Adam Frank at Discover Magazine says,
Houston, the Bullies Have Landed
Who are these bullies? Frank describes them this way:
- A “depressingly long disaster flick”
- Responsible for the “ritual burning of science education”
- “Dangerous”
- A “sad spectacle”
- “Hijackers”
- “Schizophrenic”
- “Maddening,” for their “self-imposed blindness”
- “Practicing … intolerance”
- Doing “damage” to “the scientific and … economic enterprise”
- “Bullies” on a school board
- “Charades”
- “A threat that must be confronted”
That’s in an article just seven paragraphs long, more brutally negative than even this list conveys.
Who is it, then, that is acting the bully? Here’s how the word is defined in its verb form. See if you can find anything on this page that fits.
bul·ly
v.tr.1. To treat in an overbearing or intimidating manner. See Synonyms at intimidate.2. To make (one’s way) aggressively.
It doesn’t help that Frank’s assertions don’t fit the facts:
- Is ID a threat to science education?
- Does the standard under discussion in Texas even mention ID?
- Is this creationism in disguise? (See also here on that.)
- Is this all about religion?
- Are “creationists” “schizophrenic” about science? On that one, Frank’s assertion is so outlandish it’s self-refuting. Is it schizophrenia to recognize that not all evidence in nature points to the truth of evolution, especially of the undirected, unguided sort?
- Is this a matter of intolerance? I think it might be—but not in the direction Frank says it is.
- Does ID do damage to scientific enterprise? Remember that what Frank is objecting to is that students be expected to “analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations.” Pretty dangerous stuff there! But check out the last few paragraphs here; and note also that Frank’s theory on this could be tested scientifically, but no one who states it ever seems to be scientifically-minded enough to want to do that.
