After a student mentioned seeing Exodus Decoded to me after class today, I found myself thinking about one positive aspect of scholarly blogging, and of web-based scholarly publications and sites in general. When a documentary, a book, an article or an interview appears making sensational claims, the response is immediate in a way that was not possible even a few years ago. Once upon a time, a sensational claim would be made on TV or in a book, and then perhaps a few scholars might get interviewed by newspapers about it, and eventually books and articles responding to the claims would appear in print.
Today, we have live-blogging of documentaries, as scholars and other individuals watch a documentary and comment on it as it happens. If anything, the danger is that we may respond too hastily nowadays.
Potentially, this is a good thing, but I still wonder how many people interested in a given subject find the scholarly critiques and analyses in the ocean of the web.
In other news, Bill Dembski continues to make ludicrous claims. Note that he claims there is a “mafia” that attacks cdesign proponentsists. Isn’t it interesting that excellent scientists like Ken Miller, Francisco Ayala, Francis Collins who happen to be Christians don’t find themselves persecuted for the open adherence to the Christian faith? Unless, of course (like some American Christians with a persecution complex), you define persecution as anyone disagreeing with you.
I’ve addressed the clear evidence against an “evolutionist conspiracy” before. Given that the idea is so ludicrous in face of the evidence, an obvious question to ask is why it continues to be not only made but believed. The answer is obvious. The alternative is to acknowledge that the vast majority of scientists and other educated individuals are rejecting Intelligent Design based on its merits (or lack thereof), and that is too painful for Bill Dembski and those on his bandwagon to bear, and so an implausible accusation of conspiracy helps soothe the pain to their egos.
The good news is that this gives us a clear definition of the difference between scientists and a cdesign proponentsists. Scientists are people who at least aim to be so dedicated to the pursuit of truth and understanding that their ideas must be subjected to careful scrutiny and abandoned if they do not meet their discipline’s stringent criteria of evidence. Intelligent Design is about being committed to a five-year plan to promote one’s ideology and shield it from criticism, even if one has to make ludicrous accusations in order to do so.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In