The Forum > Article Comments > The Windschuttle treatment: a lesson in how not to read a text > Comments
The Windschuttle treatment: a lesson in how not to read a text : Comments
By Andrew Bonnell, published 30/3/2005Andrew Bonnell argues Windschuttle misleads readers in his recent essay 'Tutorials in terrorism'.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- Page 2
-
- All
It's hardly surprising that you would support Bonnell and others against Windschuttle [Deleted for flaming, author suspended].
You said: "In these forums you have rejected scientific method in favour of creation mythology"
Wrong. I love science and I love the scientific method. What I reject is materialistic philosophy and ideology (eg. evolution) masquerading as science.
You said: "sex education in favour of puritan represssion"
Wrong. I am all for sex education. Our kids need it. But it needs to be good and accurate and complete - and it needs to have a developmental perspective.
You said: "and now [you reject] historical scholarship in favour of far-right rabid polemicism."
Wrong. I reject historical revisionism not historical scholarship. A significant component of my Master of Arts involved research in the history of science. And there is an incredible amount of histroical revisionism in this area! Galileo is a classic example, as is the account of Columbus supposedly sailing around the world to prove it was not flat.
You said: "Elsewhere, you have even tried to argue that the intellectual and scientific advances of the Enlightenment weren't an improvement on the Dark Ages."
Wrong. The dark ages were not dark, and the enlightenment was hardly enlightening. Enlightenment ideas were solely responsible for the 200 million deaths in the 20th century. This has been thoroughly documented by R. J. Rummel in his book "Death by Government".