From Ann Reid, Executive Director, National Center for Science Education, at Huffington Post:
Dear NCSE members and friends of science,
I’m writing in a profound state of shock, as I’m sure you’ll understand. You are no doubt in the same state. For the National Center for Science Education, of course, the election of someone who thinks climate change is a hoax and whose running mate once denounced evolution from the floor of the House of Representatives, is frightening and deeply depressing.
Okay. Next time, try reading something other than your own media releases or dying mainstream media about what is going on around you.
Note: In another context, one might have told Reid to read mainstream media. But on these issues they may as well be her own media releases. A hand-in-glove relationship with them can blind her as much as it blinded them. Now she tells us:
But we can only make the case for science if we’re not condescending. We can’t make our case if we send a signal that people who reject evolution and climate change are ignorant and stupid. That’s a stance that just further alienates people. More.
See also: Nature: Scientists “stunned” by Trump win Why? Doesn’t that speak poorly of the powers of the scientific method?
So we wrote back:
Dear Ann Reid:
If you have only just discovered the fact that arrogance is not a winning stance, you will be spending some time in the wilderness. You won’t be alone, of course. CBS and the New York Times can obsolesce alongside you.
The fundamental problem is that everyone knows what you really think of the public or there would never have been any occasion to write the words you just did.
One of two things will prove true: The public is as stupid as you think and will go back to listening to you. That’s somewhat like a serially abused wife storming out and then coming back when her abuser says he is sorry (until next time).
Alternatively, you could use your time in the wilderness wisely to find out why people really don’t believe Darwinism or naturalism, as opposed to repeatedly reingesting your own talking points. Up to you. – O’Leary for News
By the way, why was Reid’s predecessor, lobbyist Eugenie Scott, listed among “prominent scientists” in Andrea Gawrylewski’s recent Scientific American article on reactions to the election results? Scott has been a successful Darwin-in-the-schools lobbyist but is by no stretch a scientist.
It would make more sense to ask that fellow from Louisiana whose pants are in a knot over state academic freedom legislation. He too gets his compliant ink and, when last heard from, he was actually studying science.
See also: Gloom or boom?: Prominent scientists on U.S. election. It’s a symptom of internal decay in the science community, not external problems, that anyone cares what Richard Dawkins think at this point.
Why the mainstream media was bound to call the U.S. election wrong
Follow UD News at Twitter!