On the other hand, that last quote sounds quite a bit like a threat towards Meyers.

One of the things I’ve found interesting in watching Discovery Channel stuff is that the ancient Greek priests clearly knew that many of their religious gimmicks were just that. At the same time, they also furthered both the scientific and the technical arts. It reminds me of Granny Weatherwax and the admonition that you have to tell people a story that they’ll believe if you want them to do what they need to do. (You should read Pratchett, if you haven’t.) A lot of the “inner mysteries” of many religions is the revelation that it’s all a load of hooey and here’s the real science behind what we do.

The modern world has taken away the mask and made science accessible to the masses. The problem is that the masses don’t want that complexity; they want simple instructions that they can follow without having to think a whole lot. In short, they want priests to tell them what to do, not advice on how to figure it out themselves. Scientists hurt themselves even more here because they constantly express doubt, while the priests never do.

Thinking back on the original comment, what we’re looking at is another common creationist tactic: the fallacy of false equivalence. Since there are two “competing theories” at work here, it’s completely unfair to dismiss one out of hand (the thinking goes). I’m “biased” because I’m not giving equal weight to whatever other alternatives to evolution woo-woo thinkers come up with.

Of course, this isn’t how argumentation works, and it sure as hell isn’t how science works. Generally there’s only one truth, but an infinite number of possible false variants. Should we give equal time in Chemistry class to the four fundamental Aristotelian elements of earth, wind, water, and fire versus the Periodic Table of the Elements? Should we give equal time in Physics class to the notion that objects fall because all objects want to be at rest versus the theory of gravity and Newton’s Laws? Should we give equal time in Astronomy class to geocentrism versus a much more nuanced view of the universe in which not only isn’t the Earth the center, nor is the Sun, but that there is no center at all because space-time itself is expanding?

Hell no! Why do you expect me to give equal weight to superstitious nonsense that was disproved hundreds of years ago?! It’s only because you’re so incredibly ignorant that you would ever even demand such a thing.

‘mute

“I sure hate all those bias editorialist out there”

Doesn’t that sound stupid…

In other words, they are attempting to play on your ego. By giving you the impression that your views are unpopular, they hope to make you change your opinions (or at least the way you express them).

This kind of tactic is very common on the internet in general, regardless of subject. Don’t fall for it. Not that I think you would :-)

Incidentally, is it really so hard for you to accept simple truths of the universe that you’d rather take your ball and go home?