The Leftist War on Science

[CBL4]

I gave this some thought overnight and I think there is a real difference between the anti-science of the academic left and the Christian Right.

The academic left is an insular group which mostly leaves the rest of us alone. Yes, they do waste taxpayer money and brainwash a few fools but in most respects they are a harmless cult of idiots.

If the Christian Right remained insular and cultlike, I would simply ridicule them and go about my own business. Unfortunately, they are not only try to brainwash their disciples, they are trying to brainwash children everywhere. And the worst part is that they are succeeding. A large portion of the American public wants creationism to be taught either because they believe it or in a mistaken notion of "fairness."

In addition, the Christian Right provides most of the leadership for the Republican party - Bush, Lott, DeLay, etc. This is not to say there are not intelligent, secular Republican - Schwarzenegger's support for stem cell research is the most notable. But most of the Republican leadership comes from the south and it is virtually impossible for a southern Republican to win a primary without at least lukewarm accpetance from the anti-science Christian Right.

I hope that Mooney's book can be read on its own merit without partisan blinders. I also hope it can be as effective as Higher Superstions was.

CBL

 

[CBL4]

The "Edwards vs. Aguillard" decision was 7-2 against Creation pseudoscience but I would not guarantee a similar ruling on ID. Scalia and Thomas would clearly repeat their idiocy and Thomas would undoubtedly agree.

Could they get two more votes from the rest? I hope not but I would not be surprised especially with a few more Bush appointments.

CBL

 

[Mona]

Thanks for that extra information about Dover, I didn't know that.

Let's hope that they don't learn from their mistakes, and that they get a big slapdown at a high judicial level.

It's looking very good. The Thomas More Law Society is defending the Dover school board, and the DI "fellows" are most displeased with the case and the TMLS's legal strategy -- Dembski was even threatening to sue TMLS at one point. DI so does not like this case, and there is great dissension in the ranks.

The Panda's Thumb blog -- a group endeavor by a bunch of scientists and a few lawyers -- is the best place to keep up on both all things ID and Dover. To read PT's most recent take on Dover and the DI go here: http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/001160.html

And here is a goggle search list for a lot of other PT entries on the case: http://www.google.com/custom?cof=S:...rch=pandasthumb.org&q=Dover+Dembski&sa=Search

 

[Mona]

The "Edwards vs. Aguillard" decision was 7-2 against Creation pseudoscience but I would not guarantee a similar ruling on ID. Scalia and Thomas would clearly repeat their idiocy and Thomas would undoubtedly agree.

Could they get two more votes from the rest? I hope not but I would not be surprised especially with a few more Bush appointments.

CBL

It was Scalia and Rehnquist. Thomas wasn't on the High Court yet.

But your point is well-taken. I've considered it and posted such fretting myself over at the Panda's Thumb in response to another lawyer who then seemed overly sanguine to me as to whether Edwards would survive the SCOTUS as presently constituted.

I think Scalia, on this issue, may be hopeless, since he almost entirely refuses to consider legislative motive; if a legislature simply asserts it has a secular reason for what it does, Antonin believes them. But I do not see Thomas necessarily following there (contrary to popular delusion, he frequently departs from Scalia), and also do not think Roberts likely would go in that direction. In any event, the ACLU is smart, and knows how to create a record and draft briefs with an eye on the judicial philosophy of the ultimate arbiters, and I think that is what they are doing.

 

[CBL4]

It was Scalia and Rehnquist. Thomas wasn't on the High Court yet.

Yes, I mistyped. I meant to say "Scalia and Rehnquist would clearly repeat their idiocy." I would be shocked to find Thomas on the side of reason in this case. It is to early to do more than speculate on Roberts.

Another thing is that it may take a few years for a case to get to the supreme court. It is likely that Rehnquist, Stevens and another will be gone.

CBL

 

[aerocontrols]

This reason article gives a good overview of some pre-Bush politicization of science.

I'm under the impression that opposition to GM foods is mostly a product of the Left. As well as attempts to keep the tropical poor from using DDT to protect itself from malaria.

Neither of those positions seems all that scientifically sound.

 

[Orwell]

This reason article gives a good overview of some pre-Bush politicization of science.

I'm under the impression that opposition to GM foods is mostly a product of the Left. As well as attempts to keep the tropical poor from using DDT to protect itself from malaria.

Neither of those positions seems all that scientifically sound.

Good article: lotsa links.

There's no doubt that there has been abuses for a long time. That's not in dispute. But I have the impression that these abuses have become more numerous under the Bush administration. Also, the fact that there have been abuses in the past does not excuse present day abuses.

As I said on another thread: stupidity on the left does not excuse stupidity on the right.

 

[crimresearch]

Well then, why don't you start your own thread on the anti-science attitudes of the right?

 

[Orwell]

Well then, why don't you start your own thread on the anti-science attitudes of the right?

You're right, I'm getting of track... I won't start one of those, there are enough of them already.

It has been my observation that people on the left are more willing to indulge in all that alternative medicine hokum... But my pet peeve regarding typical "leftie" irrationality is the new age stuff: the replacement of traditional bunk with new and improved bovine manure...

 

[Mona]

Yes, I mistyped. I meant to say "Scalia and Rehnquist would clearly repeat their idiocy." I would be shocked to find Thomas on the side of reason in this case. It is to early to do more than speculate on Roberts.

Another thing is that it may take a few years for a case to get to the supreme court. It is likely that Rehnquist, Stevens and another will be gone.

CBL

I just took a quick look at Edwards and at Scalia's dissent; I had forgotten that that case was decided on summary judgment, and much of Scalia's unhappiness related to deciding it at that early point.

Scalia wrote this

The people of Louisiana, including those who are Christian fundamentalists, are quite entitled, as a secular matter, to have whatever scientific evidence there may be against evolution presented in their schools, just as Mr. Scopes was entitled to present whatever scientific evidence there was for it. Perhaps what the Louisiana Legislature has done is unconstitutional because there is no such evidence, and the scheme they have established will amount to no more than a presentation of the Book of Genesis. But we cannot say that on the evidence before us in this summary judgment context, which includes ample uncontradicted testimony that "creation science" is a body of scientific knowledge rather than revealed belief. Infinitely less can we say (or should we say) that the scientific evidence for evolution is so conclusive that no one could be gullible enough to believe that there is any real scientific evidence to the contrary, so that the legislation's stated purpose must be a lie.

As we know, there is NO body of scientific evidence supporting scientific creationism. Neither is there one for ID. Unlike Edwards, the Dover case is proceeding to trial, where there will (hopefully) be a judicial determination, buttressed by evidence adduced at trial, that there is no scientific body of evidence supporting ID.

So, if Scalia could not find the testimony that there in fact is such a body of evidence "uncontradicted" in a summary judgment context, then clearly what the ACLU in Dover needs to do is make sure there is no such outlet for Scalia in that case. That is what they are doing. Dover won't be decided on SJ. (Notwithstanding that the ID defendants moved to do so.)

 

[aerocontrols]

Good article: lotsa links.

There's no doubt that there has been abuses for a long time. That's not in dispute. But I have the impression that these abuses have become more numerous under the Bush administration. Also, the fact that there have been abuses in the past does not excuse present day abuses.

As I said on another thread: stupidity on the left does not excuse stupidity on the right.

It seems that my post was on-topic. I didn't realize that I was trying to excuse any stupidity.

I would also (despite the nearness and dearness to heart of the evolution question to most on this forum) look at the politization of science from a rather different angle than most.

Politics at odds with evolution (whether it's a question of evolution's existence from the Right or questions of evolution's effects on humans from the Left) or even a decision to avoid experimenting on stem cells are minimally important compared to questions which can do some damage if we get them wrong:

Global warming
Nuclear power
Genetically modified food
Vaccination
DDT use
etc.

Perhaps there is some public harm done if we teach creationism alongside evolution, but I rather think that advanced countries where, for instance, only half of US adults will tell you that the Earth revolves around the Sun once a year (and only 1/3 will give you that answer in Britain -
source for both) can survive being exposed to creationism in schools.

Of course, one could argue that such scientific illiteracy only makes the problem of correctly answering the bigger questions worse.

 

[Mona]

It seems that my post was on-topic. I didn't realize that I was trying to excuse any stupidity.

I would also (despite the nearness and dearness to heart of the evolution question to most on this forum) look at the politization of science from a rather different angle than most.

Politics at odds with evolution (whether it's a question of evolution's existence from the Right or questions of evolution's effects on humans from the Left) or even a decision to avoid experimenting on stem cells are minimally important compared to questions which can do some damage if we get them wrong:

Global warming
Nuclear power
Genetically modified food
Vaccination
DDT use
etc.

Perhaps there is some public harm done if we teach creationism alongside evolution, but I rather think that advanced countries where, for instance, only half of US adults will tell you that the Earth revolves around the Sun once a year (and only 1/3 will give you that answer in Britain -
source for both) can survive being exposed to creationism in schools.

Of course, one could argue that such scientific illiteracy only makes the problem of correctly answering the bigger questions worse.

I am sympathetic to your position, but know too much about the DI and its Wedge strategy to take the casual view you do about getting ID into the public schools. On their own terms, they have no intention of stopping there.

There is now a lawsuit by YECs in CA, suing the UC system for refusing to grant credit for creationist classes to applicants who attended Xian schools and learned only creationist drek. It isn't science, and no academic biology dept should be required to accept such coursework as preparatory for studies in biology. The gravamen of the YEC suit is religious- and viewpoint discrimination.

Let them succeed in convincing courts that ID/creationism is science, and that academic standards are arbitrary and founded on nothing, and there is no reason such suits should not succeed. There is also then no reason suits to compel equal state funding for creationism in state universities should not succeed. And I guarantee you, that is where the IDists and YECs ultimately want to go.

Read their Wedge Documents if you doubt it.