The three denialists were Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and Tom Tancredo. McCain hesitated before admitting that he believes in evolution. (Curtsy, again, to Ezra).
Denialism has become the primary intellectual sin among conservatives. Denial of evolution, denial of global warming, denial of utter disaster in Iraq, and the Terri Schiavo embarrassment are, in a way, just four different cases of the same right-wing ineptitude. Conservatives have cultivated a denial of reality so profound that it makes it impossible for them to even acknowledge reality, let alone govern responsibly.
And yeah, not all Republicans are denialists on every issue. But enough Republicans are denialists so that denialism, and antagonism towards science, is now an intrinsic part of the Republican approach to policy. They simply can’t keep their coalition together and acknowledge reality at the same time.
I’m not a big fan of the Democrats. But at least they’re only horribly wrong part of the time. It’s at least conceivable that a Democrat will take an intelligent, responsible position on climate change; Republicans can’t do that. Reality is no longer politically viable for them.
Related news, from The Onion: Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New ‘Intelligent Falling’ Theory.
As far as evolution goes, a significant part of the reason would have to be that most Americans don’t believe in it either. There’s not that huge a difference among the parties – and neither party has a majority that believes in evolution.
The question I would ask is this: of the two major parties, why is it that one of them has leadership that reflects the genuine variety of beliefs present in the constituency and the country as a whole, while the other has leadership which doesn’t?
(Oh, and the intelligent falling thing is hilarious.)
Well, I’m not an intelligent falling advocate per se, but you’ve got to admit that the theory of gravity as it stands has some…problems.
1. As the learned men already quoted in the Onion point out, it can’t be reconciled with quantam mechanics.
2. Unlike any of the other basic forces of physics, no carrier particle-wave has ever been identified for gravity. So how does the mass of, for example, the sun effect the movement of the earth at a great distance without any means of communication between the two objects? Clearly, a supernatural force must be at work.
3. What’s this crap about gravity lensing anyway? How can gravity, which is mass dependent, affect light, which has no mass? Clearly, someone had a bad case of Male Answer Syndrome when they came up with that one.
Teach the controversy! It makes at least as much sense as teaching the non-existent controversy about evolution. Evolution contradicts no biological theory (and, indeed, fits in nicely with genetics, ecology, and medicine, explaining issues that would be otherwise inexplicable), works using only relatively well understood mechanisms, and never, ever asks us to believe that time slows or light bends in response to gravity. It is clearly the superior theory.
As far as the presidential candidates go, I’m actually somewhat encouraged that only three candidates–the three least likely to actually get the nomination–answered yes to the question about belief in evolution. I am astonished and discouraged by the results of the poll Robert cited. Although I do wonder…Americans love hearing about how dumb they are even when the reality isn’t exactly how it appears in the “stupid Americans” claim…perhaps the results are spurious in some way.
Well, they’re spurious in the sense that for very many people, the question is an academic one – and the commonsense “well, if the science nerds say it happened they’re probably right, but on the other hand I know that God is running the show, and so that would mean evolution is just the tool God uses to carry out his creationist agenda” position satisfies an awful lot of us. Whether we shorthand that as “God did it” or “it was evolution but secretly really God”, that’s what we think.
But on the other hand, 82% of America is not standing on a table screaming “teach the Bible or burn!” It’s just not that big a deal for most folks. It is for many of the evangelicals, though, and there are rather a lot of them. Which would seem to indicate that a “ok, this is what science says, ok this is what faith says, now time for recess” approach – which is what a staggering 2/3 of us apparently want – would be both reasonable and pragmatic. I could live with it.
Which would seem to indicate that a “ok, this is what science says, ok this is what faith says, now time for recess” approach
Only if you give equal time to atheism in Sunday school.
Actually, I can think of several places that mentioning intelligent design or creationism in the public schools makes perfect sense. 1. A philosophy of science class. Comparing and contrasting evolution and ID to explain why one is science, the other not would be an excellent example. 2. American history class, as part of an explanation of how religion is a theme in American history. 3. English class while reading the Bible as literature (which I did as a HS student and am quite glad that I did…I’d miss any number of references in other literature if I hadn’t.) But ID or creationism simply doesn’t have a place in a biology class. It has no scientific backing and it only confuses the issue to mention it at all in that context.
Re: the poll Robert cited – this has been going on for a long time, it’s nothing new. Hell, my own mother told me she has doubts about evolution, and she was raised Episcopalian! I was astounded when she told me that.
The teaching of ID has no place in a science class, again unless it’s done in the context that Dianne gives, where you are teaching the difference between philosophy and science. As far as teaching the Bible as literature goes, there’s also the usefulness of teaching that a great many people who believe in the teachings of the Bible, probably the majority in fact, don’t believe that things like “God made the world in six days” are to be taken as literal scientific fact. Most Christians are not Biblical literalists.
So, Amp, according to that poll (and I have no idea how valid it is, mind you, but let’s use what we have), 80% of Kerry voters either want “creationism” taught along side of evolutionary theory in schools or they want ONLY “creati0nism” taught in schools. Yow! Your theory of “denialism” being rampant among Republicans while much less so among Democrats is based on what very well may be a false premise. I wonder; what would happen if, during the next Democratic presidential candidate debate someone asked the candidates what their beliefs are? The answer just might show that “denialism” is not so exclusively Republican as you think. The poll at least shows that it’s not exclusive to the Republican voters.
Hey, *I* want creationism to be taught in American schools, and given at least as much weight as evolutionary theory.
Admittedly, I live in a country that competes with Americans in agricultural exports…
There you go, then. If you even think about teaching creationism in school then the New Zealanders have already won.
At the very least they will be emboldened. Next thing you know we’ll have mutant sheep all over the place.
Seriously, this is an unbelievably depressing finding. Ron is quite correct (this makes twice in a week that I’ve agreed with Ron, a sure sign of the impending apocalypse) that disbelief in evolution cuts across the political spectrum, and probably the religious one as well — although I think Christians are more likely to disbelieve evolution — and also correct that “alternative models” with inferior (or no) science backing them up have no place in science class.
Robert, how do you expect Americans to compete in that global free-market economy you’re so fond of if science teachers have to skimp on actual science teaching to give “equal time” to pseudoscience?
Robert, how do you expect Americans to compete in that global free-market economy you’re so fond of if science teachers have to skimp on actual science teaching to give “equal time” to pseudoscience?
Lu:
The number of Americans who don’t believe in evolution is not a new phenomenon. Most likely, we are at a low point in that number. And we’ve done OK in the global free market so far. Market competitiveness and belief in evolution don’t seem to be positively correlated.
A much more reasonable fear to raise would be that we would fall behind in science, at least in the biological sciences. And there, I’d also point to past performance. At bottom, I suspect that the set of people who find evolution hard to believe and the set of people who become research scientists do not have much overlap.
You probably have something there (and you’re certainly right that American’s benighted views on this subject aren’t news — I had fondly hoped that things had improved [more] in recent years, however). But it’s not just biological science. The whole thrust of creationism/ID is antiscientific and anti-education: God’s works are too great for your puny brain to understand, so don’t even try.
If you present a well-confirmed and well-integrated scientific theory and superstitious, pseudoscientific nonsense as two equally valid answers to the same question, it seems to me that you can’t help discouraging learning and maybe even turning off some kids who might have become research scientists. Moreover, I hold this whole approach to learning partly responsible for the uniquely American incompetence at grasping even the basics of policy debates involving science, which is most of them these days.
A doctor friend of mine came up with a creative, evolution-based solution to this problem. He suggested that, since the science of molecular biology exists pretty much as a result of scientific acceptance of evolution through natural selection, a law be passed that prohibits anyone who doesn’t believe in evolution from receiving any medical treatment or therapy made possible through molecular biology. Instead, such people would be treated by prayer/homeopathy/mumbo jumbo of their choice. After all, if one doesn’t believe in evolution, it’s unprincipled to receive medical treatmant that wouldn’t exist but for the acceptance of evolution.
Moreove, this would prove evolution (although it needs no such proof) once and for all, as unbelivers lived less pleasantly, and died earlier.
The whole thrust of creationism/ID is antiscientific and anti-education: God’s works are too great for your puny brain to understand, so don’t even try.
Well, there is certainly some anti-intellectualism in Christianity, particularly these days. But you might want to look into the history of science a bit, particularly the history of natural science. Most of the foundation stones that the modern disciplines rest on were laid by creationists seeking (and mostly failing) to confirm the Biblical narrative. There is no inherent conflict between a creationist worldview and scientific inquiry; the attitude of early scientists was more along the lines of “God’s works are tremendously great, and what joy it is that he has given us such challenging things to learn about.”
Giant Rabbit, I presume you’re talking about this. Heh.
http://stupidevilbastard.com/index/seb/comments/doonesbury_takes_on_creationism/
A much more reasonable fear to raise would be that we would fall behind in science, at least in the biological sciences. And there, I’d also point to past performance.
Actually, past performance in biomed is that “we” (that is, the US) don’t produce enough doctors or researchers to fulfill our needs and have to import them. And the reason to suspect that we’re not going to be able to continue to do as we have in the past is the patriot act, which makes it so hard for foreigners to get a student or other temporary visa into the US that they give up and go elsewhere.
There’s anti-intellectualism in America in general. That, I think, has a lot to do with discouraging young Americans from seeking a profession in science, engineering or medicine, pinning their hopes instead on American Idol or the NBA. Kids who like to read and who pursue interests in science and math are often isolated and bullied, while entertainers in both athletics and the performing arts are glorified not only by their peers but by the schools and the community at large. Believe me, I lived though it.
Pingback: A Sociable Loner
…”entertainers in both athletics and the performing arts”…
I assume you mean film actors. Which I agree with, of course.
Anti-intellectualism tends to hurt the arts too, though. It’s not easy street being a theater actor, or opera singer, or sculptor, or writer, etc.
… and of course this ignores those of us who think that G-d created all living things on the planet and that evolution explains how G-d did it.
That’s what always amazes me about the ID folks — there’s nothing in scripture that says G-d didn’t “intelligently design” life so that it evolves. Even the story of Jacob and Laban (I think I got that right) shows that G-d allows selective breeding to work.
I meant all the performing arts. Musicians, actors, etc. I didn’t include fine artists (sculptors, painters, etc.) and writers because they are rarely lionized in our culture (there are some writer exceptions). Skilled entertainers, OTOH, are treated like gods in our culture. As youth they are among the most popular kids; everyone admires them, whereas the kids who are the best at what school is actually for are at the least ignored and often treated with hostility and contempt. The whole idea that one should strive for academic excellence and try to develop one’s mind and knowledge even outside what’s being presented in school is something one is wise to hide.
It doesn’t get much better as Americans become adults. Entertainers (I include both athletes and performing artists in that classification) are held up as role models to emulate, people treat their opinions on politics, science and other matters outside their professional expertise as if they are significant. Whereas people who are actually building the world we live in and have actual expertise in how the world works are relegated to the Discovery channel and the occasional op-ed piece that only 1% of the world reads.
It is an American ideal that everyone has a right to have and express their opinion. It’s amazing to me that people seem to think that this also means that everyone’s opinion is worth listening to, and that often the people whose opinions are most listened to are the people whose ability and effort to inform that opinion is weakest.
A very limited portion of entertainers, in whatever medium, make it to the point where they are valued. Most of us are as ignored as scientists but less self-sufficient. :-P Anti-intellectualism impacts our ability to get funding, and so on.
Nor was my experience as a high school actor what you describe.
Basic point here: arts & sciences, both intellectual, both part of the goal.
Dianne: How can gravity, which is mass dependent, affect light, which has no mass?
My understanding (and I’m only a layman) is that gravity does not affect light directly but indirectly, by altering the curve of space-time in which light travels.
RonF: Skilled entertainers, OTOH, are treated like gods in our culture. As youth they are among the most popular kids; everyone admires them, whereas the kids who are the best at what school is actually for are at the least ignored and often treated with hostility and contempt.
Is it unfair? I don’t condone disrespect to anyone, but do they do anything that merits popularity? We are social creatures, we like to bond, and we will always adore those gifted extroverts who create bonds between others. In contrast to them is the community that labors in silence mastering arcane skills – alone or in brainiac clubs which can sometimes project their own form of exclusivity, or even snobbish elitism. Alone is where they’ll be.
I agree that there’s little correlation between our idol’s fame and their authority on world affairs, but I do think that in some cases their empathy with others gives their point of view a certain moral legitimacy.
CJ, your viewpoint of the effects of gravity on light is correct. Or, at least, corresponds to the current understanding of such things.
Oh, my, there’s certainly snobbish elitism in the entertainment world. Jock culture is well known for it’s attitudes towards non-jocks. Artists (both fine and performance) can be just as elitist; they’re just more catty than physical about it.
It’s not so much popularity for entertainers among their fellow students I’m talking about in the schools; it’s the adulation they get for what they do from teachers and the school administation and the community at large. Hey, I watch sports and I love music, but I don’t take seriously what athletes and musicians say about the issues of the day unless that person demonstrates that they’ve put some effort into understanding the facts behind the talking points. Intrinsically their opinion is no better than anyone else’s, but they get a lot of attention when they talk that they don’t really deserve. When Sheryl Crow starts talking about global warming, why does anyone ask the question in the first place or keep their microphone on when she starts talking?
Understand as well that I’m not just talking about a lack of popularity or attention; I’m talking about the smartest kids getting bullied, beat up, etc., for the sin of being smart. I’m talking actual active anti-intellectualism. And God forbid that a Presidential candidate actually show that he or she might be a little smarter than the average American; it’s a death blow. Of course, it would be nice if a candidate knew that 12 people, not 10,000 were killed in the recent Kansas tornado or that the European Union is not a country. What’s frightening is that people won’t pay attention to that.
Isn’t light made up of molecules, therefore possessing mass?
I’m pretty sure light isn’t made up of molecules. no.
Light is made up of photons. Photons do not have mass, and neither does light.
I think the ID theory is nothing but a scam propagated by the religious fundamentalists. They know that for them to continue to make millions and keep the public hooked they have to ensure that the inerrancy is maintained.
Once people realize that a some parts of the holy scripture are not correct, then people will start to question the rest and pretty soon the whole thing falls apart.
Organized religion is the main cause of strife around the world. The supposedly holy men, need to keep the public in their lure or else they don’t make any money.
Once people realize that a some parts of the holy scripture are not correct, then people will start to question the rest and pretty soon the whole thing falls apart.
People started to question that about six thousand years ago. The falling apart doesn’t seem imminent.
I don’t think ID is a scam cooked up because some fundamentalists want another route into the purses of the gullible. I think that it fundamentally stems from a lack of faith; people want to be able to scientifically prove that God exists because their faith isn’t deep enough to sustain the belief. It also gets support from the mistaken idea that the theory of evolution contradicts Genesis.
I think it’s unfair to say Mccain hesitated in answering the question. He said he believed in evolution and he said it confidently.