On "Believeing" in Evolution

Who Doesn't Believe in Evolution? According to Crooks and Liars, three presidential candidates: Sen. Sam Brownback, Rep. Tom Tancredo, and Gov. Mike Huckabee..

But I'm not here to make fun of their willful ignorance and arrogant anti-intellectualism. I'm here to critique the way that Democrats, Progressives, Liberals, Scientists, and thinking people in general think and talk about evolution

First, I don't believe in evolution and you shouldn't either. At least not any more than you believe in gravity.

It is not a question of belief. I accept evolution as a scientific fact. For over one hundred years, the scientific community has modified and refined the idea that organisms evolve over time. Every piece of evidence, every experiment or observation has reinforced the basic idea that 'survival of the fittest' is the mechanism by which new species come into being.

Every time we say that we believe in evolution, we put a scientifically demonstrable phenomenon in the same category as religion. This is dangerous. The forces of deliberate ignorance are already trying to have the 'religion' of secular humanism removed from schools.

Fundamentally, while 'belief' may be dictated by authority, knowledge can only be discovered by inquiry. In the pre-rational era, religious institutions could dictate scientific fact through theology and dogma. Ask Galileo. Evolution is not a mystical, un-provable process (like transubstantiation) that must be taken on faith. We shouldn't treat it or talk about it as if it were.

Evolution Belief Framing

War on Science? Not at the Pentagon

The Republican War on Science is well documented. The fact that America's national security is endangered by that war is certainly less widely. The Pentagon has seen a dwindling in interest in science and of scientific expertise - both vital for our military - and has taken some unorthodox steps to preserve our scientific leadership.

From the Christian Science Monitor:

the triumvirate of Messrs. Gundersen, Barker, and Singer is serious about getting science - and scientific heroes - into the movies. In fact, they see it as vital to the health of American technological prowess, to say nothing of national security.

So what they've done for the past three years is convene a three-to-five-day screenwriting class at the venerated American Film Institute in Los Angeles. Called the Catalyst Workshop, it's a lot like other screenwriting classes that have become a cottage industry across the nation. But here's the twist - all participants in this one are actually scientists. Hardcore, PhD-laden, lab-certified scientists. Here's the second twist - the training was all paid for by the Pentagon.

These screenwriting classes are indeed your Department of Defense tax dollars at work. Egregious example of DOD waste? Some bizarre recruiting promise? The cinematic equivalent of $700 toilet seats? Actually, it's the Pentagon's way of trying to enhance the nation's science-and-technology adroitness.

***

America, it turns out, is suffering from a science and engineering shortage. Students are bypassing the sciences for sexier and more lucrative jobs in law, venture capital, and competitions to be on "American Idol." That means, in addition to national deficits in sleep, fitness, and the federal budget, we have a dearth of particle physicists and electromechanical engineers.

If the Pentagon says we're short on scientists, I'm inclined to believe them. When it comes to engineers, I know we're short on them from personal experience.

I graduated with a degree in Architecture got a good job making a decent salary. Friends of mine, graduating from the same university at the same time with engineering degrees were recruited by multiple companies, and easily make twice as much as I do.

The law of supply and demand doesn't lie.

And, I suppose, it was my choice to pick the sexy profession (architecture) that cost me the money. I never really thought of architecture as sexy, but it really kind of is. Have you ever noticed how many commercials for things completely unrelated to architecture have (physically attractive) architects in high-rise offices with big glass windows locking out over cities? Maybe it's just me...

And being a mechanical engineer is definitely un-sexy. It's like the old joke says: "How can you tell the difference between and architect and an engineer? - The architect's clothes match." The stereotypes aren't flattering.

Anyway, back to the point.

The Republican Party has allowed certain internal elements and interests to degrade science in general (and science education in particular) to such a degree that the Pentagon is sponsoring scientists' screen plays.

Think about that.

I don't think it's a bad idea. It's a sort of 'under the radar' P.R. campaign for science, something many other areas of study and/or professions use all the time.

Of course a sound education and more affordable college educations might be a better way to get similar results...

Science Engineering Pentagon

Pat's Sees the Light

More specifically, Pat feels the heat.

Think Progress reports that Pat Robertson, who I have been quite hard on in the past, has 'endorsed' global warming.

Yesterday on the 700 Club, evangelical Pat Robertson declared himself "a convert"” on global warming. Robertson said that he has "“not been one who believed in global warming in the past."” But now, Robertson said, he believes "it is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air."” Robertson implored, "we really need to do something on fossil fuels."

Shocking video here. Do not watch while drinking coffee.

I'm a bit conflicted about Pat's conversion. On one hand, if Pat can push some people towards expecting government (and private industry) to do something about fossil fuel use/conservation, we're a step ahead. Largely, the people Pat would be reaching weren't exactly 'on board' with the sustainability movement.

On the other hand, Pat has managed to take a scientific fact and discuss it in purely religious terms. He's a 'convert' to global warming. He 'believes' that it's getting warmer. This sort of language doesn't advance a pro-science agenda. It only feeds into the false fundie-spouted meme 'science is a religion.'

If Pat can claim 'belief' in Global Warming, it's just as easy for someone to claim they don't 'believe.' Belief is a personal decision, not rooted in fact or evidence.

Maybe I'm worried about the little things while I should be happy that at least one Fundie has come around on something important. I just can't help feeling this is going to bite us in the ass.

Pat Robertson Global Warming Science Religion

Anti-Intellectualism

December 27's Washington Post had this op-ed piece about how the No Child Left Behind legislation championed by C+ student George W. Bush has had a big impact on the education of the other student that ends up left behind. Or at least left waiting for everyone else to catch up. The gifted student.

I was identified as a gifted student in elementary school and went through the 'gifted' track (as much as it existed) all through school. Elementary school was fine. I had good teachers who could make things interesting for students at any level. I never really studied. Well, I studied for my spelling tests. I hated spelling. I still do. I still spell check every one of these posts before posting it. Invariably, I've misspelled at least five to ten words in each one.

Middle School was worse. Most of my classes were grouped by ability, so I stayed engaged even if I still didn't do the homework. The ones that weren't were terrible. I'd just sit there, waiting. My notebooks were full of doodles and sketches, never notes. I never took notes. I still don't.

High school was finally challenging. AP and honors courses were wonderful. I figured college would be better, but I found that the discussion in my gen-ed classes was no better (and sometimes worse) than the discussion in my High School AP classes. My major, however, was great.

Enough about me.

The point here is that there is a strong anti-intellectual streak in today's Republican 'base' voter. They decry liberals as 'elites' based on a what they see in Harvard and Southern Cal. They think they know more about science than scientists who have spent 10 years getting an education, then 20 to 30 more years doing research in their field. They see no benefit in art. They're proud to be 'good ol' boys.'

It's so bad that even the consistently conservative editors at the Wall Street Journal have noticed. And they're not too happy about it. In this article, Jeffrey Hart has left these choice quotes for me to cherry pick:

"The most recent change occurred in 1964, when its center of gravity shifted to the South and the Sunbelt, now the solid base of "Republicanism." The consequences of that profound shift are evident, especially with respect to prudence, education, intellect and high culture."

"The Conservative Mind is a work in progress. Its deviations and lunges to ideology and utopianism have been self-corrected by prudence, reserved judgment as an operative principle, a healthy practical skepticism and the requirement of historical knowledge as a guide to prudent policy. Without a deep knowledge of history, policy analysis is feckless."

"It is not enough for conservatives to repeat formulae or party-line positions. The mind must possess the process that leads to conservative decisions. As a guide, the books, and the results of experience, may be the more difficult way--much more difficult in a given moment than pre-cooked dogma, which is always irresistible to the uneducated. Learning guards against having to reinvent the wheel in political theory from one generation to the next."

Not a ringing endorsement of a liberal world view, but a stinging observations about how intellectually lazy the 'base' of the right has become none the less.

The leaders on the right, of course, know their base and feed them the 'red meat' issues in rationed amounts to keep the base voting for them. The problem is that like any other group working (voting) for a much smaller group that grabs bigger rewards, the Republican 'base' demands every increasing appeasement to keep them happy.

The corporate princes who actually run the GOP actually like science, education, world renowned universities, genetic engineering, and all the advancements that go along with them. They're money makers. Unless educated people are making advances (read 'new products/services') the money dries up. Example: The GOP base hates evolution. The idea that they are descended from monkeys is abhorrent to them. (Plus it disagrees with an allegory they mistook for literal truth.) The elite in the conservative movement, however, don't really want evolution removed from science classrooms. All modern biology including $35.9 BILLION dollar per year pharmacology is based evolution. Yeah, their base wants that removed from our education system.

The same rule applies to the increasing theocratic nature of the Republican Party. The more Jerry Falwell becomes a leader of the 'right' the more our corpratists get worried. Think about the nations in the world under theocracies. How many have robust economies? Exactly.

This diary has rambled a bit but I'll get to the point. The conservative movement is increasingly beholden to a 'base' that doesn't know much about the world. This, by itself, isn't bad. The problem is that the same base doesn't want to know. For them it's a badge of honor not to know. "REAL AMERICANS are plain folk that don't worry about that kinda stuff." The 'base' doesn't even like people who do know. "They're elitists. They think they're so smart, telling us what to do." This rising anti-intellectualism is very dangerous, especially as we enter the 'knowledge based economy' of the 21st century.