The era of nonpartisan science is gone, says Miller, who urges scientists and science educators to learn the rules of this new game and get behind moderate Republicans as well as Democrats to protect the practice and teaching of sound science.
I stumbled across this article and came away bemused, confused, and, ultimately, amused. Bemused that the author thinks this is something new. Confused at yet another article decrying the politicizing of science while focusing only on the right's use of science. Amused at the attitude that this is something terrifying.
The trend is decades old. Consider Silent Spring. Its "science" was tenuous at best, especially its assault on DDT, but it was the major springboard for the entire environmental movement, which at its heart and soul (Ha!) is a left-wing assault on capitalism. The entire movement is based on gross exaggeration of findings and outright fabrications. They make wild claims based on the most tenuous of data -- assuming there is any data at all -- and go from there. To question their methodology or their conclusions is to risk life and limb. To this day you can't even begin to discuss using DDT despite irrefutable proof that it could save millions around the world each and every year.
Or consider nuclear winter. Here was a conclusion based on a string of assumptions about which no one could speak with any authority. Despite such a fabricated basis it was presented as a conclusion beyond dispute. In reality it was completely political, a leftwing dove attack on rightwing hawks. The "science" was sold so well -- and selling is precisely what its supporters did -- that to this day you still hear cultural references to it. And if you challenge the notion you are vilified, marginalized, and treated as a nut case.
Today there's the never-ending braying about global cooling global warming global catastrophic climate change. If you question the orthodoxy of climate change you are treated as a heretic. All blame for climate change is laid at the feet of the right, while the left is virtuous and pure. Again, if you merely question the conclusion you are a heretic fit only for burning. Witness how "science" responded to the Danish statistician, Bjorn Lomborg, who wrote The Skeptical Environmentalist. It was a hatchet job. There was little to no debate as to his evidence; the attack was purely political, a left-wing assault on the right.
The quoted article mentions stem cell research but focuses on evolution, a very old debate indeed. From the early days of the debate, though, opponents of the theory were marginalized as kooks not worthy of having their views aired.
Consider the Scopes trial. More precisely, consider the fictionalized version of that event, the 1960 film Inherit the Wind. This is one of my favorite films, and Spencer Tracy, as Henry Drummond, delivers a courtroom speech (re a "wicked law") that should be emblazoned on the walls of every law school and should be holy writ in the halls of Congress. Despite this, it has become a painful movie for me to watch because of the horrific way in which it treats Tracy's opponent, Matt Brady, played by the great Frederic March.
Where the agnostic Drummond is reserved and quiet, an unflagging advocate for the oppressed, the religious Brady is presented as loud and demanding, wholly lacking in humility and smugly secure within the righteousness of his faith. Fine, but his courtroom performance -- where he's supposed to be the equal of Drummond -- is abysmal. It's clear that the film's writers were of the mind that there is no logical or reasonable objection to teaching evolution, so therefore it would be impossible to present a logical or reasonable argument in court. As a result, Brady can't argue, he can only bully.
Yet the more you listen to a reasoned Christian presentation of the issue the more you realize what a straw-man farce the fictional Matthew Brady is.
Thus, my point. Opponents of evolution have been marginalized for over 50 years. Look at the essay that prompted my little giggle here. It drips with contempt for anyone who doesn't just accept evolution. Indeed, the article treats unquestioned acceptance of evolution as a basic measure of a person's scientific literacy. That's a ridiculous litmus test, especially coming, as it does, from people who purport to object to litmus tests!
And consider who is repressing whom. A small town in California opted to teach intelligent design (ID) as a part of its philosophy curriculum, not as science. This put them in compliance with a Supreme Court ruling to that effect, that ID could not be taught as science but could be taught as philosophy. Opponents (and I hesitate to call them supporters of evolution as they are more accurately described as rabidly anti-religion) raged at the school board, threatening suit. Again, note that the school board had opted to follow the Supreme Court guideline in the matter. That wasn't good enough. Instead, these rabid folk didn't want ID anywhere near their school. The school board buckled under the threat and removed ID from all school curriculum.
To supporters of evolution, the mere questioning of the concept means you are ignorant and dangerous. Here, in the glorious and enlightened state of California, it is a threat to world peace to discuss intelligent design even as a philosophical concept. In contrast, just to hammer the point home, it's perfectly all right to study Islam.
If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough.
(James A. Thomson, first to isolate human embryonic stem cells)
The irony is that most of the great men and women of science were profoundly religious. There is no inherent conflict. Even the Catholic Church has come out in opposition to the teaching of ID as science, stating clearly that they saw no conflict between the Biblical Creation and the theory of evolution. There is no such acceptance from the left-wing presentation of science. They come from a philosophy of scorched earth, no compromise, their way or no way.
So please, do not lecture me about right-wing fundamentalist attempts to pervert science. I've been subjected to left-wing fundamentalist perversions of science for far too long to take your whining seriously.
Comments