In “Wikipedia and the Sociology of Darwinian Belief” (Evolution News & Views, February 5, 2012), David Klinghoffer recounts the true tale of what happened when an enterprising South African tried to correct a Wikipedia article to reflect the approximately 50 ID-friendly papers published in peer-reviewed journals:
As anyone knows who’s followed the popular Darwinist blogging sites, Darwinism is an ideological movement seemingly rich in believers unhindered by responsibilities to family or work or both, with little better to do day and night than engage in (usually anonymous) skirmishes on the Internet. Editing the Wiki article, our South African friend inserted references to the 50-plus peer-reviewed articles from our updated list of pro-ID scientific literature. Sure enough, within just 30 minutes, someone had erased his additions and substituted snide and again false language to the effect that:
The Discovery Institute insists that a number of intelligent design articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals…. Critics, largely members of the scientific community, reject this claim, stating that no established scientific journal has yet published an intelligent design article. Rather, intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with peer review that lacks impartiality and rigor, consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters.
This is preposterous, as anyone who has looked at the list of papers would have to honestly admit. Our South African friend went a few rounds with the Wikipedia editors but, last time I checked, without ultimate success.
But, David, the sort of person who would erase the corrections without checking out the papers’ existence and substitute boilerplate talking points actually does know that he is bending or breaking the truth. And he probably feels okay with that.
Like most ideologues, he is the slave of some Higher Truth that justifies falsehoods on behalf of a lower, everyday truth – that peer-reviewed papers sympathetic to ID positions are no longer a great rarity. Indeed, it’s hard to think of one that has even been a source of huge controversy since the Sternberg affair at the Smithsonian in 2005.
Darwinism is that sort of religion. It does not attract people who prefer lower-case truths – or everyday relationships. For one thing, they probably can’t handle them.
Follow UD News at Twitter!