Category Archives: Politics

NPR flunks evolution

Posted on by

The following is a slightly edited copy of feedback I sent to NPR earlier this week. It’s probably a bit more harsh than they deserved. But I felt I needed to do some shaking here.

“I was truly disappointed in your coverage of the Florida evolution bill issue today. Even the title of your piece, ‘Bill in Fla. Lets Schools Teach Evolution Alternatives,’ is a distortion.

The truth is that no bill is needed to allow teaching of alternatives to evolution. Schools are already allowed to teach scientific alternatives to evolution, just as they are allowed to do so for any other theory in science.

What they are not allowed to do is teach religion in the guise of science. That is what this law is really all about. It is the latest attempt by the proponents of creationism to shoehorn the teaching of creationism in science classes. The more neutral sounding language is simply designed to circumvent the latest legal rulings against such teaching. Your report never really makes this clear.

Instead, your report makes the issue sound more like a “he said, she said” debate between Republicans and Democrats, with the Republicans on the side of academic freedom.

To describe this bill as advocating academic freedom, is like describing a bill that weakens anti-pollution regulations as a “Clean Skies Act.” It’s just double-speak. This is an anti-evolution bill, plain and simple.

Similarly, your report mentions the Discovery Institute as a source of support for the Florida legislation, but fails to mention that this same Institute was on the losing side of the Dover, PA trial that strongly ruled against teaching Intelligent Design in the classroom. Indeed, the Discovery Institute spokesman quoted in your report acknowledges that the wording of the Florida legislation was in part based on model language provided by the Institute.

Your report mentions Ben Stein’s new movie (Expelled), but fails to mention that it has received near unanimous condemnation for its promotion of knowingly false and inaccurate information. The New York Times, for example, called it “one of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time, a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry.” There is an entire Web site, Expelled Exposed, that exposes the many falsehoods in this movie.

While citing Ben Stein and his film, and quoting a person from the Discovery Institute, your report offered no statements from scientists or experts of any sort on the other side of this controversy.

In the end, your report comes off as a shameful example of ignoring the facts, and promoting the legitimacy of discredited views, apparently in a sheepish attempt to give yourself an appearance of neutrality.”

There is no middle ground in the God debate

Posted on by

I recently browsed through a book titled I Don’t Believe in Atheists. As I have not actually read the book cover-to-cover, I won’t attempt to review it here — or even give my opinion of it.

I will say that one of the general points seemingly made in the book is similar to one I have seen made many times before: Strong advocates of atheism (such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris) are characterized as every bit as much extremists as the religious fundamentalists on the other side of the fence. Indeed, atheism itself winds up being equated to just another “faith” — and therefore no more worthy of support than any other faith.

The argument that atheism itself is just another type of religion has been more than adequately rebutted elsewhere (although, as with creationist arguments, that won’t prevent it from going away). So I won’t bother with answering that here.

However, I do want to address the idea that atheists and fundamentalists represent the two extremes on a spectrum — with the implication that more reasonable minds should prefer to seek some more rational middle ground.

Normally, I am a strong advocate of the “middle ground.” Take almost any controversy — and you will almost certainly find that the most extreme advocates for either side have pushed the argument too far. A middle ground is a more sensible approach and, thankfully, often becomes the dominant view. For example, consider arguments over the concept of instinct. One side may say that there are no such things as instincts, that all behavior is learned. The other side may claim that all behavior ultimately emerges from innate patterns, that learning plays at best a minor role in behavior. The truth, almost assuredly, lies somewhere in between.

Still, there are “either-or” propositions for which there is no middle ground. Either the earth revolves around the sun or the sun revolves around the earth. There is no compromise position here. Either O.J. killed his wife or he didn’t. There is no middle ground on this matter. The only ambiguity comes from the public not knowing with 100% certainty what O.J. actually did, not with any ambiguity in his actions.

And so it is with God. Either God exists or he doesn’t. If God exists, the atheists are wrong. If God does not exist, all the theist religions of the world are wrong. There is no safe middle ground to be found. Trying to find some compromise here is simply a waste of time.

We can perhaps agree that, in the absence of 100% proof in either direction, some degree of tolerance should be maintained for both positions. But that’s about it.

However, understand that much of science is based on evidence for things we cannot see. No one has actually visited a black hole. Almost no one (maybe no one really) has seen an atom. We cannot actually view gravity. Yet most people (at least virtually all rational people) believe that these things exist. We don’t consider such beliefs to be based on faith — but rather the result of the preponderance of scientific evidence. Atheists simply ask that a belief in God be established in the same way. Given that no such preponderance of evidence exists, rejecting the idea of God makes more sense.

Or, to turn it around (and as I have said before in other postings), we don’t assume something is likely to be true simply because we can’t prove with 100% certainty that it’s not true. Otherwise, we would have to say that it is plausible that little green men live on Mars. And so it is with God. The fact that existence of God cannot be disproved with 100% certainty, does not make it likely that God exists.

In the end, atheists wind up discarding a belief in God following the same logic that leads science to discard a belief in men on Mars or support a belief in atomic theory. This is not an “extremist” position and there is no need to seek a middle ground for retreat.

The surge is a failure

Posted on by

I am so tired of seeing repeated references to how the surge of troops in Iraq has been a success. I expect to hear this from the Bush administration and its supporters. I am surprised, however, by how much this illogical framing has been accepted by the mainstream media.

The problem begins with the definition of success. The Bush White House wants success to be equated to a reduction in violence. Looked at from this narrow perspective, a case could be made for the surge being a success. As far as I can tell, the overall level of violence in Iraq is currently down (although whether or not the surge deserves all the credit for this is less clear).

However, by itself, this reduction means practically nothing in terms of how we should truly measure the success of the surge. If you keep adding more and more U.S. troops to a battle zone, of course you expect to see a reduction in violence eventually. The real surprise would be if we kept increasing our troop level but never saw any effect at all.

A more accurate measure of success would require looking at how far the level of violence has fallen and how sustainable that level is. On these measures, the surge does not appear to be doing well at all.

The level of violence is still nowhere near a peacetime level. And we still have not begun to reduce our troop levels significantly. In fact, I believe levels are still higher than before the surge started. Does this mean that we have to maintain our current troop levels in order to maintain this “success”? If so, it’s is hardly what I would call a success.

A success is when you can send your troops home. A success is when you have an Iraqi government that can take care of its own security. So far, I have seen no sign that this is happening. Even vocal opponents of the war agree that it will likely be years before most of our troops are out of Iraq (it will likely be decades, if ever, before they are entirely out). This is not evidence of a success. Rather, it is evidence of how much we have messed things up.

One more thing: No matter what happens in Iraq from this day forward, it can never erase the failures and lies of the past.

This was a war that was started against a country who had not attacked us and had shown no signs of doing so. It was based largely on a claim that Iraq was in possession of WMD—a claim that turned out to be completely false. The claim that Al-qaeda and Sadam Hussein were working together, another justification for the war, also was completely false. Instead of continuing our focus in Afghanistan, where we were fighting Al-qaeda, we were diverted to a country where Al-qaeda wasn’t—and we our now doing rather poorly in both countries.

We were promised a short war that would largely pay for itself. We instead got a long war—lasting 5 years and counting—that is costing us trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.

Iraq-related incidents revolving around Abu Ghahib, Guantanamo, and waterboarding have further sullied our reputation and moral standing in the world community.

Finally, there are all the negative side-stories that have emerged over the years: the Blackhawk scandal, the Valerie Plame outing, the Pat Tillman coverup, the Walter Reed Hospital conditions, the illegal wire-tapping, the elimination of habeas corpus for terrorist suspects, and more.

It is outrageous to think that a slight reduction in violence, possibly linked to our increase in troop levels (levels that show no sign of significantly decreasing), could be used to justify all of these past lies and abuses.

No matter what happens in the future, our decision to invade Iraq will always remain the wrong thing to have done. There is no way that this failure in leadership can ever be considered a success.

A lesson for progressive Democrats?

Posted on by

James Dobson has a column in today’s New York Times where he states that, at a meeting of 50 pro-family groups, a decision was made: “If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate.” He further adds: “The other approach, which I find problematic, is to choose a candidate according to the likelihood of electoral success or failure. Polls don’t measure right and wrong; voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one’s principles.”

I don’t agree with Dobson’s position on abortion (or on much else for that matter). But I do admire his political drawing of the line here. It forced me to take another look at my own views on this matter.

Taking such a hard line entails two very huge risks. Let’s start by assuming that whatever third party candidate you endorse is going to lose. Either the Republican or Democratic candidate will win anyway. That said, there are two possible outcomes. On the surface, neither of the outcomes would be welcome.

The first is that the candidate of the party you would of otherwise endorsed (Republicans in the case of Dobson) wins anyway. If this happens, you run the risk of marginalizing yourself. The party sees that they can win without your support, indeed with your active opposition, The result is that your future influence is seriously eroded.

The other outcome is that, because of your shift to a third party, the party you would have otherwise endorsed loses. In Dobson’s case, this means the Democrats win. The risk for Dobson here is that he winds up putting someone in the White House who, on issues other than the key issue of abortion, disagrees with him far more than the Republican candidate does.

The Democrats faced this exact situation in 2000 when Ralph Nader, as the candidate of the Green Party, siphoned off enough votes from disgruntled Democrats, that Bush won. Although some dispute whether or not Nader’s candidacy altered the result, it remains a commonly held belief. The result was that, among mainline Democrats, Nader and his supporters were vilified. “If it wasn’t for you, there would have been no Bush and no invasion of Iraq…” And so on.

But perhaps mainline Democrats took the wrong spin here. Perhaps they should have said: “If we moved our positions closer to those of the Green Party on key issues, Nader would have not gotten so many votes. We would still have retained our votes and we would have won!”

What I like about this alternative spin is that it fosters change. If you get too frightened by the dual risks of going with a third party, and abandon the option under any circumstances, the two major political parties lose the incentive to respond to any concerns outside their comfort zone. You wind up getting a candidate like John Kerry, whom many Democrats supported reluctantly because they thought he could win rather than because they were excited at the prospect of him winning. And he lost anyway.

Maybe progressive Democrats could take a lesson from Dobson here. What we may need, if and when we are not satisfied with the party’s candidate, is not less support for third parties but more support. Sometimes you really do need to draw a line.