Two Brothers, One Blog, Dangerous Levels of Geekiness.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

Synthesis: Science Education as the New Wedge

Even prior to the first Bush Administration, it was clear to me that the Born-Again NeoCon Republican party takes actions solely for their political gain. As early as the republican primaries demonstrated the lengths to which NeoRepublicans would go to discredit those who oppose them, as demonstrated by push polling directed at John McCain. Late 1999 began with the Bush campaign attempting to placate some environmental concerns... pretenses which were quickly abandoned once the election was over. The next several years were not representative of what the Bush Admin was destined to be, due to a horrific assault on New York City. But behind the mask of patriotism and rallying around the president, the Republican Party was still functioning in the same cynical fashion.

Nothing demonstrated their modus operandi more clearly than the 2004 presidential campaign. Of course, the standard Roveian tactic - spreading lies and rumors about one's opponent - was still in play, but, although these tactics sent the Democrats reeling, they were not what the press (nor i) attributed the small but significant margin by which Bush won (discussion of disenfranchising voters aside). What put Bush over the top were issues of religious faith. What did that mean in 2004? Bans on homosexual marriage. Most notably in locals such as my home state of Ohio, the state which delivered Bush a second term. Why is this a cynical tactic? Well, nationally, for all the rhetoric Republicans spew, commentators conservative and liberal alike note the significant absence of any substantive legislative gains for the Religious Right. Abortion is still legal, and nobody is jumping for a federal homosexual marriage ban (seems Bush spent all his political capital on getting electrocuted by the 3rd rail of politics, Social Security).

So what's that got to do with today? Well, having played the homosexuality card in 2004, Republicans need a new social rallying cry for the 2006 midterm elections. So, the question is, what are conservatives ramping up the noise machine for today?

Science bloggers know. Comments this August from the President himself have started a steadily growing resurgence of anti-science controversy aimed at evolutionary theory. The press has picked up on the comments, which have set crank tanks such as the Discovery Institute into full gear, repeating specious and untrue claims to whoever will publish them, whether it's the NYTimes, or sports commentators. This news is disturbing enough for scientifically minded Americans, but doesn't give one a view of what is afoot. Having legitimized "teaching the controversy" over evolution in the presses, states like Florida appear to be prepping to install controversy into their school systems, and have taken their first step with their choice of k-12 Chancellor.

This issue is going to be just as hard, if not harder to fight than issues of homosexual unions, as explained by an article published today in the NYTimes (in a fit of irony) on Jon D. Miller, a political scientist at Northwestern. His conclusions are summed up very succinctly by this paragraph:

While scientific literacy has doubled over the past two decades, only 20 to 25 percent of Americans are "scientifically savvy and alert," he said in an interview. Most of the rest "don't have a clue." At a time when science permeates debates on everything from global warming to stem cell research, he said, people's inability to understand basic scientific concepts undermines their ability to take part in the democratic process.

And, if i'm right, and the current racket is a precursor to the din of the 2006 election, it won't just be Democrats who'll be hung out to dry, but scientists, and America's very future. By turning evolution into a political football, conservative politicians are denying America's children the education they need to keep America as the pillar of intellectual thought that it is today.

Monday, August 29, 2005

Impossibly Complex Distictions for a Sports Commentator

There is a huuuuuge and unescapable irony in that journalists rant about bloggers not having credibility to comment on pressworth issues, yet columnists like this one seem to think that they're capable of doing justice to questions about evolutionary theory (linked via Atrios). An excerpt:

First, let's get rid of the idea that ID (intelligent design) is a form of sly creationism. It isn't. ID is unfairly confused with the movement to teach creationism in public schools. The most serious ID proponents are complexity theorists, legitimate scientists among them, who believe that strict Darwinism and especially neo-Darwinism (the notion that all of our qualities are the product of random mutation) is inadequate to explain the high level of organization at work in the world. Creationists are attracted to ID, and one of its founding fathers, University of California law professor Phillip Johnson, is a devout Presbyterian.

::Howl of Intellectual Pain::

  • Complexity Theory is not what Intelligent Design Creationists are doing. Computational Complexity Theory is about classifying problems based on how difficult they are to solve. IDCers aren't interested in solving problems (which is what classifying problems requires), they're only interested in creating problems .
  • Most (i'd venture nearly all) supporters of Intelligent Design are in fact Creationists. More importantly, these people support ID because they are creationists, and justify their support on theological grounds.
  • Please note, "ID proponents ... legitimate scientists among them, who believe that strict Darwinism and especially neo-Darwinism ... is inadequate to explain the high level of organization at work in the world." No mention of actual proof of the assertations they make, just that "legitimate scientists" believe it. Legitimate according to who one might ask?

On Nomenclature:

Proponents of evolutionary theory are not Darwinists, they are Evolutionaries. By comparison, believers in General Relativity are not Einstienians, they are cosmologists.

Useful Analogies: Guns & Drunk Driving

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Well, clearly then, the NRA must be against drunk driving statues right?

After all,

Cars don't kill people, drunk drivers kill people.