Sunday, January 13, 2008
Science, Politics, and Evolution

While cruising the blogs this, morning, I ran into a mention of this article
at Reason magazine's online edition:

Biological evolution became a hot topic in the presidential campaign last
May when Republican presidential hopefuls were asked during a debate if
"there was anybody on the stage that does not agree, believe in evolution?"
Three held up their hands, Sen. Sam Brownback (Kan.), Rep. Tom Tancredo
(Colo.) and former Gov. Mike Huckabee (Ark.). Evolution deniers Brownback
and Tancredo have now dropped out of the race. So what do all the remaining
candidates-Republican and Democratic-think about biological evolution? And
does it matter?
That link is from the original article, but I've mentioned that incident
before. To me, this matters, because science policy under the Bush
Administration has become a disaster. In the recent past, which I'd define
as most of the Twentieth Century, government policy was to fund science, but
to (largely) stay out of the business of choosing which science was
acceptable and which wasn't. That changed during the Bush Administration.
Not only has Bush done some rather obvious things like reducing medical
research funding and restricting stem cell research after "fixing the
intelligence", but less obvious examples of this behavior are plentiful. A
Bush appointee to NASA, who hadn't even finished college, nevertheless felt
compelled to lecture NASA's scientists about what was and was not acceptable
language concerning evolution. There was, apparently, a similarly
lame-brained effort to silence NASA's chief climate change scientist. Bush's
former Surgeon General, Dr. Richard Carmona, accused the Administration of
refusing to allow him to discuss politically sensitive medical subjects in
public. Scientists at the Department of the Interior continually found the
results of their research being censored in memos. In an interview on
Charlie Rose, Nobel laureate James Watson said that the Bush Administration
has been a disaster for medical research. A similar case can be made for
science in general.
What's more, if present trends continue, America is in danger of sliding
into ignorance. RJ Eskow, whose article contributed the graphic at the top
of this column, writes:
The Catholic Church rejects the "intelligent design" movement and
unequivocally supports the teaching of evolution. The National Council of
Churches is a progressive association that represents 55 million American
Christians, and it has taken a leadership role in resisting "ID" and other
impositions of private belief onto the public sphere. (For some reason, the
mainstream media have ignored this organization so thoroughly that I've
described them as "America's Secret Christians.")
Unfortunately, their efforts have been more than offset in this country by
an activist coalition of fundamentalists and conservative politicians. The
result is an all-out war on science that has caused scientific fact to be
banned from IMAX theaters, and resulted in a museum exhibit failing to find
a corporate sponsor.

Unscientific American: US Almost Last in Understanding Evolution

The graphic, which you can see full-size by clicking on it, shows that we
are behind only Turkey among industrialized nations in our disbelief in
evolution.

If we are to survive the next few centuries, we need science to be
unencumbered by political or other fashion. What we choose to do with that
science, as individuals and as a society, is up to us. However, the ability
of scientists to enquire freely and publish their results as they see them
must not become a political matter. Requiring schools to teach
pseudo-scientific nonsense to placate religious fanatics will do nothing to
help achieve this.

So what do the candidates think about evolution? The Reason article goes on
to note that Senators Tom Tancredo and Sam Brownback, as well as former
governor Mike Huckabee, were the three who raised their hand at the
Republican Presidential debate to say that they didn't "believe" in
evolution.

I was a bit surprised to learn, however, that Rep. Ron Paul was apparently a
little shy about raising his hand at that debate:

Tom DeRosa, president of the hardcore anti-evolution Creation Studies
Institute asked the candidates (PDF): "Will your office support and
encourage a more open approach to education in the presentation of
scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution?" Rep. Ron Paul
(Tex.), Rep. Duncan Hunter (Calif.), and Huckabee all answered yes. A
reasonable interpretation is that they favored allowing creationism to be
taught in science classes.
...
In a South Carolina forum, Paul was asked about his views on evolution, to
which he replied, "I think it's a theory, the theory of evolution and I
don't accept it as a theory." He also said that he thought it was an
inappropriate question to be asking presidential candidates.

Evolutionary Politics
So, yes boys and girls, Ron Paul is either a creationist, or at the very
least is someone who, while he professes to believe in free markets, doesn't
believe in the free market of ideas. I take this as further proof that how
much you believe in a free market is often directly related to how well that
market is working in your favor.

On the Democratic side, things are more hopeful. Hillary Clinton, John
Edwards, Bill Richardson, and Mike Gravel all have stated strongly that
evolution is a reality. Clinton said:
I believe in evolution, and I am shocked at some of the things that people
in public life have been saying. I believe that our founders had faith in
reason and they also had faith in God, and one of our gifts from God is the
ability to reason.
Clinton Says She Would Shield Science From Politics
In that NYT article, she also is quoted as supporting a $50 billion effort
to study and fight climate change, which would include research for "energy
alternatives to foreign oil". It then goes on:
Her remarks yesterday, at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, amounted
to a spirited attack on President Bush for waging what she called a "war on
science" that has allowed political appointees to shape and in some cases
distort science-based federal reports.

Mrs. Clinton said she would restore the office of White House science
adviser to the higher status it held in the administrations of her husband
and President Bush's father. And she said she would encourage Congress to
revive its Office of Technology Assessment, an advisory group that was shut
down in 1995 after Republicans in Congress withdrew its financing.

Clinton Says She Would Shield Science From Politics
Of course, it's easy to object to the policies of the current Administration
when you're in the opposition, but at least the rhetoric is in the right
direction here.

Mike Gravel may have gotten the best quote on the subject:
When LiveScience asked [Senator Gravel] if he thought creationism should be
taught in public schools, Gravel replied, "Oh God, no. Oh, Jesus. We thought
we had made a big advance with the Scopes monkey trial....My God, evolution
is a fact, and if these people are disturbed by being the descendants of
monkeys and fishes, they've got a mental problem. We can't afford the
psychiatric bill for them. That ends the story as far as I'm concerned."

I'm sure there are folks asking why this matters. What possible relevance to
our world could the respect Presidential candidates have for science matter?
The Reason article concludes:
A larger question is whether a candidate's belief about the validity of
evolutionary biology has anything to say about his or her ability to
evaluate evidence. A January 4, 2008, editorial by Science editor Donald
Kennedy correctly argues, "The candidates should be asked hard questions
about science policy, including questions about how those positions reflect
belief. What is your view about stem cell research, and does it relate to a
view of the time at which human life begins? Have you examined the
scientific evidence regarding the age of Earth? Can the process of organic
evolution lead to the production of new species, and how? Are you able to
look at data on past climates in search of inferences about the future of
climate change?" Kennedy concludes, "I don't need them to describe their
faith; that's their business and not mine. But I do care about their
scientific knowledge and how it will inform their leadership."

The ability to tell the difference between fact and fantasy matters. Having
the wisdom to understand that when one's beliefs are in conflict with
reality, that it isn't reality that needs to change, is vital. We've seen
how things work out when a President doesn't have that ability.

Posted by Cujo359 at 1/13/2008 12:08:00 PM

Rayilyn Brown
Board Member AZNPF
Arizona Chapter National Parkinson's Foundation
[log in to unmask]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn