Thinkquote of the day: Origin of "denial" as alleged problem
Recently, I expressed my appreciation to the folk at Denialism.com for drawing attention to this humble blog. Meanwhile, columnist Suzanne Fields explains the origin of their concept:
"Denial" came out of the therapyspeak prevalent in the middle of the 20th century, especially as it was applied to confronting the reality of mortality. It was popularized as the first stage of grief, but was quickly expanded to include refusal to confront any bad news or disturbing ideas. Like the broken clock that's correct twice a day, denial is sometimes an accurate label for certain behavior, but as a consuming mythology in our culture it becomes the all-purpose description to deny independent thinking. ... This attitude wreaks enormous havoc when it is applied to public issues.
A friend considers them "sheep" for their silly attacks on paleontologist Rick Sternberg, because he sometimes attends conferences sponsored by creationists. For example, one little lamb bleats"
"Sternberg does have a history of collusion and shepherding as well: his own paper was "reviewed" (very critically, I'm sure) by fellow baraminologist Todd Wood, and DI Fellows Paul Nelson and Jonathan Wells."
Presumably, that's not something they would ever dare to do. Clearly, Sternberg is worse than a shepherd; he is a wolf in wolf's clothing. But I digress; the fact is, that denialism.com has attracted new interest to my blog and for that I am so grateful that I am going to provide here a link to "Where Sheep May Safely Graze".
P.S.: A friend notes that what got the affirming lambs bleating was this paper by Sternberg, where he thanks "Drs. Paul Nelson, Stanley Salthe, Jonathan Wells, and Todd Wood", at least some of whom dare to doubt Darwin.
But, oh dear, the lambs of affirmation are now becoming a bore, because another friend now insists I comment on this silliness, where they try but fail to get used to the fact that many very disparate people disbelieve Darwinism on the flimsy evidence. The fact that Darwinism is the creation story of materialism means nothing if one is not a materialist - so ID types do not need to fight with YECs, even if they disagree with them about the age of the earth. Too simple - must be a conspiracy.
My other blog is the Mindful Hack, which keeps tabs on neuroscience and the mind.
If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.
Are you looking for one of the following stories?
My review of sci-fi great Rob Sawyer’s novel, The Calculating God , which addresses the concept of intelligent design.
My recent series on the spate of anti-God books, teen blasphemy challenge, et cetera, and the mounting anxiety of materialist atheists that lies behind it.
My review of Francis Collins’ book The Language of God , my backgrounder about peer review issues, or the evolutionary biologist’s opinion that all students friendly to intelligent design should be flunked.
Lists of theoretical and applied scientists who doubt Darwin and of academic ID publications.
My U of Toronto talk on why there is an intelligent design controversy, or my talk on media coverage of the controversy at the University of Minnesota.
A summary of tech guru George Gilder's arguments for ID and against Darwinism
A critical look at why March of the Penguins was thought to be an ID film.
A summary of recent opinion columns on the ID controversy
A summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy
A summary of the Catholic Church's entry into the controversy, essentially on the side of ID.
O'Leary's intro to non-Darwinian agnostic philosopher David Stove’s critique of Darwinism.
An ID Timeline: The ID folk seem always to win when they lose.
Why origin of life is such a difficult problem.
Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated. Fully anonymous posts and URLs posted without comment will be accepted if I think they contribute to a discussion. For best results, give your name or some idea who you are and why we should care. To Mr. Anonymous: I'm not psychic, so if you won't tell me who you are, I can't guess and don't care. To Mr. Nude World (URL): If you can't be bothered telling site visitors why they should go on to your fave site next, why should I post your comment? They're all busy people, like you. To Mr. Rudesby International and Mr. Pottymouth: I also have a tendency to delete comments that are merely offensive. Go be offensive to someone who can smack you a good one upside the head. That may provide you with a needed incentive to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either. To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven't the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering.