Replies

To be frank I was surprised to see him come out against environmentalism--he always appeared to be a liberal to me. One of his earlier books basically was a push to legalize abortion, and his sequel to Jurassic Park had large chapters bashing 6-day creationism. I'm not a literal creationist but if I had to write books bashing political issues I'd write 100 books bashing liberal issues before getting around to creationism.

And his Jurassic Park book, while a good read, seemed to be full of stereotypical liberal themes--big evil arrogant corporation buys island, messes with nature, pays for it all in the end... so I was *really* surprised to read this article.

And his Jurassic Park book, while a good read, seemed to be full of stereotypical liberal themes--big evil arrogant corporation buys island, messes with nature, pays for it all in the end... so I was *really* surprised to read this article.

It sometimes helps to understand mindset when reading, doesn't it. I viewed Jurrasic park not as an anti-business rant; but, as a lesson being taught on the errors of abusing science. He comes right out and says so through one of the characters. 'they were so preocupied with whether they could they didn't think about whether they should.' Funny it should be the chaos theorist that says it so blatently. Some just can't stand for the wrong guy to be right. Many are so preoccupied with what they're sure they know that they can't stand it when facts prove them otherwise - it is called quackery, bigotry and any number of other things.

Good example, try debating c14 dating with the faithful. A more convoluted mess of an argument you couldn't find so readily. Science that isn't factual isn't science. I think it's possible we could all list multiple real world examples of this. So what do we do about it? I say stand by your guns and demand strict adherance to scientific method. That tends to tweak the faithful; but, it must be pushed.