That recent D’Souza article is a rich vein of lunacy that I have to tap once more. D’Souza has additional tools to woo conservatives in his toolbox: how about the naturalistic fallacy?
That recent D’Souza article is a rich vein of lunacy that I have to tap once more. D’Souza has additional tools to woo conservatives in his toolbox: how about the naturalistic fallacy?
So the Republicans find themselves confused about science (especially evolution), and are arguing among themselves about how to cope with reality. Perhaps you think this is a promising development—they’re at least considering the issues, and their hidebound attachment to fantasy is weakening. Can we someday hope that the Republican Party will once again be the home of pragmatists? Will the political props supporting creationism disappear? Does the fact that only 3 of the Republican candidates raised their hands to deny evolution promise that reason may yet reign?
No. There is another tactic growing stronger in the ranks of the creationists, one that is stealthy and devious, and I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the majority of Republicans (and Democrats!) adhere to this peculiar view of evolution.
For a perfect example of the new creationist strategy, look to Dinesh D’Souza. Not only is he a good example, but he’s also stupid enough to let all the flaws and inconsistencies in this new view hang out, exposed for all to see.
Christopher Hitchens’ appearance on the Daily Show was a disappointment—largely because Hitchens seemed to be half in the bag, and Stewart kept stepping all over his words trying to make them funny, and the short format was not to the favor of a fellow who tends to speak in complete sentences and paragraphs. So how about a half hour interview with an alert Hitchens, with an interviewer who’s interested in hearing what he has to say, and gives him the opportunity to speak at more length? Here’s Hitchens on the Charlie Rose show.
Much better, even if I disagreed strongly with Hitchens on much of what he said.
More than half of the interview is taken up with discussing the Iraq war. I agree with Hitchens’ assessment that an important nation in the Middle East is on the road to destruction, that it is going to be a failed state, and that by pulling out we diminish the power of the US in the region. I also agree that it is a great tragedy, and that leaving Iraq will mean many of our supporters will die. Where I disagree, though, is that Hitchens thinks the war was inevitable and necessary, and that the US did the right thing by invading. I say we sowed the seeds of defeat when our government decided the appropriate response was to invade with crushing force, and make Iraq a treasure chest to be looted by military contractors. The current ongoing debacle can be blamed directly on the credulous boosters for war as a prerequisite for nation building, of whom Hitchens was one.
The last half is a discussion of his new book, God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). I haven’t read it yet—my copy is supposed to arrive this next week—but I’m looking forward to it, and there’s some hope from this interview that it will be a solid piece of work. This part of the interview was much less contentious than the first half, I thought — I’d be curious to see what a Christian pro-war Republican would say, though.
No, not the Republican presidential candidates: you’ve got your choice of a blooming corpse flower named Perry or a six-legged hermaphroditic cow.
I do think the next Republican debate would be enlivened by the presence of these two. I’d vote for Perry.
4 May 1970: the Kent State murders.
I almost missed it—today is Thomas Henry Huxley’s birthday. There are some good photos at that link. The man certainly had a fine beard in his younger days, but I admit the cleanshaven look is how I always picture him.
If you’ve been looking forward to that debate between Ray Comfort/Kirk Cameron and the Rational Response Squad, it has been rescheduled. It will occur tomorrow, 5 May, in New York, but you won’t be able to see it until 9 May.
It will be streamed from ABC.com on Wednesday, 9 May, at 1:00pm EST.
Comfort claims he can prove the existence of god in 13 minutes. We’ve been waiting millennia for this amazing proof. I look forward to racing towards my nearest church (which happens to be Catholic) at 1:13 EST 5 days from now. Or do you think I should arrange to watch it with a priest so he can bless me or shrive me or give me a cracker or hear my confession or bugger me or dunk me in a tank of water or whatever magic they do to make sure I get to heaven as quickly as possible? I’m hoping it’s just the enchanted cracker, especially since that will fall during the lunch hour here in the midwest.
Is it true that the cracker tastes like raw pork?
Hey, not many carnival announcements this week. You know, if you’ve got a carnival that is in some way related to science, biology, godlessness, academia — my usual obsessions — feel free to send me notices and I’ll mention them in my weekly carnival roundup.
Next week’s Tangled Bank will be at Epigenetics News. send your science links in to me or host@tangledbank.net before 9 May.
This is an open thread. Go to it!
Knocked another one down — I finished the grades for the last exam in my genetics course (there is still an optional final next Friday). This was an important one, because I promised myself that if I could get them all done this afternoon, I would let myself go to the local theater to watch Spiderman 3 tonight. Those little internal incentives help a lot!
Grimpoteuthis is a cephalopod so cute, now it’s being compared to Pikachu. That’s harsh. Being plump and adorable is a good way to get kicked out of the savage monster club.
I know. I’ve been there.