The article has nice photos, but is anyone else beginning to feel that the content of the “museum” was thoroughly plumbed on the very first day, and that what’s happening now is that we’re seeing demonstrations of just how shallow the whole thing is?
What if they had a debate about evolution, and didn’t bother to invite any scientists? It would be unhinged and divorced from reality, and all the wheels would be spinning wildly, and they could come up with any ol’ crazy crap they wanted. This must be why the American Enterprise Institute sponsored a debate on Darwin and conservatives moderated by Ronald Reagan’s biographer, Steven Hayward, with John Derbyshire and Larry Arnhart defending evolution, and George Gilder and John West, two cranks from the Discovery Institute, criticizing it. Not one scientist in sight, and the account of the proceedings reflects that. The entire debate was about whether reality conflicts with the conservative point of view, and whether they can reinterpret evolution to conform to Wingnuttia.
Unbelievable, I know. Read Brad’s response for a point-by-point takedown.
Just for an example, though, here’s the kind of idea being advanced by evolution’s defenders at that meeting:
It’s a nice idea, but it too might have ended the discussion right then and there, except that Darwinism is once again being used by partisans of a particular political philosophy. This time the lucky philosophy is contemporary American conservatism, and the foremost proponent of the conservative-Darwinian dalliance is Arnhart. He offered a quick summary of his position, which has become popular among right-wingers of a libertarian stripe and has found its fullest expression in Arnhart’s book Darwinian Conservatism.
“Conservatives need Darwin,” he said. Without the scientific evidence Darwinian theory offers, conservative views would be swamped by liberal sentimentality. The left-wing view of human nature as unfixed and endlessly manipulable has led to countless disastrous Utopian schemes. Hard-headed Darwinians, on the other hand, see human nature as settled and enduring and stubbornly unchangeable, and conservatives can wield the findings of Darwin to rebut the scheming, ambitious busybodies of the left and their subversion of custom and tradition. (I’m paraphrasing, by the way.)
The only guy who said anything sensible was Derbyshire.
So Darwinism, viewed one way, can easily be considered morally disastrous. But, responded pro-Darwin Derbyshire, Is it true? “The truth value of Darwinism is essential,” he said. “The truth value always comes first.” If Darwinism is true-and its undeniable success in explaining the world suggests that it is-and if Darwinism undermines conservatism, as West had claimed, “then so much the worse for conservatism.”
And likewise, so much the worse for liberalism if it doesn’t fit reality. The way we ought to be managing our culture is by changing those bits of it that don’t jibe well with nature, rather than allowing ideology to run roughshod over the evidence.
The latest USA Today/Gallup poll probably is valid, unfortunately — it’s not far off from my impressions. 44% of Americans think evolution is probably or definitely false, and two thirds think a god created human beings in the last ten thousand years. Those two numbers don’t quite fit together well — those who think a god created humans recently should also consider evolution false — but we can safely say that about half the country is ignorant or deluded about science, anyway.
We will now, of course, all close our eyes and pretend that religion has nothing at all to do with this catastrophic epidemic of stupidity.
I’m rather peeved and disappointed, too. The Discovery Institute Media Complaints Division posts a rebuke of bad bloggers and scientists who are mean to their shills, and there’s a link in there to Pharyngula…and I thought for sure it would be whining about something I said.
But no. The link is directly to one of Scott’s comments.
Poor guy. Now he’s going to have Casey Luskin squeaking at him. The rest of you are going to have to work at catching up by hurting the DI’s feelings badly enough that they point at you and cry. (You’re going to have to really work to beat me out, though—they have invoked my unholy, fearful name in their fundraising literature.)
No, actually they don’t — but they do have some proteins that are essential components of synapses, and it tells us something important about the evolution of the nervous system. A new paper by Sakarya et al. really isn’t particularly revolutionary, but it is very interesting, and it does confirm something many of us suspected.
How else can I respond to this wretched rant against our beloved cephalopods last night? He claims that “Narrowing the gap between cephalopods and humans can only lead to disaster” and that “Our seafood is training for something big”, and he’s right—and the only appropriate response is to welcome our new tentacled masters. Defiance and threats, like those of Mr Colbert, will only hasten your subjugation.
The Panda’s Thumb is back online again, in case you’ve been missing it.
Yuck, I’m reminded that Father’s Day is coming up soon, and you are all obligated to find something cheesy to give to Dad (except me, I don’t have one anymore, so I’m exempt). Here’s a collection of manly suggestions, most of which don’t appeal at all to me, but hey, maybe your dad is different. Anyway, the only one that was mildly cool was the squidbrain tie (you can order here), which has a mere two flaws. 1) I don’t wear ties, and 2) why a vertebrate brain? What would be really nifty is a tie with a chain of ganglia down its length (it would even be in the right location, along the ventral body wall!) with the sub- and supra-esophageal ganglia at the knot and around the band, just like the real thing.
In other words, that tie is insufficiently nerdy for me.
I have standards.
Actually, if my kids are wondering what to get me, I’m settling for nothing less than The Chair.
Now this is the pinnacle of office domination furnishings. Imagine, a student comes in to complain about his grade, and I push a button: my chair rises up to tower above the trembling supplicant, and stalks across the room bearing the professor, who in a booming voice declares, “You dare? You dare to question my decisions?“
It’s much more intimidating than the trap door to the spiky room in the basement or the discreet ceiling-mounted lasers I’m using now. We tyrant kings all know that spectacle is an important component of effective oppression.
