The reason ESPN reporter Keith Law got suspended last week was stupid: He defended the theory of evolution on Twitter, kindly and calmly, to his co-worker, creationist Curt Schilling, and ESPN punished him for it. ...
After word got out that ESPN suspended a reporter because he defended the theory of evolution on Twitter, the sports network went into damage control mode and pretended that they suspended him for a completely separate reason. They didn't know what that reason was, but promised it was definitely not about making their creationist employee look like a neanderthal. ...
Well, Keith is back and his very first tweet makes it abundantly clear that he was indeed suspended over evolution.
"And yet it moves" — the famous words, written in Italian, of astronomer Galileo Galilei, who was dragged in front of the Catholic church and banished to a life of house arrest for suggesting that the Earth moves around the Sun. After his sentencing, Galileo was said to have stomped the ground and looked up at the sky, uttering the words, "And yet it moves," in defiance of what religious officials had forced him to accept under threat of violence.
[Law's] experience still illustrates that science and rational thought are not always welcome in our society. ...
There is a vein of anti-intellectualism that runs throughout our society, and it insulates itself from criticism by punishing those who dare mention facts, figures, science, or data. ...
Fortunately, there is a silver lining. No matter how much these science deniers wish it wasn't the case, the truth is still out there. The Earth still moves.
Pages
▼
November 29, 2014
Eppur Si Muove
Jameson Parker, Addicting Info:
Many cheers to Keith Law! And shame, shame, shame on ESPN.
ReplyDeleteAnd let's save some of that shame for Curt Schilling.
ReplyDeleteI know we are all supposed to respect the religious beliefs of other people, because if we don't, people's feelings get outraged. But when your religion says stuff that is flat out stupid, ridiculous, and shameful, the followers of that religion can't expect to enjoy universal respect.
In other words, Schilling can say and believe whatever he likes, but he shouldn't be surprised or shocked to find that many people think he's not only wrong but is also working hard at ignoring the easily available information that would smarten him up.
And let's save some of that shame for Curt Schilling.
ReplyDeletePlenty of it! I let mine go on an earlier thread and was trying not to repeat myself. :)
I have zero respect for those beliefs, and I don't give a crap about his outraged feelings.
At least when it comes to baseball, from all accounts (including the one from Allan's book below), Curt sounds like a regular stathead. I know people throw logical thinking out of the window when it comes to certain beliefs, but that makes for a pretty stark contrast.
ReplyDeleteIronic, though, that the author of the linked-to post seems as knowledgable of the Galileo affair as Schilling does evolution.
ReplyDeleteWell, considering the author of that post knows that the Galileo affair occured and the general idea behind it, I'd say he's miles ahead of Schilling.
ReplyDeleteMichael makes a good point about Schilling being evidence-based when it comes to baseball. Amazing how people can compartmentalize their minds.
He's almost right, which is a cute way of saying "wrong."
ReplyDeleteGalileo's trial and subsequent sentence were the result of myriad factors, not excluding the political and social milieu of the era. Nor should we forget his own hubris in the matter.
The story is far more fascinating and complex than insisting Galileo's crime was "suggesting that the Earth moves around the Sun." Ironic because there was not an issue with his "suggesting" the heliocentric model. But he wanted a complete paradigm shift (though that's certainly not a term he would have used), something the data of the time did not support. He was right, but not for the correct reasons. To compare true "science deniers" like Schilling to those responsible for Galileo's inquisition reveals someone who doesn't understand his analogy.