Saturday, October 06, 2007

"There’s something to the broken record method."

When I first commented on Cornelia Dean's repetition of her editorial opinion in "news" articles ("there is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution"), I joked about people reciting it as a blind faith inducing creed:
Come all ye who doubt Darwin: recite Cornelia's Creed every time such evil thoughts arise. It helps if you shut your eyes tight and only think about lots of animals having lots of sex for a very long time. Oh, and by all means, do not let a single thought about the actual fossil record enter your mind. Honest paleontologists are like wolves in sheep’s clothing to a devout disciple of Saint Charles.

I am feeling prophetic, because one blogger is suggesting something quite similar:

Annie Wagner may be tiring of the phrase, but I like that Cornelia Dean is doing this. There’s something to the broken record method. The more you repeat the phrase, the more people get used to hearing those words together.

Say it together now: There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution.

By the way, the title of his post suggests the repetition of an even simpler version.

The alternative is to stop quoting such a vague, simplistic, inaccurate platitude and look at the evidence and decide for yourself. But that is too much work for a lot of people. And some people, I am sure, are a wee bit afraid of what they will find. They would rather put their blind faith in the opinions of Richard Dawkins and Cornelia Dean.

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Cornelia's Creed Becomes Famous

Cornelia Dean's repeated use of the editorial comment "there is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution," or some equivalent, has gotten some attention lately. I first discussed this two years ago and called it "Cornelia's Creed."

The EvoNews blog links to a self-described "intelligent design-despising" blogger who is even getting tired of it:
Cornelia Dean! It’s good to be emphatic, but you start to sound like a robot—one of those Darwin-believin’ automatons whom the Discovery Institute takes great pleasure in deriding.

A follow up post on the Evo News blog contains a chronicle of sorts on its use, and suggests that Cornelia may have a macro on her computer, which I speculated about two years ago:
Think she has a macro on her word processor that just spits the "no credible scientific challenge" language in every article she writes?

Maybe the Expelled folks will interview her? Hope so. If she refuses, they should at least interview a neutral journalism expert on whether this is good journalistic practice. That would be entertaining.