Monthly Archives: September 2006

DeVos, the Free Press & Intelligent Design: A broken record

Posted on by

So…as quoted in an article from the Detroit Free Press, “Republican gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos says he thinks Michigan’s science curriculum should include a discussion about intelligent design.”

Oh, please.

If I believed there might be a hell in an afterlife, I am sure this would be a small taste of what it is like.

DeVos, and other proponents of Intelligent Design (ID), do not debate the topic in any rational way. Instead, the are like an old vinyl LP, stuck on a scratch and playing the same sound bite over and over again…and with the same level of conscious thought.

Never mind the overwhelming evidence and thousands of articles and books that make the case for evolution, never mind the virtual complete lack of any pro-ID articles in any refereed journals, never mind that there is no reason that the scientific community would oppose ID if there was any evidence to support it, never mind that 99+% of all scientists oppose the very idea of treating ID as science (much the same way they would oppose teaching that the world was created by invisible insects from Neptune), never mind that even if there was significant evidence opposing a theory of evolution that is not the same as support for ID, never mind all of that. They could all be the subject of another and much longer posting (not to mention that it has all been covered extensively and repeatedly by others).

Let’s just focus on the judge’s ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. If you read the full text, you’ll find an rock-solid well-reasoned set of arguments for why ID is nothing but religion in sheep’s clothing and should not be taught in science classes.

Ideally, in any reasonable debate, after each side states its arguments, you continue by rebutting your opponent. But not ID proponents. Did DeVos say, “I support the teaching of ID in schools, despite the ruling by Judge Jones, and here is why I believe he is wrong?” Or anything resembling that? No. He simply ignores the case made by the opposing side and repeats the exact same thing that he would have said if the judge’s ruling had never been issued.

It’s as if someone said: “It’s not raining where I am standing now.” And I replied: “But look at yourself, you are getting covered in water from the sky, your jacket is soaked, and there is no water source in sight that could account for this other than rain.” And that someone replied: “It’s not raining where I am standing now.”

Frustrating? Infuriating? You bet. Like a broken record? Yes again. But that’s what it’s like dealing with ID proponents. And amazingly, it is at least moderately successful. Otherwise, we would not still be here debating this. I see it all the time, such as in Ann Coulter’s latest book. She has a chapter on evolution in which she trots out virtually every anti-evolution argument ever made, despite the fact that they have been successfully rebutted over and over. There are no counter-rebuttals to the rebuttals. That would be expecting too much. No, it’s just the same “It’s not raining…” repeated again and again.

Finally, I can’t end this without commenting on the gutless nature of the cited Free Press article. In its misguided attempt to appear “unbiased and balanced,” it loses the very credibility it seeks.

Here is a key excerpt:

“Intelligent design’s proponents hold that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher force rather than evolving from more primitive forms. Some want science teachers to teach that Darwin’s theory of evolution is not a fact and has gaps.

However, a federal judge in December barred the school system in Dover, Pa., from teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in high school biology classes. The judge said intelligent design is religion masquerading as science and that teaching it alongside evolution violates the separation of church and state.”

First off, it makes it sound as if the debate is between intelligent design’s proponents and a single federal judge. What about all the evolution proponents? Don’t they get a say?

Second, and much more importantly, it takes no position. It is simply a “he said, she said” piece with no attempt to evaluate anything. Now, I understand that the article is not an editorial. I am not saying this should be an opinion piece. But an article need not drift into opinion to take a fact-based position. Not every argument has two sides that are of equal merit. There is nothing wrong with pointing that out.

For example, imagine reading the following:

“A recent offshoot of intelligent design holds that living organisms consist entirely of tiny integrated circuits, as were first created by a group of immortal elves that lived in Antarctica but today reside on a space station that orbits the moon, where they continue to research new designs and send them to Earth.

However, one federal judge in California has barred teaching this offshoot theory in science classes, stating that it is a religious theory masquerading as science.”

Wouldn’t you expect to see a bit more? Wouldn’t you expect the article, at the very least, to point out that there is virtually no known evidence to support this wild assertion? That would be a factual truth, not an opinion. But no, that might offend someone. Somebody might claim that the paper was being anti-religion. So instead we get the sort of vacant drivel that passes as reporting in the current climate.

If only one could end all this as easily as you can remove the needle from a broken record. Sadly, this record is likely to keep spinning for a long long time.

Bearing a grudge…or not

Posted on by

Whatever else, good or bad, you might say about the United States, one thing you can say is that we don’t typically hold a grudge against our enemies. Soon after a conflict ends, our enemies quickly evolve into former enemies or more often into strong allies. For that matter, once whatever conflict we had is over, most of our enemies similarly soon abandon their grudges against us.

This began with the birth of our nation and our own American Revolution. You don’t need to check a history book to know that our enemy at the time, England, is now one of our staunchest allies. In fact, going into the current Iraq War, England was just about our only ally.

Similarly, after our Civil War, except perhaps for a few pockets of the South where the Confederate flag still flies higher than the Stars & Stripes, there is no longer any concern about a “house divided.” And while we may “Remember the Alamo,” we no longer consider Mexico to be an adversary.

In the 20th century, we fought two World Wars against Germany. In WWII, the German enemy were the Nazis, perhaps the most nefarious opponent in the history of the human race. As if that was not enough, we then went on to confront a Communist East Germany, with a conflict symbolized by the Berlin Wall. Yet today, all of that is behind us. We have a mutual and friendly alliance with Germany.

Perhaps even more surprising is Japan post-WWII. While it might be understandable that we would let go of our grievances after the war, it is far less clear that Japan would reciprocate. After all, they were on the receiving end of two nuclear bombs dropped on their civilian populations. If ever there was something worth holding a grudge for, that would be it. Yet, Japan and the United States are today about as close friends as could possibly be imagined.

It isn’t just when we win a war that this happens. Even in the case of the Vietnam War, where the Communist North won, we are at least on civil term with Vietnam today. It has even become a popular tourist destination for many Americans.

I mention all this because it struck me the other day how different these results are as compared to what goes on in the Middle East and related locations such as Afghanistan. In Iraq, Sunnis and Shiites battle over religious differences that date back thousands of years. And, of course, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has its origins in competing claims for the same land that date back to passages in the Bible!

I have no great insight into what accounts for these differences, other than obvious statements about differences in the various cultures. And I know there are some exceptions to these generalizations. Still, it is some food for thought. It also gives me a glimmer of hope. If we can put aside old grudges maybe — someday — those in the Middle East will find a way to do the same.

Reflections on 9/11

Posted on by

In reflecting on the fifth anniversary of 9/11, I spent more than a few moments trying to decide what I could write about that would have personal meaning for me and at the same time be of potential general interest to others.

A first thought was to be angry on a broad scale — to write about how the Bush administration had squandered the sense of national unity and the world’s sympathy that was a significant immediate fallout of the events of 9/11. Never in my lifetime has the outlook for the United States seemed as gloomy. Our leaders lie to us with impunity, our country is mired in a war in Iraq that drains our resources and soldiers’ lives with no end in sight, we seem no closer to declaring an ultimate victory in the “global war on terror” than we did 5 years ago, our status in the arena of world opinion has never been lower, we have an administration that ignores the dangers of global warming and other threats to the environment and instead works hardest at curtailing our civil liberties at every possible turn, all the while using doublespeak to champion “freedom” as its clarion call.

But it quickly became clear that more than enough other columnists and bloggers would be covering this territory.

A second thought was to be quite personal. I grew up in New York City and surroundings. I made many trips to the top of the World Trade Center, including dining at the Windows on the World restaurant. For a short time, I commuted between New Jersey and New York, passing through the World Trade Center almost every business day. And, throughout much of this time, the twin towers soaring above the the New York skyline was a daily sight, an icon of the place I called home. Although I did not personally know anyone who died in the attacks of 9/11, my emotional reaction to the demise of the towers still feels more than a bit like I imagine my reation would be to the accidental death of a close family member. There is a wound that never heals, that still brings forth tears when I focus on it.

But no, extending this theme further seemed too personal. We all have our stories of 9/11. I did not see any reason to burden you with an entire article about mine.

In the end, prompted by something I read in the New York Times on Sunday, I decided to focus on one aspect of the 9/11 fallout. Yes, it returns to the aforementioned realm of “anger,” but with a more narrow scope.

For the umpteenth time, I read of a government’s official defense of possible mistreatment (torture?) of captured individuals suspected of being terrorists. He said ” “When you are concerned that a hard-core terrorist has information about an imminent threat that could put innocent lives at risk, rapport-building and stroking aren’t the top things on your agenda.”

I have a conflicted reaction to this. On the one hand, I entirely agree. The last thing I would want is to have another catastrophe on the order of 9/11 and discover that it could have been prevented by more intense questioning of someone we had in custody. Depending upon the specifics, I might even be among the first to criticize the actions of those responsible for this failure.

Yet, on balance, I am more concerned about the implications on the other side of this fence. In particular:

• I recall all the articles and books that pointed out how 9/11 itself could have been prevented with better scrutiny of intelligence, better cooperation among agencies, and so on. In not one case was a lack of torture cited as a reason we did not prevent the attacks.

• In at least some cases, it’s important to remember that these captured individuals are only suspected of being terrorists. They have not been convicted. What if we made a mistake? Do we really want to imprison people for years and possibly torture them, only to later find out that they are guilty of…nothing?

• Finally, I am reminded of what the ACLU states when it is criticized for defending the First Amendment rights of an unpopular cause or group (I’m paraphrasing here): “It’s easy to defend the rights of those who agree with you. The real test of your commitment to freedom is your willingness to defend the rights of those with whom you vehemently disagree.”

In the same way, it’s easy to abide by the Geneva conventions in the treatment of prisoners and defend our own civil liberties at the possible expense of a degree of security, when very little is at stake. The real test of our commitment to freedom is when the stakes are large. If we wind up saying, in effect, “The rules apply until they are inconvenient,” then we ultimately have no rules at all.

This is not what I want as the legacy of 9/11.

The wisdom of the American public?

Posted on by

Politicians are fond of saying that they place their trust in the “wisdom of the American people.” It reminds me of Garrison Keillor’s famous quote about Lake Wobegon, where “all the children are above average.”

Recently, however, I am more inclined to think about the quote that refers to the implications of IQ testing: “Half of all Americans have below average intelligence.”

I was especially reminded of this today after reading an article that cited a survey reporting that, despite even the clear assertions to the contrary by George Bush in the last weeks, 43% of Americans still believe that “former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.”

On another subject dear to my heart, evolution, the Pew Forum reported that, according to a 2005 survey, 42% of Americans believe that “humans and other living things have existed in their present form only.” In other words, over two-fifths of the public believes that evolution is basically a scam that scientists have made up.

It’s findings like these that make me glad we live in a republic rather than an actual democracy. At least with a republic, there is a chance that the electorate will vote someone competent into office as their representative. If every law was decided by a popular vote of the entire nation, I shudder to think of the results.