I agree. Their puzzling Creationism is the main reason I stopped visiting the home page very often a couple years ago. (The existence of the frequently-updated blog, which I visit often instead, is the other reason I don't read very many columns there.) I have started going to the home page more often in recent weeks, but quite frankly I was embarrassed to consider myself one of their ideological allies or colleagues with superstitious claptrap such as that coming out of nearly every one of them.I think their desire to appear as great iconoclasts, standing strong and proud against any and all "mainstream" or "conventional" ideas of the time, makes them reflexively oppose the idea of the evolution of species. If they were writing in the mid- or late 1800's, when the theory of evolution was still supported by a (growing) minority, I have little doubt that they would endorse the minority opinion. On this matter, because they are scientifically illiterate and/or religious nutjobs, they refuse to see any further into the matter than, "This is what goes against the prevailing ideas, so I'll believe it."I will say, though, that since Fred Reed is so honest and common-sensical most of the time, I might like to read those columns of his and see what makes sense and what I can refute.
Totally with you. Another thing that sometimes bothers me is their completely non-scientific articles on global warming. They have this idea that acceptance of global warming means accepting statism (which need not be the case).
Post a Comment