Creationists and AGW deniers clearly deny the scientific reality in the respective areas of biology and climate change because of a priori ideological commitments. These individuals are quite rightfully criticized for their rejection of reason in favor of emotionalism in defense of their sacred cows. Many, though not all of the people criticizing creationists and AGW deniers are liberal (I, as a non-liberal atheist, am an example of someone who is not a liberal who criticizes creationists). Liberals, and people of various other political persuasions who have been either brainwashed or intimidated into submission, engage in knee-jerk emotionalism in defense of egalitarian dogma. They often resort to name-calling, ad hominems, and various childish insults when scientific evidence contradicting their worldview is put forward. Examples include crime statistics, data on race and intelligence (particularly from transracial adoption studies, which the dogmatic faithful no doubt find quite disturbing), biometric data (cranial volumes, armspan-to-height ratios, etc.). They try to portray peoplewho profess a race realism as unsophisticated, toothless cretins, and then go into rages when Nobel Prize winners like DNA discoverer James Watson come forward to state the obvious, thereby demolishing their asinine characterization of their opposition. Clearly, these people have a belief system and cannot let facts get in the way of their faith. This faith serves multiple functions: relief of feelings of guilt (not at all like confession and prayer in various religions accomplish), trendy conformity with the herd (just like with religion), cultivation of feelings of moral superiority for being "enlightened" enough to denigrate one's own racial group and actively undermine one's own best interests (recall the men who whipped themselves during the Middle Ages, and the numerous other examples of self-abuse in religions). Some egalitarians do refrain from temper tantrums when presented with evidence and instead attempt to refute their opponents, but their arguments contain red herrings, straw men, and other fallacies, just as the more calm and collected creationists (e.g., the ones too sophisticated to deny evolution with mere name-calling and threats of hell) construct arguments filled with logical fallacies. The galling thing with these people is that it is as if they have the arrogance to expect the universe to conform to their notions of what is proper: a hypothesis that they find grievously offensive simply cannot be true, because (*)(*)(*)(*) it, reality is obligated to conform to their naive, infantile expectations. I find this epistemology ("that which is offensive CANNOT be true") to be mind boggling.
Very nice first post. Well said. I'll refrain from giving my personal opinion on AGW, though. That's for another topic.
Thank you. I've seen many liberals actually say something like "There very well could be hereditary racial differences, but nothing good can come from studying them, so scientists should abandon and bury this research." This was coming from adherents of a political persuasion that claims to love science, reason, and the pursuit of truth wherever it leads.
Liberals and anti-racists are some of the most ignorant and stupid people on the planet. They're also dangerous to mankind. Most of them are pro-crime and pro-depravity who enable violent criminals to prey on the innocent.
The truth is that life is hard and dangerous. And that the religious right are mostly made up of truly stupid people.
I'm the first to ridicule the Religious Right, which means that I'm also the first to ridicule their dogmatic, moronic counterparts on the Left.
