Normally I can't be bothered writing about such feeble minded drivel. I think mistakes like this are only worth discussing if there is a possibility I could be challenging an otherwise intelligent person's thinking. However what got my attention here me here is that she is using Dawkins' anti-religious rants to paint all scientists as irrational.
When I wrote my blog criticising Dawkins some people defended his inaccuracies saying they they wouldn't do any harm and they didn't understand why I was so annoyed. Well here is one reason why. It isn't the best example and I am sure there are plenty of others but i don't exactly read trash news very often and rarely get a chance to write about it, so I thought I'd take the opportunity here, along with a chance to try out a Hunter S. Thompson impression in the first paragraph.``For example, Professor Richard Dawkins' told me he was ‘not necessarily averse’ to the idea that life on earth had been created by a governing intelligence — provided that such an intelligence had arrived from another planet. How can it be that our pre-eminent apostle of reason appears to find little green men more plausible as an explanation for the origin of life than God?
The answer is that in certain areas science has overreached itself by trying to play God, and as a result has turned into an ideology.''
boy, there is a fine line between criticising and insulting somebody personally. you just crossed that line by a few lightyears. cant you make your point without shitting on somebody.
ReplyDeleteYou obviously haven't read any Hunter S Thompson then.
ReplyDeleteI think you need a better understanding of the use of hyperbole for humourous (well I hoped) effect..
And just to add that I didn't expect anyone reading this woul share Melanie Phillips view points or take them seriously. If I was addressing her or someone with a similar viewpoint I'd never use that kind of hyperbole. It was just to amuse and obviously has no persuasive power.
ReplyDelete