Denyse: Doubleplusgood Duckspeaker

Sometimes I think that "Intelligent Design Creationists" must be just un-be-frikkin'-leivably stupid. Other times I think they must be pathological liars. Normally, however, in the interests of brotherly love, I'm prepared to accept that they're just un-be-frikkin'-leivably stupid pathological liars.

Could I be wrong?

Let's take Denyse O'Leary as a example.

Sure, only a blithering idiot would say that intellect confers no evolutionary advantage... But I don't really think that Denyse O'Leary has the mental ability of, say, a four year old.

And certainly, when Denyse says that evolutionary science needs a "paramedic", she's being dishonest about not only her own qualifications to talk about the subject, but also the opinions of practically every biologist working in the field, who will confirm this is simply not true.

But if these positions are not based on either mental deficiencies or deliberate falsehoods, maliciously intended to deceive... Then what is going on?

Today it hit me. It's not really about actual dishonesty or actual stupidity. In fact, it's not about thought at all.

Here's George Orwell from "1984", on what he called Duckspeak:

"Ultimately it was hoped to make articulate speech issue from the larynx without involving the higher brain centres at all. This aim was frankly admitted in the Newspeak word duckspeak […]. Like various words in the B vocabulary, duckspeak was ambivalent in meaning. Provided that the opinions which were quacked out were orthodox ones, it implied nothing but praise, and when the Times referred to one of the orators of the Party as a doubleplusgood duckspeaker it was paying a warm and valued compliment."

I am, of course, being facetious. But you get my point...