|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 05/02/2004 : 03:52:51
|
quote:
NY Times. Hovind. I'm speechless.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PR for Hovind. In the goddamned New York Times.
I am fucking FURIOUS.
Everyone is selling out to these credulous, superstitious bastards
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=84295
Do read the NYT article skepticly before jumping off the deep end, one way or another. It's interesting and the link can be easily found in the thread.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
 Posted - 05/02/2004 : 04:30:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Do read the NYT article skepticly before jumping off the deep end, one way or another. It's interesting and the link can be easily found in the thread.
My impression of the article is that it was rather neutral. Realize though, that there are two pages of the article. I almost missed that. If you read only the first page you might think it biased. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2004 : 08:55:16 [Permalink]
|
| The article could have made it more clear that generally accepted scientific knowledge contradicts most of Dr. Dino's drivel. I think that would have given it some balance. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2004 : 10:40:29 [Permalink]
|
I think the article was pretty good, as far as it went. I thought it showed Hovind and Ham to be little more than a couple of hustlers. The family described were the usual fundie-followers. Not too shabby for a news organ that has to try and please everybody.
What suprised me, and what I'm wondering about, was the reaction to it in the thread. Some usually critical thinkers seem to have let their contempt for Hovind color their thinking considerably. The same happened on The Panda's Thumb. I see small difference, even in degree, in these reactions to the fundie rants against evolution.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2004 : 06:56:58 [Permalink]
|
filthy wrote:quote:
What suprised me, and what I'm wondering about, was the reaction to it in the thread. Some usually critical thinkers seem to have let their contempt for Hovind color their thinking considerably.
I concur. The OP over there, which you quoted in your OP, is a completely overblown reaction to that small article. An article which, it's pointed out in post 12, is in the Arts section of the NYT, and not in some more "scientific" place in the paper.
As one person said in the II thread:quote:
Sure, Kent Hovind is so wacky that the scientific thing to do is froth at the mouth in disbelief and outrage at his lies...
Seems to me that Hovind's lies are so old that frothing at the mouth is no longer even an option. One should, instead, simply give a nice melodramatic, put-upon sigh.
Another quote:quote:
this sort of utter, base, degenerate shit needs to be fought until all of our dying days.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the scientific community is simply not doing enough to counter this. We must be more proactive.
Yeah, nevermind all the media coverage for Project Steve, the wonderful PBS Evolution miniseries, the fact that evolution is taught in many schools, etc.
Finally, this person:quote:
We have a country full of really exception thinkers and scholars, many extremely bright people with important insights and yet, fucking morons get all the press, this is just sickening....
Seems to have missed the fact that the NYT article quoted Eugenie Scott. This II thread is almost an object lesson in how to be blinded by misplaced outrage. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2004 : 07:20:30 [Permalink]
|
Ouch! That nail's head must hurt 'cause you hit it.
I'm old enough that I no longer get upset over that sort of nonsense. But this one sort of suprised me. Most of the regulars at II seldom go off the deep end like that. Indeed, I think many did not read the whole article. Hovind's name was all they needed to see. :ka-boom!:
Friends, that ain't critical thinking and any skeptic guilty of it should be ashamed.
I'm watching it there and at the Thumb to see where it finally goes. P'raps it'll simply die, or maybe there'll be some reasonable discussion. We'll see.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2004 : 09:34:56 [Permalink]
|
Well, the Panda's Thumb discussion (after the OP) seems to me to be much more level-headed than II's. You'll notice that PZ Meyers posted the OPs in both places. He also "rants" about it here, and from there it seems Meyers' main problem is that the article "is all free advertising for a lying con man's cheap backyard playground, and his contemptible lies about science."
Now, since even a negative article could be seen in such a way (as many people believe there's no such thing as bad publicity), I would guess that Meyers' real problem is that Hovind is being mentioned at all. Meyers never mentions that the article is in the Arts section, and even goes so far as to say this:quote:
The reporter is someone named Abby Goodnough. I sure wish journalism schools actually required some intelligence and discrimination in their graduates, and that the NY Times actually had some standards and refused to hire these idiots.
Again, waaaaaaay over the line, in my opinion. Goodnough appears (from Googling) to be a well-respected reporter, who's even won at least one journalism award. Calling the Hovind piece "journalism," on the other hand, stretches credulity. It's obviously a fluff piece, jammed in a section of the paper probably not known for its hard-hitting reporting of controversial scientific subjects.
Does Meyers have a history of this sort of outrage at, say, the TV listings for X-Files repeats? There's got to have been some artist somewhere who's painted aliens in a work which later got reviewed in the NYT. Has Meyers written a rant about that? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2004 : 09:46:27 [Permalink]
|
| It wasn't an article about whether we should teach religious myths or science in science class, it was an article about creationists using sneaky methods, and parents who wish their kids to learn myths rather than skepticism and science. So from that perspective, as a descriptive article it was neutral. Of course I dislike the creationists though. |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2004 : 15:17:07 [Permalink]
|
| Yes, it was a "fluff" piece, and yes it was in the Arts section. I just don't see the average reader applying much critical thinking to the article. Anything printed in the newspaper gains some legimacy to many people. I think it could leave the impression that this operation demonstrates some semblance of scientific education, and that Hovind, with his busy lecture schedule, may actually have some credibility. I would expect the NYT at least to explicitly point out some of the more ludicrous aspects of the place, such as that the bowling ball will of course not hit you whether you believe in god's laws or not. I see this as a symptom of the larger problem of believing that differing viewpoints on a subject are all equal. The media in many cases seems to be afraid to offend a sizeable portion of their audience, even if that offence is caused by telling the truth. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2004 : 19:52:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
NY Times. Hovind. I'm speechless.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PR for Hovind. In the goddamned New York Times.
I am fucking FURIOUS.
Everyone is selling out to these credulous, superstitious bastards
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=84295
Do read the NYT article skepticly before jumping off the deep end, one way or another. It's interesting and the link can be easily found in the thread.
Like you haven't enjoyed quite a few years as being the primary fact taught children in school!!!! Yet with no facts to back you up, other than scientific mumbo jumbo...where do we observe evoluions missing parts? The ones that didn't work out. I guess we should always see order in a theroy designed from perfection and not allowed to be critized. Good day gentleman.... |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2004 : 21:18:08 [Permalink]
|
| Verlch, please read what the topic is before posting your comments. Please. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
