Google and liberalism’s latest substitute for the sacred

Several readers have written to me today about Google’s use of a photo of the fossil of the newly discovered species Darwinius moolae (Darwinian moola) arranged to form part of the Google logo. It doesn’t strike me as a big deal. The 47 million year old supposed “missing link” between animals and humans (who, by the way, didn’t come into existence until 46.8 million years after this “missing link,” and whose most distant walking-upright “ancestors,” the Australopithecines, didn’t come into existence until 43 million years after this “missing link”) is the liberal thing of the moment, and Google always goes with the liberal flow. Of all the annoying things liberals might do, this seems the least bothersome.

- end of initial entry -

Ben W. writes:

Mr. Auster,

You’re just a party pooper. An astounding discovery and all you can do is pooh-pooh it. You’re the type that if God himself appeared to you with all the proof in the world and told you that Darwin was right, that everything came from randomness, you wouldn’t believe God himself. You would argue against God himself and all the angels of heaven against Darwinism!

May 21

Pentheus writes:

Unless I am mistaking your meaning, it seems you are missing something here.

The point is not, “Hey, look what Google did.” The point is that the dishonest media campaign announcing the discovery of “the missing link” has done its job, regardless of any scientific merit.

The purpose is to implant the idea in the public mind, regardless of its merits. Nothing you write unpacking the falsehoods of the claim, however so well or so true, makes any difference in this regard. Nor does anything any scientist says. Not even the self-contradictory admissions by the very scientist behind the publicity campaign. It is like a criminal defense lawyer who makes groundless assertions in the form of a question on cross-examination. Even if it is objected to, the question stricken and the jury instructed, as the expression goes, “you can’t unring the bell.”

The Google logo of the fossil is merely evidence of this process. (Although it—the logo—is also causative in that it provides further publicity and validation.)

LA replies:

But I accepted as a given from the start, not that I was happy about it, that liberals would jump on this and obediently reflect the “missing link” hype. My point was merely that I did not find Google’s use of the fossil as a logo offensive. Leaving aside the “missing link” nonsense, it was, after all, an extraordinary find, an intact 47 million year old primate. Google wasn’t saying, “Here’s the missing link!” It was memorializing this remarkable discovery. I find nothing wrong with that. Let’s say there had been the announcement without the lies. It still would have been big news, worth noting.

Also, it was only for one day. They have another logo on their main page today. So this is not a big deal.

What I do find troubling is the number of media organs and websites brainlessly repeating that this is the “missing link,” and also speaking of the “human-like” features of the specimen, when, in fact, all primates have those features. I didn’t immediately pick on the latter at the start. I first noticed it in Wikipedia, as discussed here two days ago, but only realized last night that the same things were being said at many websites and newspapers.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 20, 2009 04:59 PM | Send