The religious aspect may genuinely be of importance to some of these people, but I suspect to most of them it's merely a tool -- just as Hunter in his conclusion uses it as a tool to kind of cement his claim in the eyes of those who see the holes in his attempt at rational argument.
A lot of the Discovery Institute fellows, I'm convinced, are driven primarily by mercenary considerations. It's a wealthy foundation that apparently pays pretty well, and being a fellow of it wouldn't seem to be an especially onerous affair, since as far as one can gather no actual research is required: this came out very clearly at the Dover Pa trial a few years back, when the IDeologists were asked to produce all the scientific papers they'd written and, er, couldn't.
So far as their audience is concerned, I think the main motivation, aside from religion-based self-persuasion, is that streak of bloody-mindedness which makes certain individuals believe that, just because they've been able to plow their way through a Reader's Digest science article in the dentist's waiting room, they're able to argue science on an equal level with, y'know, yer actual scientists. Most of us realize this is a delusion, and channel our wacky ideas into writing (or thinking about writing) SF, or perhaps for the kind of speculation that sounds so fascinating during post-coital blether but at no other time. But for a few, convinced they now know science, the next step is thinking they know science better than them bloody scientists do -- so that contradicting modern scientific thinking is almost a macho thing: a "proof" of their intellectual virility.
This is why they're so impervious to logical argument: to concede they were wrong would be to undermine their sense of self. They're like the guy in the pub who solves arguments with his fists, because any rational debate would give the wrong result and involve a loss of face.
no subject
The religious aspect may genuinely be of importance to some of these people, but I suspect to most of them it's merely a tool -- just as Hunter in his conclusion uses it as a tool to kind of cement his claim in the eyes of those who see the holes in his attempt at rational argument.
A lot of the Discovery Institute fellows, I'm convinced, are driven primarily by mercenary considerations. It's a wealthy foundation that apparently pays pretty well, and being a fellow of it wouldn't seem to be an especially onerous affair, since as far as one can gather no actual research is required: this came out very clearly at the Dover Pa trial a few years back, when the IDeologists were asked to produce all the scientific papers they'd written and, er, couldn't.
So far as their audience is concerned, I think the main motivation, aside from religion-based self-persuasion, is that streak of bloody-mindedness which makes certain individuals believe that, just because they've been able to plow their way through a Reader's Digest science article in the dentist's waiting room, they're able to argue science on an equal level with, y'know, yer actual scientists. Most of us realize this is a delusion, and channel our wacky ideas into writing (or thinking about writing) SF, or perhaps for the kind of speculation that sounds so fascinating during post-coital blether but at no other time. But for a few, convinced they now know science, the next step is thinking they know science better than them bloody scientists do -- so that contradicting modern scientific thinking is almost a macho thing: a "proof" of their intellectual virility.
This is why they're so impervious to logical argument: to concede they were wrong would be to undermine their sense of self. They're like the guy in the pub who solves arguments with his fists, because any rational debate would give the wrong result and involve a loss of face.