Creationists getting way more press than they deserve
I can’t stop what I’m doing right now and write a letter to the editor of NY Times, but I might have to.
This piece by Hanna Rosin really irks me…and, if I were in a slightly more angst mood, it might drive me to downright anger.
The way she goes out of her way to give these cranks a megaphone for the ridiculousness they spew is enough to make we want to take a walk to cool off a bit.
I simply don’t have the time to tear apart this ugly piece of journalism. The language feebly attempts to call them what they are (cranks), but never actually does it. And, then, she actually steps it up a bit with subtle implications of some “turning of the tide” amongst scientists. Like this piece of s@#t sentence:
Creationist ideas about geology tend to appeal to overly zealous amateurs, but this was a gathering of elites, with an impressive wall of diplomas among them (Harvard, U.C.L.A., the Universities of Virginia, Washington and Rhode Island). They had spent years studying the geologic timetable, but they remained nevertheless deeply committed to a different version of history.
Notice the well-placed “but” and mention of prestigious institutions. Nice try…but that doesn’t provide a single bit of support for their acceptance of a 6,000 year-old Earth. I don’t care where these people got their degrees…accepting the view that the vast majority of sedimentary rock on this planet is the result of a single flood a few thousand years ago is beyond ridiculous.
The scary potential result of an article like this is that your everyday normal NY Times reader might sit back and say “hmmm…I guess there is some disagreement within science regarding the age of the Earth”. Maybe only 1% of the readers, but that’s too many.
So, I call upon the free press of science bloggers to tear this apart. I don’t have the time right now. I’m sure Pharyngula and others will get on this if they haven’t already. Hanna Rosin needs to know she can’t get away with this crap.
I might break my keyboard.