Credentialism & cowardice

Christopher Booker is whining. He went to a meeting of "scientists" and writes up the usual collection of creationist conspiracy theories: they're oppressed, evolution is in a state of collapse, Darwin himself raised objections to his theory (never mind that he also answered them), complexity, complexity, complexity, famous scientists reject evolution, the scientific establishment is a gang of Lysenkoist bastards, oh, and by the way, global warming is a hoax and smoking isn't that bad for you. Boring claptrap, all.

The one thing that stood out in his parade of cliches was the fact that he kept quoting these "very bright scientists", but didn't name a single one. They were at some secret meeting organized by "a thoughtful and youngish billionaire"…and even he isn't named. It can't be fear of retribution in that case — a non-scientist billionaire is simply untouchable by the Science Gestapo, and has no cause for worry at all. He could claim that he was the Emperor of Mars and that he pissed champagne, and the money would still keep rolling in. There is one thing they're all afraid of, although they won't come out and admit it.

Laughter.

That's all it is. The people who come out in favor of such silliness as ID haven't been oppressed at all, we just stop taking them seriously as scientists, and for good reason. I'd love to know who this billionaire benefactor is, not because I'll send ninjas after him, or because I'll somehow wipe out his investments out of spite, but simply because I'd like to point and giggle at the overpaid fool.

More like this

In a story funded by a pro-war billionaire, Brendan Montague, who seems to know which side of his bread is buttered on, writes:
Forbes has an article on billionaires who oppose the stem cell ban (free reg required): the subtitle is "Billionaire cash has kept embryonic stem-cell research alive—just barely," which really says it all.
Over at the Intersection's new digs, Sheril has posted a rather long list of fellowship programs for people interested in science policy.
Richard Heinberg has a nice piece about drawing conclusions from present trends. Among his observations: