Thursday, March 22, 2007

Just thinking...

I got to thinking about Ed Humes' ability to paint a picture of his subject with his subtle descriptions. I mentioned in this post that it seemed to me that the ID supporters were always painted negatively while the evolutionists descriptions were more flattering.

His descriptions of people throughout were very telling in that every person who did not support Darwinism was painted as a person who was trying to force religion into the schools. There were also negative overtones in regard to their descriptions such as "his eyes burning and birdlike", "something of a loose cannon", "an affable, balding law professor in his sixties with a conspicuous gray comb-over", "the big, bluff animal doctor", or "a young attorney...with a soft, hoarse voice, a pained expression on his face, and a poker hand he didn't seem to relish...". Humes is a master of subtle digs against those who support design, but his description of Miller, Matzke, Scott, Forrest, and the Dover science teachers are glowing, with Miller even being compared to a "rock star".
Well, it just dawned on me that he did the same thing to me when he linked to my blog from his website:

A brief but revealing back-and-forth between opposing points of view on this Talk Radio Evolution theme can be found at Evolving Thoughts, while the creationist take from someone who calls herself ForTheKid can be found here.

Monkey Girl in the Blogosphere — Two popular blogs have reviewed Monkey Girl. Red State Rabble brings a Kansas perspective to the story, having lived through and ably documented the evolution wars in the Sunflower State for years, while PZ Myers complains (ever so nicely) over at Pharyngula that Monkey Girl kept him up too late reading. Update: Evolving in Kansas finds Monkey Girl a good read, too. [my emphasis]
It's almost like sending subliminal messages...

First he says “the creationist take” which seems to automatically link creationist with ID again. Then he says “who calls herself” ForTheKid. First of all its ~ForTheKid*s*~, and something just somehow sounds demeaning in the way he says that. It seems as though he could have just used my blog name like he did everyone else. We have “Evolving Thoughts”, “Red State Rabble”, “Pharyngula” and “Evolving in Kansas”, but I’m just referred to as that freaky creationist who “calls herself ForTheKid*s*”. I suppose he couldn't bring himself to print the words "Reasonable Kansans".

I feel insulted somehow, but perhaps I'm just being too sensitive about these descriptions?

Looks like he likes Pat & PZ though....figures. I'm going to have to have a little talk about this with him after his lecture next week at KU. I just can't believe he likes those two meanies better than me!!