Home » Climate change, Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, News » Commentator Ed Driscoll on Popular Science’s “No Comments” editorial tantrum …

Commentator Ed Driscoll on Popular Science’s “No Comments” editorial tantrum …

… which we covered here and here.

In “‘Popular Science is Neither. Discuss’”, he notes,

In 2003, the late Michael Crichton observed, “I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form.” European “Progressives” first killed God off in the 19th century, and then have spent the years since attempting to build alternate belief systems to replace Him. And similarly, as with Islam, infidels will be silenced! (Permanently, if the worst of the ecochondriacs, as Mark Steyn once dubbed them, ever have their way.)

He’s got a point. If they weren’t treating their theories about global warming and evolution as a religion, they’d hardly care so much about the fact that their combox is not a total fan club.

They make a religion and call it science.

Touching on a theme we had addressed, that PS staff don’t appear to understand how new media work, he also says,

On the other hand, have some pity on the staff and management of Popular Science. It can’t be easy getting to sleep every night, knowing in your heart of hearts, that they world is rapidly coming to an end. And what do you tell your kids about their own rapidly diminishing future?

Tell the kids to learn how new media work.

No! Wait! Ask them! Chances are, they know.

The comments are part of the story. You get rid of trolls, bores, and spam because you want the story to be one your audience wants to hear, including the contrary discussion. No one wisely claims to be there yet, but that’s where the rest of us are going.

Hat tip: Five Feet of Fury

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

4 Responses to Commentator Ed Driscoll on Popular Science’s “No Comments” editorial tantrum …

  1. OFF TOPIC

    For Elizabeth B Liddle

    Your site TSZ responds with “This Account Has Been Suspended”.

    Any problem?

  2. Thanks for the heads-up! It should be back shortly. For some reason there was a payment hitch.

  3. More like a payback hitch!

  4. Many scientists insist that there is no God. How, then, do they explain the wonders of creation, including humankind? They attribute such marvels to evolution, a blind force based on chance. For example, evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould wrote: “We are here because one odd group of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy that could transform into legs for terrestrial creatures . . . We may yearn for a ‘higher’ answer—but none exists.” Similarly, Richard E. Leakey and Roger Lewin wrote: “Perhaps the human species is just a ghastly biological blunder.” Even some scientists who praise the beauty and design in nature fail to give credit to God.

    When learned individuals assert that evolution is a fact, they imply that only the ignorant refuse to believe it. How do many react to such an assertion? Some years ago, a man well-versed in evolution interviewed people who accepted the theory. He said: “I discovered that most believers of evolution are believers because they have been told that all intelligent people are believers.” Yes, when educated individuals express their atheistic views, others are dissuaded from giving God the credit he deserves as the Creator.—Proverbs 14:15, 18.

    Have scientists come to their conclusions because facts and evidence point that way? Hardly! We are surrounded by evidence of a Creator. Regarding him, the apostle Paul wrote: “His invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s [mankind’s] creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they [unbelievers] are inexcusable.” (Romans 1:20) The Creator left his imprint on his handiwork. Paul is thus saying that from the start of mankind’s existence, it has been possible for humans to ‘perceive’ evidence of God’s existence by means of the visible creation. Where is this evidence?

    To admire the beauty and design in nature and deny the existence of a Great Designer is as illogical as admiring a magnificent painting and at the same time denying the existence of the artist who transformed a blank canvas into a masterpiece. Little wonder that those who refuse to believe in God are pronounced “inexcusable”!

Leave a Reply