A Little Hypocrisy?
In response to my post, The War On Science, a new reader, Jenn, made this humorous (unless you think it is sad) comment:
What more do you expect from an administration where the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee (James Inhofe) is encouraging the public to read Michael Crighton’s novel “State of Fear” if they are interested in learning about climate science…rather than, of course, any of the many documents that are extensively peer reviewed and written for the general public for this very reason by the Internation Panel on Climate Change.
Jenn’s comment had me laughing and reminded me of a great post I read on a blog called, “Northstate Science.” Christopher O’Brien discusses how Christians complain about The Da Vinci Code “because it creates a cultural phenomenon out of inaccurate historical information.” He compares it with their own creation of a “cultural phenomenon out of inaccurate biological information,” specifically, Intelligent Design.
O”Brien’s post is a comment on an interview with Christian apologist, Mark Shea, who complains that The Da Vinci Code is a source of “pseudo-knowledge.” Hmmm. It sparked the following comment from O’Brien:
Just out of curiosity, how many millions have read Philip Johnson’s books such as Darwin on Trial, or William Dembski’s No Free Lunch? How many millions cite Jonathan Wells’ Icons of Evolution as containing factual information about evolution? Shea is concerned that millions of Christians have read The Da Vinci Code without critically thinking about it – but would he stop to consider how many Christians bother to critically think about Icons of Evolution?
Get your Climate Science from Michael Crighton. Get your Biology from Phillip Johnson. But don’t you dare get your History from Dan Brown.
6 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
March 15th, 2006 @ 8:39 pm
I love all of the hoopla around “The Da Vinci Code.” Of course Mr. Brown is having other problems concerning plagiarism. That’s another story.
The controversy around the book has helped make him a multi-millionaire many times over. I remember seeing him on some show or other wherein he claimed that what he wrote wasn’t history. It was a novel. He used certain elements of what is believed to be historical fact and embellished it, changed it, made it up, so as to work dramatically.
I read the book and, frankly, I think its not very good. Virtually every chapter leads to a mini cliff hanger. It’s repetitious and, consequently, tedious. Ultimately, it’s all just so much claptrap. But that’s beside the point.
It is true that most of the attacks on evolution are at best specious. For the most part, the attacks are made with only cursory reference to facts. They know that most of their target audience has never studied Darwin or any other scientific works regarding evolution.
I remember that clip of the Dawkin’s program and the exchange with the evangelist, what was his name?- Haggard? Haggard made the claim, in an almost off handed manner, that the bible was all true without error or contradiction. Dawkins didn’t challenge him on that. But, as most of us know, that is about as far from the truth as he could get. It is that hucksterism, which is part and parcel to their modus operandi, playing fast and loose with facts. Using just enough factual information to seemingly lend credence to their crap.
The X-Files and most of Stephen King’s work is of a similar nature to the Da Vinci Code. It is never presented as anything but fiction or fantasy. Of course, there are always some nutballs who believe it. We don’t worry too much about such responses. But when the same kind of pseudo-science is presented as fact in an effort to debunk evolution and other sciences it is near criminal.
TLS
March 16th, 2006 @ 7:07 am
What goes around comes around, hey
( he flipped it )Oh WOW !!!
March 16th, 2006 @ 8:15 am
This subject is a good one - how much of professed belief is just checking to see what bandwagon your butt should be on from week to week, and how little of it is actually about what you believe?
I like the effect it has had on allowing christians to at least consider that what they ‘know’ may not be historically accurate - and Brown’s book has done a lot to teach people about biblically contemporary literature that didn’t make it into the Bible.
I agree with Terry - the book was pretty awful, Dan Brown writes in a transparent style with a strained grasp of the language. His dialog is worse than bad comic books. I’m glad he played with interesting material, though, and that it somehow made it into the public eye.
PS - Noell, your latest piece in HNN was great! Don’t forget to announce your column and link us here on the blog - I’m sure nobody would mind! We can all subscribe to HNN - but some people probably read your work online at work - during breaks, of course :).
March 16th, 2006 @ 8:40 am
I agree with both of you on the Dan Brown book. I’m glad I read it, but the characters were transparent, the dialogue was contrived, and Brown’s hyper-emphasis on the “truthfulness” of the history behind the story was irritating to me. At the same time, I am glad to see the topic of biblical history brought to the forefront. I’m curious about the movie.
Ron, thank you for the compliments. I have a post ready to announce the article with a link, but I haven’t been able to open up the site all morning. I’m just waiting until it is accessible.
March 17th, 2006 @ 4:43 pm
Noell - thanks for your comments on my post! And great site! I’ll be linking to it shortly on my blog…The subtitle to your blog is right on target: raising a healthy family without religion. It’s nice to know we have company out there….
March 18th, 2006 @ 5:31 am
Great post - I love the karma in this!! It’s disheartening to realize that many people think that there’s such a shortcut in the search for truth. Fiction is fiction is fiction. Even some autobiographies are fiction (Frey). You’ve got to actually do some work and some (gasp) thinking in order find truth. As a nation, we have become very dependent on fast food, pre-packaged science, and easy solutions.
FWIW, I enjoyed the Da Vince Code. I need a nice, easy don’t-have-to-think-too-much read every once in a while. It did raise some questions in my mind about the history of christianity - but the questions it raised were more along the lines of “Hmm - I wonder if that’s really true? I should check it out.” It just flabergasts me that anyone would rely on a work of fiction for factual information. (Even one with copious references - e.g. State of Fear (g)).