Meta Ignorance

A new definition appears in this post over at Telic Thoughts:

Meta-Ignorance: when you ridicule an intellectual view for its ignorance, but as a side-effect, reveal your own ignorance of the mocked subject.

The definition was given in response to a ludicrous anti-ID animation linked in the post. Yesterday, I stumbled across a discussion in which I tried to point out (search for comments left by Matteo in the thread, toward the very bottom) that the participants were tilting at windmills and had no idea what they were actually arguing against.

Also take a look-see at this Telic Thoughts post examining ways that the ideological extremism of the Darwinists does harm to science.

excerpt:

The net effect of all this is a portrayal of science as a place where the religious minded better stay out or be mum about their beliefs. Now, of course, some will say that science is friendly to certain forms of religion. True, but as Phillip Johnson aptly put these are candy-assed forms. I would include in this category deism, process theology, and theistic evolution vis-à-vis Kenneth Miller, Van Til, etc. These forms are considered okay (except by Sam Harris) to the militants because they are basically harmless to their non-telic worldview.

Why does this portrayal of science as religion hating pose a significant threat? Because it will have a chilling effect on bright, young students who might consider science as a career but because of their religious beliefs may choose otherwise. It is already well known that interest in scientific careers at least in the U.S. is on a perilous decline. With over 80% of the U.S. population believing in God and only about 0.4% atheist and 13% non-religious, where are the future scientists going to come from? After seeing the religion hating portrayal these high profile individuals and events are offering, it wouldn’t be hard to sympathize with a bright young student who might have entertained going into science instead switching to technology, the humanities, or business.

Whether or not this militant characterization is true, what it says is that science is really a boys and girls club for militant atheists or candy-assed religionists and anyone who wants to join the club better not have strong religious convictions. It is a picture that if taken to heart by students coming up will eventually lead to a scientific arena that is monolithic, lacking a diversity of personality, temperament, and openness to new ideas. In short science will stagnate in the militant party line.