Hunh? Yeah, that was my first thought, too.
But the author of this very interesting blog, Ed Darrell, was kind enough to refer to one of my posts and so I looked around his site a little.
I like it! My first thought is that it rebuts the idea that the humanities and the sciences are somehow incompatible or antagonistic.
You know, it just struck me that I haven’t told you guys about Project Steve!
NCSE’s “Project Steve” is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of “scientists who doubt evolution” or “scientists who dissent from Darwinism.” (For examples of such lists, see the FAQs.)
Creationists draw up these lists to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a “theory in crisis.” Most members of the public lack sufficient contact with the scientific community to know that this claim is totally unfounded. NCSE has been exhorted by its members to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution, but although we easily could have done so, we have resisted such pressure. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!
Project Steve mocks this practice with a bit of humor, and because “Steves” are only about 1% of scientists, it incidentally makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, NCSE supporter and friend.
I haven’t read Ann Coulter’s newest book – in fact I haven’t read any of her books – but I’ve read a lot about it recently. And I’ve read lots of quotes. (Check out this post and others at Talk Reason and The Panda’s Thumb for discussions of this book.)
I find it hard to be very impressed or interested with books of this kind, and it doesn’t really matter whether they present the ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ point of view. There’s just something that bothers me about a book which first takes a point of view, and then comes up with arguments to support it, while disregarding anything contrary.
This is just not how good reasoning is supposed to work. One is supposed to do research, find facts, make an hypothesis that fits the evidence, and then go searching for evidence to support and disprove that hypothesis. Sounds kind of like the scientific method doesn’t it? Well guess what? I think that’s the ideal of sound thinking and sound argument.