One way I can tell that America's conservatives have become ideologues, akin to Communists, Fascists, and other idiots, is how they have turned everything into politics.
Even science.
I'm not talking about the ongoing debate over teaching science or religion on the schools. It's easy to see how so-called "intelligent design" is religion because you can't do anything with the insight "God did it" -- it leads to no experiment, and ends questioning. Evolution, on the other hand, constantly brings new questions with it. Theories are used to stimulate questions, not end them.
I'm talking instead about how, when you get some of these advocates in a corner, they will flat-out admit that the whole thing is politics, just another way to fight the liberal impulse on behalf of their ideology.
The canary in this coal mine is named George Gilder, (above, from Forbes), and in Wired this month he sings this tune like Sinatra.
Watch him build (then knock down) his evolution straw man:
Intelligent design at least asks the right questions. In a world of science that still falls short of a rigorous theory of human consciousness or of the big bang, intelligent design theory begins by recognizing that everywhere in nature, information is hierarchical and precedes its embodiment. The concept precedes the concrete. The contrary notion that the world of mind, including science itself, bubbled up randomly from a prebiotic brew has inspired all the reductionist futilities of the 20th century, from Marx's obtuse materialism to environmental weather panic to zero-sum Malthusian fears over population. In biology classes, our students are not learning the largely mathematical facts of 21st-century science; they're imbibing the consolations of a faith-driven 19th-century materialist myth.

What absolute, complete, utter nonsense. Evolutionary theory has nothing in common with Marx or Malthus. There is no faith in it. It need not be "believed." (And when someone who can write clearly, like Gilder, throws up a tortured construction like the one above, you can be certain they are trying to pull a fast one.)
So-called intelligent design, on the other hand, is all faith. Cut to the center of Gilder's b.s. and even he admits it. "Intelligent design theory begins by recognizing that everywhere in nature, information is hierarchical and precedes its embodiment. The concept precedes the concrete."
The concept precedes the concrete. Marx couldn't have said it better himself.
Note the other thing Gilder did in that paragraph. He projected his own form of argument on his opponents, associating Darwin (and science) with Marx. (I don't know that the two ever met. Darwin's essay on "The Origin of Species" was published in 1844, 23 years before Marx's "Das Kapital.")
But hey, when science is all politics, and politics is all ideology, and ideology is all a matter of belief, then why shouldn't science be about belief?
Thus does the dialectic replace the scientific method, and China evolve to crush America.
1. Brad Hutchings on February 14, 2005 01:59 PM writes...
The problem with evolution/intelligent design what-to-teach-in-schools debate is that it's pretty much irrelevant. When I was in high school (literally decades ago now), I took a rigorous college prep course track, including a biology class my freshman year. There might have been 2 weeks of discussion of evolution as the mechanism whereby genetic changes are made.
Each side has a point. Evolution is a theory, not a fact. It's a damned good theory, and there are ways to observe it (ash flies in post-Indutrial England come to mind) and things it explains and things it does not. When one brings up the point that evolution is not a fact, the evolutionists go nuts, and they shouldn't. In my opinion, the vocal evolutionists go nuts because they are not so pro-science, but because they are anti-religion.
The intelligent design folks too, have a point. If evolution doesn't totally explain everything (it doesn't at this point, but neither does quantum mechanics), then perhaps there is some unknown, undetectable influence, and it might be God or a talking alligator, or moldy donut in someone's fridge. As an ag-care-stic (I really do not care if there is a God or not), I definitely recognize that God is a very useful and positive prop in a lot of people's lives -- whatever gets them through their days. I know roughly the same number of unreligious people who could benefit from finding some as religious people who need to tone it down a little. If evolution is a threat to relgious people's beliefs and their balance, and if intelligent design is the compromise, no harm, no fowel, er foul. You're for competition, right? This would be an entertaining death-match of ideas.
Of course, if you want a better example of science/politics intertwining way too much to the point of world-fascism, look no further than global warming, a topic which you have referred to as fact in your blog. Read Michael Chrichton's new book, State of Fear (where in the afterward he compares the global warming meme to eugenics) and tell me the anti-science bias doesn't cut all ways across our political spectrum.
Permalink to Comment2. Roy Troxel on February 25, 2005 07:44 AM writes...
For a classic example of environmentalism-gone-wrong, check out the DDT scandal. Inspired by Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring", environmentalists in the 1960s forced the banning of DDT in the US and later world-wide, via the World Health Organization. Since that time, many scientific studies have proven that in small amounts, DDT is no threat to humans. Prior to being banned, DDT rid the US of mosquitoes and other insects that carried malaria and other diseases.
To read more, check these links:
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/000000005591.htm
http://www.aaenvironment.com/DDT.htm
http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html
Permalink to Comment