Posted on 04/11/2009 9:21:02 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Ping!
Another one that really annoys me is the animation of a meteorite hitting, and dinosaurs running away, and being killed by the blast. It’s such nonsense, but people see that, and it sticks, idiomatically, in their mind, because there is currently a vacuum in that place.
lol
I’m reminded of an exchange I had a while back about posting graphics as an argument.......
What chaps my hide is that they create these images, even though in many cases they know they are false, or at best extremely speculative.
My disagreement with using them in a debate is that I consider it a coward's tactic. You don't have to defend what you're saying if you never really said anything.
That makes no sense at all. Is showing the images of the dead bodies piled up at Auschwitz to a Holocaust denier taking the cowards way out?
No.
Showing that same picture in a different context, with the intent of implicitly accusing someone of being complicit or responsible but not being will to come right out and say so would be.
Well good, that settles it then. I came right out and said that Haekel was a full-on racist.
That's fine.
Do you agree with the author's assesment that the use of images is used to evoke an emotional response, rather than present a reasoned argument?
“....some [artists] wrongly took it [evolution] as justification to elevate whites over other races,..”
But that is precisely what Darwinism teaches, that the dark skinned, ape-like ancestors of modern man came out of Africa and evolved into the lighter skinned races,(think Englishmen of the 19th century).
And the propaganda by poster art goes on: Lucy, peppered moths, animal embryos, feathered dinosaurs, auto insurance “cavemen”, etc.
Accurate? Who cares? What matter is the narrative.
Why are you bothering to complain about someone who did the bulk of his work over 100 years ago and who hasn’t been cited in a biology text for nearly as long?
Yes, images can be misused in that way. However, some images, if they speak to some deep moral outrage, would be less than accurate if they failed to produce an emotional response. It all depends on the context. For instance, an image or images that produce a strong negative emotional response by showing a partial birth abortion procedure would be more accurate than a set of images that fail to produce the same. Again, it all depends on the context.
Yet some version of Haeckels drawings can
be found in most current biology textbooks. Stephen
Jay Gould, one of evolutionary theorys most
vocal proponents, recently wrote that we should be
astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless
recycling that has led to the persistence of these
drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of
modern textbooks. (I will return below to the question
of why it is only now that Mr. Gould, who has
known of these forgeries for decades, has decided to
bring them to widespread attention.)
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf
Tell that to TL!
Again, the ability of the images to produce the emotional response is not in question. The context in which they are used and how they attempt to manipulate peoply by using that response is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.