Posted by
Andrews on Thursday, June 11, 2009 3:35:28 PM
I am a fan of
SOME of the work done by CSICOP (Center for Scientific Inquiry into Claims of the Paranormal). However, reading
a recent article on their site, I have to ask, how on earth can they claim to be "skeptics" when they simply swallow all claims handed them? After all, they claim Obama is a moderate. Bush "limited stem cell research". That "climate change is real." And openness to all views is a sign of an inquiring mind.
Well, if that last point is true, then the author lacks an inquiring mind, as he certainly is showing a closed, partisan mind.
For example,
Bush did NOT limit stem cell research. He limited federal funding of some types of research. That is
NOT the same thing. For example, the federal government does not pay for my food, does that mean they are starving me?
Second, Obama is anything but a centrist, as his recent
far left actions have shown. The only time he is centrist is when either he does not care about an issue or lacks support. He is as far left a president as we have ever had, as both his
out of control spending and
near nationalization of the banking, automotive and insurance industries shows. And as far as "appointing former rivals", that is laughable. Yes, he appointed some Bush era officials and even Hillary Clinton, but those were largely for show. I was going to write a post on this before but have yet to get to it, so here goes: Obama made a lot of appointments of "rivals" to appear "open-minded", however, he then gutted those offices, stripped them of power, and concentrated all power in
lower echelon loyalists in the executive*. In other words, he appears to be "open to challenge", but then gives all the power to a coterie of yes men. It is clever, but hardly a sign of "an open mind". More the action of a controlling, micromanaging absolutist.
Finally, who says
"climate change" is "real"? If they mean the climate changes over time, I don't think anyone denies that. if they mean
that man is making the earth uninhabitable, then a lot of "science oriented minds"
challenge that, and the writer's whole hearted embrace of something that is contentious as gospel truth shows that he is
more close minded than he accuses Bush of being.
Now, don't get me wrong, Bush had problems. I am hardly his biggest booster. I
have been critical of the Intelligent Design movement as well. (Though I think the solution is not to force public schools to teach evolution, but to eliminate public schools, thus eliminating any politicization of curriculum.) But Obama is hardly the "science oriented' person the author claims. For that matter, his blind obedience to the political left's views of "science" marks the author as less of an inquiring, "skeptical" mind than he claims.
Why do so many doctrinaire individuals claim that they "support science", only to then spout a party line and declare all debate closed? Since when did joining the thought police make one "pro-science"?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
* The reason I did not post my essay on this, though it is nearly complete, is that this process was pioneer4ed by Hitler, who appointed conservative and royalists to cabinet posts, then stripped those posts of power, giving them to party men in lower positions. It was almost exactly what Obama did. However, when I finished the post, I realized comparing Obama to Hitler would probably cause too much of the wrong sort of attention, so I left it sitting in my "drafts" folder.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
POSTSCRIPT
By the way, why do all self proclaimed "scientific" people think their fellows are incompetent and need to be told what to do? The author of this post both
decries federalism (in the form of local funding of schools) and the fact that
there exist benighted souls who doubt evolution. While I believe in evolution myself, I hardly think the fate of the world rests upon forcing my scientific views on my fellows. If I am correct, eventually others will see the truth. Until then, they have every right to their views. In fact, they must be allowed whatever views they wish, as it is possible I am the one who is wrong, and one day they will convince ME of the truth.
Strange to hear a booster of supposed "science" who does not accept that competing ideas are the best route to truth. (Though not so surprising to hear a
believer in his own inerrancy who wants
an all powerful federal government to
force "truth" down our throats and
tell us what to do.)