Barking Mad

Looks like it’s the season of dumb commentaries.


There are two major obstacles to a rich public discussion on Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and what it means to all of us.

The most obvious obstacle is religious literalism, which leads to Creationism. It’s the belief the Bible or other ancient sacred texts offer the first and last word on how humans came into existence.

The second major barrier to a rewarding public conversation about the impact of evolution on the way we understand the world is not named nearly as much.

It is “scientism.”

Scientism is the belief that the sciences have no boundaries and will, in the end, be able to explain everything in the universe. Scientism can, like religious literalism, become its own ideology.

The Encyclopedia of Science, Technology and Ethics defines scientism as “an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of natural science to be applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences and the humanities).”

Okaaaaay, to be honest I have never really come across the term “scientism” but I will grant this guy the argument. But then I would ask the question, so what? Science (and consequently, the scientists) has always tackled whatever issues that come forth. I mean scientists have (kinda) solved the itch issue. So, yes, there are no boundaries for science be it a test space mission to Mars or why we fall in love.

Then this douchbag falls off the rails.

Those who unknowingly fall into the trap of scientism act as if hard science is the only way of knowing reality. If something can’t be “proved” through the scientific method, through observable and measurable evidence, they say it’s irrelevant.

Scientism is terribly limiting of human understanding. It leaves little or no place for the insights of the arts, philosophy, psychology, literature, mythology, dreams, music, the emotions or spirituality.

This has got to be dumbest thing I have heard. Read the highlighted part again. And mull over what this idiot just said. As far as I can tell, he says that if a scientist says “I can explain, through science, why when you look at the Mona Lisa, you admire the painting”, you will actually STOP admiring the painting. So if a scientist can explain to us why we fall in love, we will actually stop falling in love. The authour is basically saying : leave the “mysteries” alone.

In general, scientism leaves little or no place for the imagination, which Albert Einstein, after all, said is “everything.”

And then of course his creationism comes pouring forth :

While I am not at all persuaded by Creationists who believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, I also have trouble with those who claim science can only support the atheistic proposal that evolution is a result of pure chance.

Such people maintain orthodox science cannot contemplate the possibility that the evolutionary process may include elements of purpose. This is an example of scientism.

Holy crap….dude, you ARE A CREATIONIST. Just because you say you don’t agree with die hard creationists does not make you any less of a creationist. “Element of purpose”? What the fuck does that even mean? It really irritates me to hear sanctimonious assholes like this guy to pooh pah the creationists and then say exactly what they are saying.

I think the proposal that humans evolved over billions of years from simpler life forms is a no-brainer.

However, I don’t believe either Darwin or neo-Darwinists have yet devised a complete picture of how evolution happens, or what drives it.

Of course it isn’t, it’s called scientific discovery. And what the scientists have so far is pretty accurate.To argue otherwise is to fly in the face of facts, in the face of reason and in the face of every innocent child looking at you for an honest explaination.

Here is the icing on the cake :

In other words…..(in the)….. viewpoint (that) represents that of many scientists, appears to believe that any discussion of evolution that does not uphold chance as the only driving force is ridiculous.

This is blinkered.

It defaults to atheism. And it assumes incorrectly that what we believe, and the way we live, is always based on provable “facts,” which do not include conjecture, speculation or imagination.

And there you have it. The whole fucking point of this opinion piece was to fault atheism….like I said – Barking Mad. And the rest of the post deginarates into a whiny, crybaby piece about how science is ruining spirituality and philosophy and it is worth reading if only to see how lunatic the authour sounds.

Update (via CanadianCynic): Wow!! Canada’s dumbest blogger likes this column. What a fucking surprise!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s