(Also published at The Agonist)
The last time Republicans were roundly condemned as anti-science, it was for their resistance to destroying human embryos for stem cells. Their crude religiosity supposedly blocked imminent leaps ahead in medical progress. Then-vice-presidential candidate John Edwards went so far as to predict in 2004 that because of “the work we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair, and walk again.”…. In other words, as a major figure in the self-styled party of science, Edwards made an outlandish assurance worthy of a faith healer. For the Left, science is as much a branding device and political bludgeon as a serious commitment. Edwards didn’t know the first thing about spinal-injury research and didn’t care — so long as he could sell demagogic flimflammery under the banner of glorious science.
Normally, I’d ignore the Right-wing babble about science and their collective allegation that those of us on the Left worship at the altar of all-seeing, all-knowing science. As if something empirical, definable, and provable is a bad thing. The smug, self-serving certitude is generally as annoying as it is irrelevant and unworthy of acknowledgement…and so normally I’d just let the silliness go.
A few days ago, I ran across an article by Rich Lowry in Portland’s Oregonian newspaper. It was a reprint of an article he wrote for The National Review. I don’t know what possessed me to read it; perhaps I was in the mood for an alternate viewpoint…or just a good laugh. I’ve ready Lowry’s work previously, and while it’s heavy on smug certitude and self-satisfaction, it’s generally light on coherent argument. While reading it, I felt the need to engage in a rebuttal, and while I don’t usually do this sort of thing…well, just indulge me here, willya??
Perry’s somewhat doubtful take on evolution has more to do with a general impulse to preserve a role for God in creation than a careful evaluation of the work of, say, Stephen Jay Gould. Perry’s attitude is in the American mainstream. According to Gallup, 40 percent of Americans think God created man in his present form, and 38 percent think man developed over millions of years with God guiding the process. Is three-quarters of the country potentially anti-science?
So, the reality of evolutionary science is subject to the whims of the American sheeple? Really? Just because a large minority believes that man was created by whatever their flavor of God happens to be…THAT trumps science? So, to answer Lowry’s question, yes, it would appear the 3/4 of the American Sheeple ARE anti-science. Religious belief, while all well and good is based on faith, which by its very nature is not provable. A scientific fact, like evolution, IS provable…and I’m not at all surprised that 3/4 of the American Sheeple might just reject evolution. It’s not as if they’ve proven themselves to be astute observers of the world around them.They did give us eight years of George W. Bush, after all.
Similarly, Perry’s skepticism on man-made global warming surely has much to do with the uses to which the scientific consensus on warming is put. It is enlisted as support for sweeping carbon controls that fail any cost-benefit analysis and gets spun into catastrophic scenarios that are as rigorous as Hollywood movie treatments…. [G]lobal-warming alarmists bring to the issue an evangelical zeal to match that of the participants in Rick Perry’s Houston prayer meeting a few weeks ago.
Whether Lowry cares to own up to the truth or not, global climate change has been shown to be a real and observable phenomenon. Rising carbon dioxide levels alone should be reason for alarm, but even IF there was significant debate in the scientific community, which there isn’t, why shouldn’t we be better stewards of our environment? Why must everything be subjected to a cost-benefit analysis? Even if we only suspected that global climate change might be real, why would we not err on the side of caution and try to reduce our collective carbon footprint?
Or is Lowry just operating under the assumption that no one will care about the environment once the Rapture occurs, so why should we be worried about preserving it now?
Science is often just an adjunct to the Left’s faith commitments…. They are believers wrapping themselves in the rhetoric of science while lacking all the care and dispassionate reasoning we associate with the practice of it.
“Wrapping themselves in the rhetoric of science?” In Conservative-speak, this means that scientists are like the smart kids in school you made fun of because they got good grades and used big words. Scientists speak in terms of what is provable and what isn’t. It either is…or it isn’t. Science may not always be black and white, but it certainly strives for that, and frankly, theology is more often than not incompatible with the scientific method.
It is in this vein that Rick Perry is branded anti-science. Ultimately, a president’s views on evolution count for little.
Uh, wrong again, Rich. A President’s view on evolution is absolutely indicative of how he views science in general. One need look no farther than the eight years the Bush Administration spent elevating theological doctrine over science to understand what sort of damage can be done by a President who elevates his religious faith over science. The Obama Administration may be only a marginal improvement when it comes to science, but at least they’re not as openly and aggressively pursuing a faith-based anti-science agenda.
Lowry’s problem, as with so many on the Right, is that they insist on placing science on the same level as religious faith. I’m not here to say that religious faith is a bad or invalid thing. What I am saying is that evolution is a demonstrable scientific fact; creation is still a faith-based theory, in that there’s no empirical proof available to provide it’s validity. Believing that something exists does not ipso facto mean that it actually does exist. Believe what you will, but when you start questioning evolution’s validity, you’re stepping onto some very shaky ground.
The problem for the GOP is that they’re building their house on the shaky ground…and all their candidates want in on the ground floor. Idiocracy writ large….
