Now, over at Post Darwinist, Denyse O'Leary draws our atttention to Moyers next career, that of pop-genticist. In a discussion with one Barack Obama, Moyers gets Biblical, points to the violence of the Old Testament, and concludes,
"So God-soaked violence became genetically coded."The implications of this were not lost on the Jewish Anti-Defamation League. But Moyers of course denied that he meant what he said.
Here are some of the implications, according to Denyse:
The specific contribution of pop culture Darwinism to this episode is the notion that "God-soaked violence" is "genetically coded." If so:Denyse goes on to point out that a) genes have physical characteristics, and no-one has identified a "violence" gene; b) the use of gratuitous and fatuous evolutionary statements reflect badly on the thought processes of the issuer; and c) pop-Darwinism is way easier to concoct than is actual irrefutable fact.
1. No one is responsible for their violent behaviour, so both sides are off the hook and we can all quit blaming anyone.
2. Violent conflicts are probably irresolvable. (You may as well try to teach non-violence to grizzly bears.)
3. It wouldn't make any difference what Deuteronomy says because people are genetically coded for violence. So even God is off the hook. (Dawkins, check your mail.)
4. Deuteronomy is not a legend, as some claim, but can be invoked as a source of historical information, including information about genetics.
To which I might add, not only is it easier to concoct, it is easier to create a worldview from the concoction. For this reason it is not just not science, it is anti-rational and it is dangerous.
In fact, this is a case where the supposed genetic link was concocted purely out of a worldview: Atheist anti-Semitism, the barely suppressed rage of American Leftists.
Fortunately I suspect that Moyers is not a cultural molder or intellectual driver in any sense. I think Moyers mostly preaches to the choir, which already hates the same things that he does.
4 comments:
Dawkins would be the first person to reject such genetic fallacies, Stan. I've read Dawkins and he's rather clear on the point that he's a Darwinian when it comes to biology, and little else.
Moyers doesn't know what he's talking about, obviously, but that doesn't mean he's harboring any secret animus against Jews. He's a former Baptist minister who went to college in the 1950's, used a high-profile position in the Johnson Administration to leverage a new career as a journalist. He was in the White House nearly fifty years ago, before the genetic code was broken. It would be surprising if he actually had a good understanding of molecular genetics given his background.
Oh, and this will probably seem arrogant, but really....you bother reading Denyse O'Leary? She's a hack who doesn't understand the science she criticizes and often fails to understand the critiques of her own work. Frankly, in a debate setting regarding evolution or ID, I would crush her, and I'm just a high school science teacher. I mean, I can understand that you're sympathetic to the ID position and all, but you could at least choose someone who knows what they're talking about, rather than Bill Dembski's parrot.
Denyse O'Leary is a viewpoint into the intellectual oppression of opposition critics in the New World of Canada under hate laws, which are being applied solely to Christian critics of such things as evolution and the gay lifestyle... a view into what will come next in the USA. O'Leary is a journalist, not a scientist. Yet she is able to report about non-mainstream viewpoints and scientists who cannot get published due to their heretical, anti-dogmatic viewpoints.
I rather think that referring to a journalist as a "parrot" is rather flattering, although it is unique in this day of activist Leftist journalists. If ALL journalists were parrots of the world they see, we would be better off. But most journalists seem to want to be reconstructionist activist commentators, instead. This is where Moyers fits.
However, I do see your point of being a parrot for another person's viewpoint, such as the entire mainstream media bowing in total obeisance to Obama and the Socialism We Can.
It is very difficult to find news and information that is non-mainstream-dogma. That means that I have to sort through a lot of stuff to find any counterpoints.
If all one wants is mainstream drivel, then avoid all the outside the box journalists, by all means.
Oh, and Scott, I understand your desire to crush Denyse, but really, what is your exact refutation of her comments, other than your opinion of her, her associations, etc? Maybe if you were specific in your criticism of her ideas it might mean more than just general complaints about her nature.
Post a Comment