I Want to Save a Child's Sight!

Monday, August 08, 2005

Design for Confusion

Krugman (8-5): "The most spectacular example is the campaign to discredit research on global warming. Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus, many people have the impression that the issue is still unresolved. This impression reflects the assiduous work of conservative think tanks, which produce and promote skeptical reports that look like peer-reviewed research, but aren't. And behind it all lies lavish financing from the energy industry, especially ExxonMobil."

"There are several reasons why fake research is so effective. One is that nonscientists sometimes find it hard to tell the difference between research and advocacy - if it's got numbers and charts in it, doesn't that make it science?"

"Which brings us, finally, to intelligent design. Some of America's most powerful politicians have a deep hatred for Darwinism. Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, blamed the theory of evolution for the Columbine school shootings. But sheer political power hasn't been enough to get creationism into the school curriculum. The theory of evolution has overwhelming scientific support, and the country isn't ready - yet - to teach religious doctrine in public schools."

"The important thing to remember is that like supply-side economics or global-warming skepticism, intelligent design doesn't have to attract significant support from actual researchers to be effective. All it has to do is create confusion, to make it seem as if there really is a controversy about the validity of evolutionary theory. That, together with the political muscle of the religious right, may be enough to start a process that ends with banishing Darwin from the classroom." [NYT]

2 comments:

Craig S said...

I think we need to add a double edge to the sword of "intelligent design". These crazy denizens of the religious right have not taken into account that just maybe evolution is the intelligent design. How else are self aware complex life forms with strong immune systems, and intricate internal organs supposed to develop? Apparently Tom Delay and his wack-job right-wing buddies think that we popped out of the ground like the Fightning Uruk-hai of Izengard fully evolved and ready to hit the ground running.

Seriously though, branding evolution as the intelligent design would actually defang the religious right in this argument, and would likely result in the evolution being adopted in education systems in places like Kansas and would protect evolution in education systems elsewhere across the country.

tetrasaure said...

Well how about this one for a thought of how humanity came to be. That maybe both sides are wrong, and it could be that humans that we know did do the poof, where here. Now as far as the differences which make us what we are, these are where adaption to the environment took place. If you take both sides of the coin it makes a smarter understanding, because both sides have nothing to prove in how humans came to be on this planet. The best that we can tell for sure is that there were human like critters running around for millions of years, and each was very different. As a result of natural extinction, and specie wars, we are what you get. The third but really scary thing is if god and evolution never took into effect, and humans are not from earth. I would have to say if you in the ball game of proclaiming any side in fever, you are insignificant.