Home » Intelligent Design » Edited post: questioning liberals ever so nicely?

Edited post: questioning liberals ever so nicely?

Following concern about the strength of this post I thought I would edit it. James Delingpole, writing in the UK Telegraph blog, asserts that liberals are confused about the basis for their beliefs – warning – this link has strong language.

“…why it is that liberal-lefties manage to be so utterly wrong about everything. …they’re not interested in facts. They just want to construct their pretty little narrative about the world, regardless of whether or not it has any bearing on reality. And then they want to dump it on us. And ruin our lives.” Dare we say that this is ever so slightly naughty?

Delingpole’s comments are much stronger than I would wish to write.

But often those of us who are sceptical of evolution face dismissive attitudes from the liberal left [although really it is secular humanism]; perhaps even an often unspoken assumption that they are morally superior and more intelligent than the rest of us. And there are a number of areas of science where the ‘truth’ of the ‘narrative’ is used to dismiss legitimate scientific questions. Even though ‘molecule to man’ Darwinism is very much an unsupported narrative, those who question the ‘just-so’ stories are the ones accused of being anti-science. And these are not small areas of disagreement, but society changing narratives masquerading as science. So if Delingpole’s article manages to encourage more critical thinking from some of those who have received the ‘higher’ wisdom than us mere conservative mortals that would be a good start. (Personally I subscribe to the Jim Wallis’ approach ‘Why the right gets it wrong and the left doesn’t get it’ so this shouldn’t be seen as a right wing rant against liberals).

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

11 Responses to Edited post: questioning liberals ever so nicely?

  1. Pardon but I think the headline is over the top.

  2. I don’t come around UC much anymore and stuff like this is why. Early on (and I’m talking years ago), it was possible to come here and hear reason and argument. Today, we get unsuppored assertions in which whole classes of people are tarred as “stupid because they’re not interested in facts.”

    If you care about facts, present some. But stuff like this is utter garbage. And I’m sympathetic toward ID.

  3. Uh, this article is NOT HELPFUL (on top of being ungrammatical). Please tell me this is not the direction UD is going…

  4. As I have stated above I disagree with the strength of Delingpole’s sentiment, but I believe there is a rational point here nonetheless, even if expressed in rather too colourful terms.

  5. I fail to see how a sweeping accusation will bring about more critical thinking.

    I see it as unthoughtful rhetoric and nothing more.

  6. You’ve brought out the hounds, Steno.

    I can somewhat see their point, but perhaps I’ll be in the minority by giving the benefit of the doubt to you. I think I do see a point in there that is worth considering, as apparently do you. Maybe it’d be better to continue your edit and make it plain what you think that point is and how it dovetails with the overall UD theme.

  7. Steno:

    Nice try, but I’m sorry to say the one who apparently “doesn’t get it” is you. Your qualifications really didn’t change the thrust or tone of the piece at all.

    You cite an author from Group A who claims that members of Group B are “utterly wrong about everything,” and then lament the fact that certain members of Group A often “face dismissive attitudes” from folks on the other side of the ideological aisle.

    If dismissiveness is your concern, might it be a good idea to start with your own keyboard? Do you think Delingpole is being dismissive of his ideological opponents, even just a little? Can there be any question that his writing drips with the same “moral superiority” you claim to be against? C’mon…

    UD Management:

    My goal in posting this was not to provide a rhetorical primer for Steno (though he seems to be in need of one), as much as to use it as a springboard for a broader appeal.

    Like i said before, one used to be able to come here and find reason and argument. But the current post is little more than a culture-war-inspired superficial and inflammatory rant, which never would have passed muster in the UD of 5 years ago.

    If I wanted the ravings of yet another political ideologue, the internet is replete with them. But I thought the goal here was ID–unless the name Uncommon Descent is turning out to be ironically more accurate than was ever intended….

  8. SteveB – I’m sorry you miss the point – yes Delingpole’s comments are too strong as I said in BOLD – and perhaps liberalism isn’t the real target here either – as I pointed out I tend towards the views of Jim Wallis – and quite clearly liberals get many things right. But there are issues where a narrative is imposed upon science, i.e. neo-Darwinism, and then used to claim the other side is anti-science because of use of narratives. So the debate is shaped in terms of science vs religion instead of the truth or falsehood of a scientific claim about origins. One side brings a narrative into science and then accuses the other side of the very same crime while hiding its own position. And these imposed narratives are used to control us…i.e. teaching of ID in American schools is outlawed in favour of evolution. I’m sorry if you think this to be mere rhetoric, but some of us think truth in science is important, where we begin by honestly acknowledging our own narratives first. Consider the scandal that Marxism and fascism brought ot Europe because of poorly contested historical narratives.

  9. 9
    material.infantacy

    A very enjoyable read, thanks for posting it.

    Some lack of timidity from time to time is healthy. I’m growing weary of being concerned about appearances.

    (Uh oh, I think I just chipped a nail.)

    I’m even more weary of being bullied, demonized, and marginalized. Perhaps our diet is too low in minerals and too high in soy milk.

    “There is a time for everything,
    and a season for every activity under the heavens:
    2 a time to be born and a time to die,
    a time to plant and a time to uproot,
    3 a time to kill and a time to heal,
    a time to tear down and a time to build,
    4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,
    a time to mourn and a time to dance,
    5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
    a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
    6 a time to search and a time to give up,
    a time to keep and a time to throw away,
    7 a time to tear and a time to mend,
    a time to be silent and a time to speak,
    8 a time to love and a time to hate,
    a time for war and a time for peace.”
    Ecclesiastes

    Perhaps it’s time to weep and mourn let our culture die. This will make for great discussion at next Sunday’s afternoon coffee gathering.

  10. 10

    I notice too that liberals etc openly or quietly sincerely think they are morally and intellectually above the rest.
    Yet I find this is common in history and from my own side.
    Is it true that collective opinions show collective moral/intellectual differences?
    I do believe myself that my fellow evangelical Christians are and live at a higher moral standard then anyone else on earth.
    I do also believe that the original people of north america are more intelligent then any identity that has not assimulated into the our flow.
    in short the British/Yankee/Protestant identity in north america. That would include any other people as long as they became the same people by assimulation.
    No Hyphenism.

    Is it true???
    We all think so and so assertions openly or quietly should be suffered.
    Let the best man win.

  11. I have absolutely nothing against liberals as long as it’s their own money that they are spending.

Leave a Reply