"Science" When It Suits Them

[Tylerdurden]

Forget about creationism and start worrying about the left's faith-based devotion to government.

David Harsanyi (http://reason.com/people/david-harsanyi) | August 24, 2011

So every now and then, liberals are treated to a big self-righteous laugh at the expense of some backwoods Christian conservative candidate who "ignores science" by doubting evolution or global warming—or, gasp, both.
Much, for instance, has been made of Texas Gov. Rick Perry's recent suggestion that evolution is a "theory that's out there" with "gaps in it." He even insinuated that evolution and creationism should both be taught in schools—because folks are "smart enough to figure out which one is right."
Sanctimony to red alert!
Now, I have no interest in watching my kids waste their time with creationism, but unlike progressives, I have no interest in dictating what other kids should learn. Remember that these folks, bothered by the very thought of their offspring's hearing a God-infused concept in school, have no problem forcing millions of parents to accept bureaucrat-written curricula at government-run school monopolies. They oppose home schooling. They oppose school choice. They oppose parents choosing a religious education with their tax dollars.
As a voter, like me, you may find Perry's view on creationism disconcerting and a sign of an unsophisticated candidate. But the fact is that the progressives' faith-based devotion to government is far more consequential than Perry's faith-based position on evolution.
Despite the rare political dispute, in the real world, science—real science—is rarely controversial. It's politicized science that is prickly. And science is easy to politicize. Maybe if schools began teaching students that "life" begins at conception and that each zygote, embryo, and fetus is a unique human being in some early stage of development just waiting to be born, liberals would see the point.
No, my kids haven't been chewing over Charles Darwin text or the Holy Bible in elementary school. There's simply no time. Not with global warming out there.
Perry, not surprisingly, was also recently asked about "global warming." He responded that "the issue has been politicized" and that pouring billions of dollars into "a scientific theory that has not been proven and ... is more and more being put into question" is not worthwhile.
It is interesting watching the nation's defenders of reason, empirical evidence, and science fail to display a hint of skepticism over the transparently political "science" of global warming. Rarely are scientists so certain in predicting the future. Yet this is a special case. It is also curious that these supposed champions of Darwin don't believe that human beings—or nature—have the ability to adapt to changing climate.
Like 99 percent of pundits and politicians, though, I have no business chiming in on the science of climate change—though my kids' teachers sure are experts. Needless to say, there is a spectacular array of viewpoints on this issue. The answers are far from settled. There are debates over how much humans contribute. There are debates over how much warming we're seeing. There are debates over many things.
But even if one believed the most terrifying projections of global warming alarmist "science," it certainly doesn't mean one has to support the anti-capitalist technocracy to fix it. And try as some may to conflate the two, global warming policy is not "science." The left sees civilization's salvation in a massive Luddite undertaking that inhibits technological growth by turning back the clock, undoing footprints, forcing technology that doesn't exist, banning products that do, and badgering consumers who have not adhered to the plan through all kinds of punishment. Yet there is no real science that has shown that any of it makes a whit of difference.
So no doubt, it is reasonable for voters to query presidential candidates about their views on faith, religion, God, Darwin, and science. It matters. Sometimes, though, it matters less than they'd like you to think it does.
http://reason.com/archives/2011/08/24/science-when-it-suits-them

[Phillip Allen]

that guy's been looking over my sholder

[SMARTINSEN]

that guy's been looking over my sholder

I hope that at least you have put your pants on by now.

[Paul Pless]

:d ...

[ccmanuals]

Despite the rare political dispute, in the real world, science—real science—is rarely controversial.

Guess he hasn't been keeping up on global warming.

[Paul Pless]

Guess he hasn't been keeping up on global warming.or stem cell research or pharmaceutical research or genetically modified organisms or cloning or nuclear energy issues or or or. . .

[Flying Orca]

To be fair, the science of any of those things (climate change included) isn't terribly controversial. Policy around those matters is a different story.

[Dan McCosh]

To be fair, the science of any of those things (climate change included) isn't terribly controversial. Policy around those matters is a different story. A good point rarely acknowledged. The policies aren't science.

[Keith Wilson]

What a crock.

The problem with Perry is not that he holds a reasoned position of about climate change that I disagree with He doesn't. He has accused climate scientists of running a corrupt scam, for money. This is utterly deranged. The real problem is that by all appearances, he rejects empirical scientific findings whenever they conflict with his theological or ideological worldview.

[Uncle Duke]

What a crock.

The problem with Perry is not that he holds a reasoned position of about climate change that I disagree with He doesn't. He has accused climate scientists of running a corrupt scam, for money. This is utterly deranged. The real problem is that by all appearances, he rejects empirical scientific findings whenever they conflict with his theological or ideological worldview.
+1 .

[Tylerdurden]

It's not really about Perry. Its about the left's claims of being based in rational science while behaving like they are receiving mandates from the Holy See of government. Statists exist on the right and the left and they are just as whacked as radical fundamentalists in any religion. They only claim otherwise but thinking people see how stupid they really are.

[Phillip Allen]

Yep, it's really about Perry.
The Reality of evolution is based in science.
Evolution is a fact, not a theory.
Thinking people see how whacked you and Perry are.

I accept evolution, more or less. There are still questions though and I remind you that evolution is theory... not solid fact... don't crawl out on a limb.

[Paul Pless]

There are still questions though . . .What're your questions?

[Tylerdurden]

Yep, it's really about Perry.
The Reality of evolution is based in science.
Evolution is a fact, not a theory.
Thinking people see how whacked you and Perry are.

Don't try and mix me with a dominionist. Your here supporting the Neo Con Obama and doing your old fart best to cover up for that.

[Phillip Allen]

What're your questions?

nothing specific... it seems too large sometimes... from a single cell to a single minded partisan in one swell foop is a lot

[Tylerdurden]

nothing specific... it seems too large sometimes... from a single cell to a single minded partisan in one swell foop is a lot


:d:d:d

[Tylerdurden]

"Neo Con Obama" LMAO:D:D:D
Typical TD misdirected hyperbole.:D

Really? Then go back and Read Project for a New American Century. He has followed it to the letter and has actually accelerated the timeline. Your either intentionally sticking your head in the sand or just suffering from dimensia. The facts are all there and not one critical Neo Con policy has changed. How about recent revelations that renditions are still occurring and the secret prison in Somalia? Is it fine to do now because its handled by private contractors? How right wing is that? Your the twisted folk here spouting "Study Peace"while condoning the same behavior you railed against four years ago.
You guys are just twisted Neo Cons in Progressive clothing. I pull off the mask and that's why you hate so much.

[Phillip Allen]

His most profound question is if everybody else evolved why didn't he?;)

okay... that's funny... mean, but funny (we'll have that cup of coffee yet)

[Tylerdurden]

I don't "hate" anything or indulge in "hatred".
More hyperbole from you.
You're merely a Twisted Anarchist in Twisted Anarchist clothing, but I certainly do not hate you for it.

While you sit here and sling mud and hateful slogans on about every thread. Yep, I got you pegged. You a "Study Peace"while talking hate guy. Lots of them here.

[Phillip Allen]

I feel a monty python skit coming on, Glen. that was a perfect lay-out for one... "I'LL SHOW YOU HATE!!!"

[Rich Jones]

One certain flaw in this article is about the statement " It is also curious that the supposed champions of Darwin don't believe that human beings, or nature, have the ability to adapt to changing climate."
The human race and nature have the ability to adapt to a NATURAL changing in our environment. Global warming, much speeded up by man's screwing up of nature, is far from natural. Darwin evolution dealt with the changes over millions of years, not decades.

[S.V. Airlie]

Richard..Sounds like Lamark not Darwin.

[Chris Coose]

Yep, I got you pegged. You a "Study Peace"while talking hate guy. Lots of them here.

Facinating, as always.

[Keith Wilson]

Mark, you'd be wise to look at Mr. Perry's record before posting an article defending him. An "anti-statist" he's not, not even close.

Not surprisingly, the article includes a couple of classic examples of the Libertarian fallacy: i.e."The less government, the more freedom". History shows over and over again that this is completely false. While governments can certainly be oppressive, and too much government power is generally dreadful, there are plenty of other powers that can be oppressive as well. The great achievement of modern western democracies is to use the power of representative government to keep these other forces more or less in check - imperfectly to be sure, and it hasn't always worked, but the alternatives (robber-baron capitalism, most recently) are far worse.

And there's very little left-right symmetry on this point in US politics today. There used to be statists on the left, but communism is pretty much dead. The moderate left in the US wishes to solve problems, and sees government as one tool to do that. The current right wing has a theological conviction that governmental action is always bad, and the consequences be damned.

[Tylerdurden]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFGQqBjBAAY

[Kevin T]

And when someone puts up a reasoned response like Keith's post #30, the rebuttal is a music video, the relevance of which is. . .

[Tylerdurden]

And when someone puts up a reasoned response like Keith's post #30, the rebuttal is a music video, the relevance of which is. . .

It means Keith ignores the continuation off all things BushCo because he is Noveau American.. I know its beyond you but some get it.

[Kevin T]

Well according to you, everything is beyond me, while you are apparently "all seeing" and "all knowing," and you apparently don't have room for any other world view other than your own. Then accuse everyone else here of being haters, okay I get that.BY:D

[Tylerdurden]

Well according to you, everything is beyond me, while you are apparently "all seeing" and "all knowing," and you apparently don't have room for any other world view other than your own. Then accuse everyone else here of being haters, okay I get that.BY:D

That line is getting tired because you use it to much. Try a real argument sometime.

[Kevin T]

That line is getting tired because you use it to much. Try a real argument sometime.
Like a music video, perhaps you can suggest a few.:eek:

[Chris Coose]

It means Keith ignores the continuation off all things BushCo because he is Noveau American.. I know its beyond you but some get it.

It is quite difficult keeping up with all the new words and phrases the master mind lays on us each day.

[ccmanuals]

Like a music video, perhaps you can suggest a few.:eek:

BAM!!!

[Brian Palmer]

nothing specific... it seems too large sometimes... from a single cell to a single minded partisan in one swell foop is a lot

I think you are under-estimating how long life has been on this planet: e.g., several billion years. For the first 1 or 2 billion years, the only life on the planet were single-celled organisms without a true cell nucleus, e.g., bacteria.

Also, look up the definition of "theory," it is not the same as a hypothesis. A hypothesis supported by factual observations becomes a theory.

Brian

[Phillip Allen]

One certain flaw in this article is about the statement " It is also curious that the supposed champions of Darwin don't believe that human beings, or nature, have the ability to adapt to changing climate."
The human race and nature have the ability to adapt to a NATURAL changing in our environment. Global warming, much speeded up by man's screwing up of nature, is far from natural. Darwin evolution dealt with the changes over millions of years, not decades.

only if you believe that mankind is not a natural part of the life on this planet... rolling my eyes now

[Chris Coose]

Who would agree that humans are not a natural part of earth's eco system? It would be a fool who would not believe that humans can create destructive or fatal aberration.

[PhaseLockedLoop]

One certain flaw in this article is about the statement " It is also curious that the supposed champions of Darwin don't believe that human beings, or nature, have the ability to adapt to changing climate."
The human race and nature have the ability to adapt to a NATURAL changing in our environment. Global warming, much speeded up by man's screwing up of nature, is far from natural. Darwin evolution dealt with the changes over millions of years, not decades.

Not really. Although one hears about "adaptation" in evolution (ad nausem at times) another feature is "extinction." Species often die out. It's true that they usually don't die out abruptly, unless some cataclysm occurs. If a cataclysm does occur, it doesn't make any difference if it's "natural" or not. A comet impact is perfectly natural. Looked at a certain way, so is global warming caused by idiot humans.

And anyway there's a confusion here about the meaning of the word "adapt." The kind of adaptation that results in a sloth being "perfectly adapted to life in the treetops" isn't the same as the kind of adaptation that enables one to engage in "layering" to deal with small changes in temperature.

[PhaseLockedLoop]

Forget about creationism and start worrying about the left's faith-based devotion to government.

(http://reason.com/people/david-harsanyi) it certainly doesn't mean one has to support the anti-capitalist technocracy to fix it. And try as some may to conflate the two, global warming policy is not "science." The left sees civilization's salvation in a massive Luddite undertaking that inhibits technological growth by turning back the clock, undoing footprints, forcing technology that doesn't exist, banning products that do, and badgering consumers who have not adhered to the plan through all kinds of punishment.

Pretty funny characterization of the "left" as some gang of anti-capitalists. Who's trying to kid who?

[Tylerdurden]

Pretty funny characterization of the "left" as some gang of anti-capitalists. Who's trying to kid who?

That's not my quote. I don't know why one has to resort to such tactics.

[Flying Orca]

nothing specific... it seems too large sometimes... from a single cell to a single minded partisan in one swell foop is a lot

Yes, well, it did take a few billion years. Hardly one swell foop. :rolleyes:

[Flying Orca]

One certain flaw in this article is about the statement " It is also curious that the supposed champions of Darwin don't believe that human beings, or nature, have the ability to adapt to changing climate."
The human race and nature have the ability to adapt to a NATURAL changing in our environment. Global warming, much speeded up by man's screwing up of nature, is far from natural. Darwin evolution dealt with the changes over millions of years, not decades.

I agree, that's pretty moronic. IIRC the time-lag from significant selection pressure change to significant evolutionary response in humans is about 50,000 years (or roughly 2,500 generations).