offer.

Again, I sense that your life is frustrating indeed, what with the limitations you're cursed with.

Alison said...

That Behe, he's a regular Galileo.

amosbsk said...

Sadly, but predictably, you've still got your head up your arse, thwap. The real irony here is that the dipshit who runs this place spends every moment he posts doing exactly what he accuses O'Leary of doing, but tries to pass it off as "snark". And you, and all the rest of the moronic seals who inhabit this place, clap your little flippers in glee, not seeing his antics for what they are.

You really should try thinking for yourself sometime.

M@ said...

But Amos S.B.K., we still have your respect, right? Because, to me, that's all that matters...

Adam C said...

You use an ad hominem attack to accuse O'Leary of ad hominem attacks and can't understand why I say you are too fucking stupid to recognize irony?

I couldn't give a shit about who uses ad hominem, my point had to do with shithead's inability to recognize irony.

Fuck you too.

thwap said...

amosbsk,

Sadly, if anyone's sadly predictable here, it's you, amosbsk.

So, so, sad.