Archive for

Abstinence Only Education: GOP Renews its Commitment to Error

The GOP platform retains its dedication to abstinence only education, despite numerous scientific studies proving the method ineffective save in increasing teen pregnancy. Where ideology demands a course of action contrary to the goals one nominally pursues, and contrary indeed to reason, isn’t it time to re-evaluate that ideology? Not to McCain. And not to Palin.

Barack Obama on Science: All the Right Answers

ScienceDebate2008 has, since the spring, sought to secure the responses of the Presidential candidates on issues of scientific concern going beyond the basic talking points, either in a debate format (*ahem* hence the name…) or press releases. Obama has chosen to issue the latter; McCain has, as of yet, not expressed an interest in either.

Obama’s responses have won PZ Myers’ cautious support, and my full support. Two of his answers in particular merit review and praise. On the issue of embryonic stem cells – a scientific matter the Republican Party still opposes (page 40) – Obama begins by correctly noting that “the restrictions that President Bush has placed on funding of human embryonic stem cell research have handcuffed our scientists and hindered our ability to compete with other nations.” He frames the issue correctly: at root, this isn’t an issue of morality: it’s an issue of whether a small sector of society should have a heckler’s veto over the scientific progress of the entire nation. By elevating the needs of a few squeamish religious folk over the nation’s afflicted, and, yes, the nation’s businesses, Bush’s shortsighted policy lets science disintegrate into pandering. Obama gets it, and has the insight of addressing the issue pragmatically:

I recognize that some people object to government support of research that requires cells to be harvested from human embryos. However, hundreds of thousands of embryos stored in the U.S. in in-vitro fertilization clinics will not be used for reproductive purposes, and will eventually be destroyed. I believe that it is ethical to use these extra embryos for research that could save lives when they are freely donated for that express purpose.

Good. More importantly, though, Obama understands the necessity of erecting a wall between ideology and science:

I will… [r]estore the science integrity of government and restore transparency of decision- making by issuing an Executive Order establishing clear guidelines for the review and release of government publications, guaranteeing that results are released in a timely manner and not distorted by the ideological biases of political appointees. I will strengthen protection for “whistle blowers” who report abuses of these processes.

PZ thinks that Obama doesn’t discuss evolution, and if he doesn’t, of course it’s because ScienceDebate didn’t ask the question. But, for me, an affirmation of the need for “scientific integrity” counts as an endorsement of evolutionary biology over the intellectually vacuous, politics-powered black hole of creationism.

While there is a role for morality in doing science – no doomsday devices! – Obama gets that morality doesn’t define science, and needn’t restrict science just to score points. That’s all I need to hear.

Will Palin Pull Out? Kos Says, Yes

Although it would be political death for McCain – his “maverick” image would quickly change meaning from “independent” to “unreliable and impulsive” – it increasingly looks like Palin may herself be political death. I would be shocked to see him drop her (or see her withdraw, “for family reasons”), but the stage is somewhat set for the plausibility of that reason, and Kos thinks it’s likely.

Palin-tology

It’s no surprise any more that Sarah Palin is fairly far right (and the electorate is catching on), so far even that she supports a place in the science classroom for creationism, at least to “teach the controversy.” I disapprove. Honestly, were I even questioning voting for McCain, endorsement of such poor science would be a dealbreaker. Call me shallow, but I care about how our elected officials understand the operation of science. Especially after eight years of an administration that views science as just another political football, we can’t afford even a whiff of selective, politicized science.

To my surprise, not even all pro-evolution partisans are on my side. A sizable contingency on Facebook wrote on a recent “posted item” of mine to express their belief that, despite Palin’s endorsement of creationism, since she’s never acted on this belief, her scientific shortcomings are somehow neutralized.

I strongly disagree. So we’re all on the same page, yesterday on Meet the Press (thanks to didionsmommy for bringing this out), Pawlenty defended his and Palin’s belief that “intelligent design is something that … should be taught along with evolution in the schools.” Here’s the full quote:

GOV. PAWLENTY: [H]er view of it was, according to comments in the newspaper, allow them all to be presented, or allow them both to be presented so students could be exposed to both, and–or more, and have a chance to be exposed to the, to the various theories and make up their own minds.

MR. BROKAW: In the vast scientific community, do you think that creationism has the same weight as evolution, and at a time in American education when we are in a crisis when it comes to science that there ought to be parallel tracks for creationism vs. evolution in the teaching?

GOV. PAWLENTY: In the scientific community, it seems like intelligent design is dismissed. Not entirely, there are a lot of scientists who would make the case that it is appropriate to be taught and appropriate to be demonstrated. But in terms of the curriculum in the schools, in Minnesota we’ve taken the approach that that’s a local decision, but I know Senator Palin, or Governor Palin, has said intelligent design is something she thinks should be taught along with evolution in the schools, and I think that’s appropriate from my standpoint.

In short, Pawlenty and Palin believe that children should be exposed to intelligent design to the extent that there is a scientific controversy over which theory is valid. Of course, there is no controversy – Palin & Pawlenty merely imagine there is one – and although “exposed to” does not always mean “educated on,” the position is still dangerous in that it misunderstands science and the role of science education. Creationism can only ever be a cautionary example for the class, a “teaching moment” to discuss the logical limitations of scientific theory, and why we erect a wall around science that excludes both political influence & supernatural causation. Just so, intelligent design ought never be shown to students save to discuss its failures, which is not, it seems, what Palin and Pawlenty have in mind.

Nor is federalism – “this is a local decision,” leave it up to school boards – an answer. It’s an easy way of avoiding discussing the issue, for fear of alienating moderates or losing your base. To the extent that one school district teaches its children the validity of creationism, it’s not honoring local tradition or acting as a “laboratory” in the Brandeis tradition – it’s failing its students by affirmatively mis-educating them. Palin’s inaction on the subject, and Pawlenty’s willful blindness to the faulty, politicized mis-education of young Americans, are not tolerable, because they lead to precisely the same result.

What really worries me, though, is that fundamental to both Palin & Pawlenty’s beliefs on the subject is the idea that intelligent design is “plausible and credible,” a belief that evinces either scientific incuriosity or a willingness to subject science to politics, neither of which are acceptable.  Science is not a political football, and it is not too much to require our politicians to acknowledge that. Because Palin would only tolerate facts where they jive with her religion, she ought to be out of the picture.

Obama: As Smart as We All Knew Him to Be

At a press event, Obama vowed to fire any staffer that stokes the Palin babygate scandal or pursues dirt in a candidate’s family. Good for him. This is the presidential, classy decision we knew he’d make, and importantly sets him above both the Bush administration (“Wilson’s wife [Valerie Plame] is fair game”) and the Clinton campaign (Q: “Is Obama a Muslim?” A: “Not as far as I know…”). He talks the talk, and walks the walk: no distractions.