Friday, August 10, 2007

WWPZD - Moral Guidance from the "Best Science Blog" : Much Butt Kicking and Much Hiding of Books In Bookstores to Restrict Access

As noted in an earlier post, according to the NY Times, many biologists "believe that if morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by evolution, it is for biologists, not philosophers or theologians, to say what these rules are." Well if this is case, then we should all eagerly follow the teachings of PZ Myers to discern the wise path of moral enlightenment.

In addition to the need to "get meaner" and engage in "much butt kicking" and the "public firing and humiliation of some teachers," PZ now gives his blessing to hiding books in bookstores to restrict access to them (discussed in my previous post here. One might call this "book banning in a cheap tuxedo.") In his post, he seems genuinely surprised that all the great moral philosophers are not doing it.

If you are wondering what gives PZ the right to determine which books are available to rest of us, rest assured. It is because he is right, and he is sure of it, and, as he noted in his "break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles" post, he is on the side of reason and human rights:
[D]on't even suggest that we're being too partisan. I am on the side of reason and human rights, and my only failing is that I'm not partisan enough.
All this from the Best Science Blog on the web.

Wednesday, August 08, 2007

Like Banning Books, Only More Juvenile

This individual thinks he needs to hide books in bookstores for the sake of science in order to help Darwin's theory along. The intent and effect is the same as book banning: access to certain books is restricted. People who want to buy a book will not be able to. They will look for the book, not find it, ask a clerk, and the clerk will also not be able to find it. One may quibble about how this differs from book banning, but the intent and results are the same. The only meaningful difference is the degree and scope of success he will achieve.

This Darwinist is intent on undermining the free marketplace of ideas. Instead of using civil discourse and reason to defeat the person with whom he disagrees, he is trying to silence his opponent. I guess this guy follows the moral precept: if you disagree with the content of a book, hide it so others cannot read it. Ponder what would happen if everyone followed his example.

Another clear case of Darwinian Fundamentalism.

Banning books seems to be a favored activity of the followers of Darwin, as the posts here and here demonstrate.

Hat tip to Post-Darwinist.