Neil deGrasse Tyson: Scientist or Ideological Propagandist?


Neil deGrasse Tyson is one of the latest pretty faces of Atheistic science.

Neil_deGrasse_Tyson_at_Howard_University_September_28,_2010_(cropped_to_shoulders).jpg

Smooth, attractive, well spoken, well educated (PhD), persuasive, great stage presence …

And a man of “cutsie“ statements like the following:

“I think of, like, the human body, and I look at what’s going on between our legs,” Tyson said. “There’s like a sewage system and entertainment complex intermingling. No engineer of any intelligence would have designed it that way.”

This is not an intelligent comment from a much educated man – or should we say a much indoctrinated man – but rather a shallow comment intended to influence and convince. In other words, it’s a statement of propaganda, and  this comment shows Tyson is a master of it.

This comment is not original with Tyson, and exhibits a desire to further an ideological and religious agenda, the agenda of Atheism. The attempted veneer of science and engineering falls flat when we take a deeper look at the human body and its design. Some examples:

  • Many of us have watched Olympic ice-skaters with admiration.
  • Or watched those incredible one-handed catches by NFL wide receivers.
  • Or stand in awe as that shortstop – second baseman – first baseman executes that perfect double play in baseball.
  • Or have attended that concert where we see and hear beautiful and inspiring music written by brilliant and talented composers, played and sung by talented and well practiced musicians on instruments designed and crafted by inventive designers.
  • Or have read or are reading one of those millions of books in the homes, bookstores and libraries around the world.
  • Or have designed or built many of those beautiful buildings many of us have visited and spent time exploring.
  • Or have taken part in the design, engineering and manufacturing of those many machines and software packages we use day-by-day in our everyday life.
  • Or have produced one of those spectacular movie sagas.
  • And no small matter – the human body is capable of reproducing itself, and has been doing so for as long as humans have inhabited the earth.
  • … and more …

No, an honest, thoughtful and  in-depth comment about the design of the human body would take a look at the total package and not set up a contrived straw man caricature of a few cherry picked parts of anatomy in an attempt to indoctrinate and propagandize. 

Properly restated, Tyson’s comment would be concluded by saying “No engineer of any intelligence could have designed it that way.” Tyson is no biologist of any sort, nor is he an engineer of any sort.

What Tyson is, is a man who has stayed way too long in the indoctrinating ivory towers of academia. A man with no real-world, hands-on experience in the design, engineering and manufacture of real world things. A man who has been drinking his own bathwater for years and desires to pass that bathwater to all who will listen, especially the young and impressionable.  

Don Johnson – November 2015

Advertisements

3 responses to “Neil deGrasse Tyson: Scientist or Ideological Propagandist?

  1. I think of, like, the human body, and I look at what’s going on between our legs,” Tyson said. “There’s like a sewage system and entertainment complex intermingling. No engineer of any intelligence would have designed it that way.” That’s a Robin Williams line.

    • Could be Williams, but I think it goes back even further. But Williams was an actor and comedian and Tyson is a well known celebrity “scientist.” I think that makes quite a different in terms of the ideological/propaganda strength of such a remark. What say you?

  2. From a comment on UncommonDescent at http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/march-for-science-neil-degrasse-tyson-thinks-science-denial-dismantles-democracy/ Comment #13
    __________________________________

    Of course you won’t watch it asauber, because Tyson is articulate and makes sense.
    Watched it myself and its one of the poorest argument I have ever heard Tyson make. Worse its demonstrably historically false. Our democracy was built without reference to climate change, Evolution or vaccination. To claim we became this shining nation because of science and technology ignores that our ancestors wrote our founding documents under the lighting power of candles. We became industrious, were at times committed to principles that led to greatness by our ethos and beliefs not our discoveries. They were fruits of that ethos.
    People don’t want to listen to Tyson sometimes not because of his science but by his corruption of it in the service of his philosophical commitment to atheism – which like it or not is not a belief that Science speaks to. He has now developed a history of even distorting the historical record in a quest to negate the good influences of religion on history.
    Nothing can be ever rational when its based on a fallacy. In this case two.
    A) A straw man. there is not a widespread “Science denial” in this country. We have people who in good faith disagree on climate change. Most of us vaccinate our kids, use technology (gleefully) , and get immediate medical attention and check ups as needed – ALL OF WHICH IS AN ACCEPTANCE OF SCIENCE. Even evolution would be more greatly adhered to if it was not wrapped in an unscientific veil of materialism which the very person in question propagates.
    B) Veiled appeals to consensus authority as science.
    For some reason a number of “new atheists” are not content to merely say the best science disagrees with this position or that at this time. There is almost a NEED to go beyond that to overreach and claim that the people who are not convinced by the existing science are, at the heart of it, deniers of science in general. Amusingly, its a tactic not so different from the very thing materialists point to the church as doing – “If you don’t agree with the church on this then you are anti Christ”.
    The slur is supposed to exert pressure on those with a disagreement on merely a sliver of scientific issues and to sound a false alarm that science itself generally is under attack – which is just balderdash.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s