Pharyngula

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Thursday, December 02, 2004

Why the new Darwin Debate is BAD News

I have to disagree with a fellow intelligent lefty. Steven Day has a short article up stating that he isn't too worried about the attempts by the right wing to smuggle creationism into our classrooms, because it will rebound and damage them.

Opposition to the teaching of evolution is Pat Robertson & Company’s weakest link. It makes them look ignorant. It makes them look intolerant. In other words, it makes them look like themselves. And it’s the perfect "wedge issue," neatly dividing the GOP’s two core constituencies. Traditional pro business Republicans have been willing to swallow a lot to maintain this inherently illogical, but highly profitable, alliance between the Silk Stockings and the Bible Thumpers. But this is one place they won’t go. Their pride won’t allow it.

So I say to the far right, go ahead, try to slay the evolutionary dragon. My guess is this time you won’t even inherit the wind.

I wish this were true. I wish seeing wild-ass nonsense spouted by ignorant demagogues would make people scratch their heads and say, "Wait a minute…that's crazy talk. I think I need to reassess my opinion of my representatives in congress and the executive branch."

It won't happen. It's what People of Reason would do, but we're dealing with People of Faith. We're also dealing with self-interested pragmatists. Those sensible Republicans have seen that they can ride the wild nag of the Religious Right to power, and I don't see any sign that the moderates are showing any regret.

As for looking ignorant and intolerant, they don't care. Read the comments to that article; look at the way "Laurel" and "Calvin" strut their foolishness. They aren't ashamed in the slightest. Why should they be at all remorseful about the stupid policies of their favored political administration when they can't even see past their dogmatic fervor to their gross errors? George W. Bush swept the creationist vote. That, and the obscenely rich, are his base. The sad thing is that that has proved a strength, not a weakness, in the political process.


Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/1632/Nvvnu3zi/

Comments:
#10134: Reed A. Cartwright — 12/02  at  09:33 AM
I think this could be a wedge issue inside the Republican party. When the issue of state science standards came up last year in my state, we had much success appealing to biotechnology as a reason why we need modern science education. I think Kansas will use it too.

Too bad there is no biotech industry statement on HS biology education.



's avatar #10137: Chris Clarke — 12/02  at  09:54 AM
I interviewed Theodore Roszak a few years ago - in addition to being the author of the term "counterculture," he's a mild anti-science advocate (from the left, more or less.) He confidently predicted to me that creationism was washed up, that the only reason anyone talked about it anymore was because scientists needed to feel like Reason Is Under Siege.

Though Day is actually far closer to having a valid point than was Roszak, this still seems a bit like blithe denial to me.

"I do not think we should antagonize the religious when it is not warranted, though I think we should be willing to do so whenever it is.”
-- Glen Davidson



#10140: — 12/02  at  10:08 AM
"Wishful thinking" is the right term. I agree with you, PZ. As long as it leads to power and to the right treatment by government, there is no reason that the more intelligent (less ignorant?) wing of the Republican Party would reject the suport of the religious fundamentalists.



#10144: DarkSyde — 12/02  at  10:24 AM
I tend to agree PZ. Although I don't think the creationism thing is a top GOP priority yet, it could turn up in a study done by Rove as a useful motivator of the evangelical base and one much easier to puruse than abortion restrictions. It likely polls much better.
Given attempts currently underway to strip courts of the capacity to opine on matters of conlaw, and the Establishment Cluae could easily be over run. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see it happen.



#10145: — 12/02  at  10:39 AM
I think Steven Day maybe a little ignorant about the strength of the fundies. The side of the Republican core that is greedy but rational will be squeezed out or silenced as the old is out with the new.

Blame the media, blame anyone, but the truth is the only reason things, like school curriculum, are changing in favor of religion is because they are flooding our legislation. They will continue to flood every facet of life until there is no leg room for anyone other than themselves.



#10150: — 12/02  at  11:19 AM
The money side of the Republican equation will only be interested in giving up on the alliance when the 'faith based economics' finally really do create a great crash. Meanwhile they consider the fundies to be annoying cranks. The fundies though are doing all they can to create 'faith based' businesses so they arent dependent on working for heathens to make a living.

Berube has just posted the outline of his plan to build the Blue economy to help save us from both sides of the evil red alliance. http://www.michaelberube.com



#10153: — 12/02  at  11:50 AM
I fear that you are correct, but I'm holding out a faint hope for at least another year. Keep your eye on the New England Repubs. Whether they leave the party or at least mount a strong resistance is going to be the test.

If they don't fuss though, nobody will.



#10156: Abiola Lapite — 12/02  at  12:14 PM
What is it with creationists and ALL CAPS anyway? I noticed that both "Laurel" and "Calvin" make liberal use of this facility, as if they feared their words wouldn't be understood without it ...



#10157: — 12/02  at  12:20 PM
Regarding creationism/ID, I generally tend to agree with Mr. Day.

The more creationists push, the more they subject themselves to the spotlight and resulting investigation. And history has shown that propaganda and pseudoscience never fare well under scrutiny.

It'll take time--maybe a really long time. But the truth always wins in the long run.



#10161: — 12/02  at  01:39 PM
"It’ll take time—maybe a really long time. But the truth always wins in the long run."
Ironically, we may not like what this country evolves into. The issue is not TOE vs ID, but which one of the two can control this country better. Judging by the last 5,000 years, ID has the better paradigm, and is (at the moment) controlling the Senate, House, White House, and Pentagon; in a few months, they will control SCOTUS and the Constitution. Their big problem is Islam, which is out to kill all of them, and all of us.



#10162: — 12/02  at  01:55 PM
Just wait for our civilized trading partners to get fed up with the lunatic far-right foreign policy. Heck, maybe we should hope for an invasion of Iran. If our trading parters, especially European, got together and inflicted a trade diminishing response, I predict that the US corporate machine that bankrolls the Republicans will finally get fed up with all the ideologically motivated nonsense. I predict a Democratic victory in 2008 will come from economic repercussions of our currently disastrous administration. Unfortunately, I doubt the proportion of creationists will have changed much. Remember a significant majority of Kerry voters polled recently as creationists. However, the legal landscape may swing back in favor of reason.



#10165: Abiola Lapite — 12/02  at  02:13 PM
Just wait for our civilized trading partners to get fed up with the lunatic far-right foreign policy.
Yes, because trade is about charity, rather than being a two-way street. I can just see now how a European boycott of the American market will do wonders for jobs in the "civilized" countries; look how marvelously autarky worked way back in 1929!

Heck, maybe we should hope for an invasion of Iran.
I think you jolly well should. It would be folly to look idly by as an aggressively hostile theocratic tyranny, which has been actively sponsoring terrorism all over the world for the last two decades, sets about acquiring nuclear weapons, the better in order to keep on sponsoring terrorism without fear of reprisals.

It's all very well to attack the Republicans for their tolerance of creationist flights of lunacy, but it certainly helps to keep a grounding in reality oneself. The unpleasant reality for those who dislike the use of force is that from a game-theoretical point of view, there's absolutely nothing "lunatic" about the current administration's ability to credibly threaten to engage in pre-emptive miltary action, "civilized" opinion be damned. That is the only thing currently pushing the Iranians to engage even in the charade they're currently playing at with the IAEA, not the irresistable allure of European diplomatic favor.



#10167: — 12/02  at  02:25 PM
The only thing lunatic about it is the willingness to sacrifice the lives of Americans and innocent civilians in other lands to advance a perverted world view.



#10171: Abiola Lapite — 12/02  at  03:20 PM
And what exactly is "perverted" about a world view that says that a regime which willingly threw away the lives of hundreds of thousands of its children in the Iran-Iraq war (in the course of which they were literally used as cannon fodder and human de-miners), which sponsored the Hezbollah group that killed hundreds of Marines in Lebanon, which sent terrorist operatives to blow up synagogues in Argentina, and in which the Grand Ayatollah once preached in a sermon that the nuclear annihilation of Israel would be worth giving up a few million Muslim lives, should not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons?

The only "perversion" I see here is a "peace at any price" mentality that assumes that the only time innocent civilians and Americans die is when the US government takes military action, and which would have backed Charles Lindbergh and the America-First committee all the way back in the dark days of 1941; that is a world-view as brain-dead as it is morally bankrupt, and it's a good thing that neither major party in America subscribes to it.



#10179: — 12/02  at  05:56 PM
I'd be more comfortable w/ Abiola Lapite's position if he clearly indicated a preference for a larger-scale version of the Osirak raid over an actual invasion of Iran. The latter, I think, would, practically and morally speaking, be a monstrous disaster.



#10180: Abiola Lapite — 12/02  at  06:00 PM
The latter, I think, would, practically and morally speaking, be a monstrous disaster.
Well, I'm happy to be able to fulfill your request. I too think a full-scale invasion of Iran would be a war too far, and what I have in mind is just the sort of proposal you suggest.



#10181: Bryson Brown — 12/02  at  06:06 PM
Oddly, it was Bush 2000 that came closer than any presidential compaign in recent history to adopting the 'America first' agenda. Forced to make foreign policy central after 9/11, they approached it in a bizarre mix of realpolitik with moral posturing: America-first, 'you are either with us or against us', but we (and only we) are doing the right thing-- even when that means torturing prisoners.

Attacking Iran might well be more justifiable than attacking Iraq was, given Iran's more intimate ties to Islamist terrorism and the far more credible case that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. But Iran is a tough nut: Far larger than Iraq in population, with a far more difficult terrain. The U.S. military has its hands full managing Iraq-- an invasion of Iran is less credible now than it was before the attack on Iraq.

Military action should be a last resort for very good practical reasons, not just because soft-hearted liberals don't like to see blood spilled. It's extremely hard to predict what the consequences will be, but there are always high costs in human life and funding-- not too mention the creation of a wonderful recruiting opportunity/ training ground, on Arab soil, for Islamist terrorists to join together on. This administration's disregard for the risks, and complete dishonesty about the disaster that Iraq has become, has done far more harm than good in the struggle (I won't say 'war') against terrorism.



#10184: — 12/02  at  06:50 PM
"From a game-theoretical point of view, there’s absolutely nothing 'lunatic' about the current administration’s ability to credibly threaten to engage in pre-emptive miltary action."

From a game-theoretical standpoint, there's also absolutely nothing lunatic about taking a course of action that will severely hurt everybody in the long run. E.g., in the iterated prisoner's dilemma, the only "sensible" option is to defect all the time, since the immediate payoff for defection is higher than the payoff for cooperation no matter what your opponent does, even though the total payoff for mutual cooperation is much higher in the end.



#10245: Michael Snider — 12/04  at  10:23 AM
A minor point, and not really germane to the relationship between Republicans and creationists, but there is some evidence that the truly rich — those with incomes over 10 million a year — supported Kerry.

Of course, that leaves those who can't ignore local politics, but are certainly rich enough to affect it, in the wrong camp.



#10251: Matt McIrvin — 12/04  at  12:07 PM
The great overreach won't be evolution; most people don't care about evolution.

The great overreach that splits the Republicans will be the campaign to ban the Pill.

Mark my words.



#10280: lloydletta — 12/05  at  04:24 PM
I think it is a wedge issue within the Republican party. Look at how defensive the Stillwater area Republican legislators (including the notorious Michele Bachmann) got when the Stillwater Gazette did a story on how Stillwater Republicans were supporting Creationism.

I think part of what did Commissioner Yecke in was her push for Creationism in the Science classes.



Page 1 of 1 pages

Next entry: TWO terrible pterosaur tragedies…

Previous entry: What women are supposed to want

<< Back to main

Info

email PZ Myers
Search
Archives
UMM—America's best public liberal arts college