- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
From my perspective, it appears that she does this to enhance the apparent contrast between current thought (which is really a pretty broad spectrum) with her ideas about symbiogenesis. But when the dust settles, I'm not sure the positions are necessarily as diametrically opposed as suggested.
(From LWM's link:)
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/03/lynn_margulis_blog_tour.php
It seems a similar dynamic is happening here.
Ron Paul ( a physician and hence someone who knows better) says he doubts evolution. He's doing so because a significant portion of his base object to science on religious grounds and he doesn't want to alienate them.
This is clearly dishonest.
Bucky, who has made it clear that he DOES believe in evolution has nevertheless found himself in a position where he needs to defend Ron Paul so he pretends that there's some rigid orthodoxy that I am defending other than a belief in the lawfulness of nature and the validity of the scientific method. In doing so he creates a controversy that needn't exist all of which is needed to provide cover for the pandering of his hero to his base.
This too, is clearly dishonest.
