Thursday, August 06, 2009

There are no words.


Seriously, I have no snark sufficiently snarky for this. And the Blogging Tories sink one more notch into the lagoon of stupidness.

HOW TO RECOGNIZE RELIGIOUS CRAP WHEN YOU SEE IT
. If you follow the appropriate links, you learn that Mr. Ball is gushing over one Nancy Pearcey, whose puffed-up bio reads thusly:

Biosketch: Nancy Randolph Pearcey is the Francis A. Schaeffer scholar at the World Journalism Institute. Having studied under Schaeffer at L'Abri in the 1970s, Pearcey earned an MA from Covenant Theological Seminary, followed by further graduate work in philosophy at the Institute for Christian Studies in Toronto. She has authoried or contributed to several works, including The Soul of Science and How Now Shall We Live? Her latest book Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity won an Award of Merit in the Christianity Today 2005 Book Awards, and the ECPA Gold Medallion Award for best book of the year in the Christianity & Society category.

And what do we know about the vaunted "World Journalism Institute?" Oh:

The mission of the World Journalism Institute is to recruit, equip, place and encourage journalists who are Christians in the mainstream newsrooms of America.

In short, our Ms. Pearcey knows absolutely nothing about nothing, except for religion. I'm thinking she really doesn't have any qualifications to be lecturing the rest of us about science, if you catch my drift.

3 comments:

Marc said...

check out David Warren's latest writing (on darwin also)

http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/

I don't think it can get much worst.

PeterC said...

Have you ever noticed that every time someone makes a criticism of creationism, say "Teaching creationism reduces the knowledge and thoughtfulness of the student." The response of "Neener Neener. No! Your belief in evolution really makes you the stupid one"

Seriously, any argument I've ever seen between people who use evolution to figure out the world and creationists ends that way.

ADHR said...

Wait, what? She hitches Darwin to Dewey (which seems backwards to me), Dewey to James (ignoring their conflicts), James to Rorty (ignoring their disagreements), ignores Peirce (and, for that matter, Quine, Putnam and the other neopragmatists), pretends Wittgenstein didn't exist....

Holy hell, the stupid, it truly burns.