Home » Culture, News, Science » Science writer trashed for saying she is “creationist” defended in New York Times

Science writer trashed for saying she is “creationist” defended in New York Times

In “Science, Too, Calls for a Leap of Faith” in the New York Times, Trevor Wax, managing editor of The Gospel Project, defends Virginia Heffernan, the science writer who got trashed for saying she was a “creationist.”

Virginia Heffernan (Remember “Tech writer says she is a creationist—how long do you give her day job?”)

Actually, Heffernan crossed our radar in 2010. Here:

And while I found interesting stuff here and there, I also discovered that ScienceBlogs has become preoccupied with trivia, name-calling and saber rattling. Maybe that’s why the ScienceBlogs ship started to sink.

Recently a blogger called GrrlScientist, on Living the Scientific Life (Scientist, Interrupted), expressed her disgust at the “flock of hugely protruding bellies and jiggling posteriors everywhere I go.” Gratuitous contempt like this is typical.

- Unnatural science, The New York Times

Trashing trolls is a dangerous business, and Heffernan doesn’t mind living dangerously, it seems. Anyway, Wax has this to say,

Interestingly enough, Heffernan did not take a position on how the world was created; she merely expressed her belief that the world was, indeed, created. This educated, rational human, like many others before her, claimed that it makes as much sense to believe in a creator as it does to believe the world came into existence out of nothing. For this, she was ridiculed.

Yet science neither proves nor disproves the existence of a creator. Evidence leads us only to a point, and then we draw conclusions. People like Heffernan look at the elements of our world that appear to be designed and purposeful, and conclude that a mind is supervising the matter. More.

Yes, but the science writers’ world is one in which believing that reality is an alien’s giant computer sim is rational but believing that the universe shows evidence of design is not. You couldn’t hoax many of them—they would end up believing whatever it is implicitly, just until the next nonsense rolls through.

The comments tell you pretty much everything about why the New York Times will disappear into a garage sale like the Washington Post just did. 

And yet that girl still has a job, we think. Good on ya, kiddo!

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

5 Responses to Science writer trashed for saying she is “creationist” defended in New York Times

  1. I started to read some of the comments on the NY Times website. All those who criticize Hefferenan wouldn’t last 10 minutes here before they would either have to start retreating from their positions or switch to non answers and ad hominems. Their knowledge of the issues is almost non-existent.

  2. If creationism is worthy of being denounced AND its wrong for smart people to be creationists then any media outlet is saying the great historic Christian population of past and present is unworthy of inclusion in proper society.

    Let them say it! We can say the same thing right back! Wrong religion, faith, beliefs means your a second class citizen.
    We did think this in the old days and the liberal crowd begged us to see our error.
    Have we been duped! Did they get us to agree to disagree just too really get us to stop disagreeing with force!?

    Saying Christian belief is officially false is a great rejection of historic social contracts since America allowed non Protestants into the country.
    Heaps of people are creationists and if not in those circles then there is a demographic invasion that has quietly and immorally and illegally taken place.
    Stop saying we have the wrong opinions from a wrong thinking ability.
    Real Americans would never say that.
    Is the bosses a cross section of America?
    If not why not and lets fix it!
    Agree to disagree or we know the reason why!

  3. Thy are the reason the Times continues to exist at all, as it happens. O’Leary for News

  4. Of related note to the disrespectful way atheists treat anyone who disagrees with them (especially on the internet). Lawrence Krauss in his recent debate with Dr. Craig in Austrailia, instead of waiting his turn to respond to Dr. Craig in a civil, and reasoned, manner (as is expected in a debate), did not even pretend to be respectful and used a loud buzzer to interrupt Dr. Craig while he was speaking whenever he disagreed with something Dr. Craig had stated:

    Lawrence Krauss Resorts to Cheap Cowardly Tactics on WLC
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUn_kpNdSXw

    Simply unbelievable!

  5. She mentions that amongst atheist bloggers, “gratuitous contempt like this is typical.” There is another degree of pride that is implicit in the word “hubris,” which is defined as “exaggerated pride or self-confidence often resulting in retribution.” (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary) This word is rooted directly in the Greek, and according to Greek scholar William Barclay, “hubris is mingled pride and cruelty . . . , the arrogant contempt which makes [a man] trample on the hearts of his fellow men.”

    Barclay makes the grave observation: “Hubris is the pride which makes a man defy God.” It is the pride that says: “There is no God.” (Psalm 14:1) Or as expressed at Psalm 10:4: “The wicked one according to his superciliousness makes no search; all his ideas are: ‘There is no God.’”

    So, thanks, atheists, for proving the Bible to be true with respect to your attitudes.

Leave a Reply