Archive for February 12, 2009

Happy 200th, Abe

Today is Abraham Lincoln’s 200th birthday. Michael Lind wrote a piece in Salon asking “How Would Lincoln Vote Today?” Turns out it’s not so simple to pigeon-hole him as “all Left” or “all Right” … all Democrat or all Republican. Besides, the contemporary Democratic and Republican parties are very different from their incarnations in Lincoln’s days. Instead, Lind summarizes Lincoln’s positions on various issues in the political, economic, and social spheres, and we have summarized Lind, providing a quick-reference guide to Lincoln, should you be engaged in a political debate over lattes and need to invoke Honest Abe in a snap.

Looks like Lincoln’s much more blue-violet than anything else. It is important to note while Lincoln was not a fervent abolitionist, he was a critic of bigotry and policies born from it, specifically with respect to civil rights and immigration. Ideally, this philosophy transcends political party.

Lincoln wanted to keep slavery out of the Midwest and the North in the interests of white farmers and workers. At the same time, Lincoln sincerely believed that slavery was utterly incompatible with the natural rights liberalism on which the U.S. was founded. He passionately and eloquently denounced efforts to “dehumanize the negro – to take away from him the right of ever striving to be a man …” 

….

While Lincoln did not question the white-only immigration policy of his time, he did reject the anti-Catholic, anti-European nativism of many of his fellow Whigs: “I am not a Know-Nothing,” he wrote his former law partner Joshua Speed in 1855. “As a nation, we began by declaring that ‘all men are created equal.’ We now practically read it ‘all men are created equal, except negroes.’ When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read ‘all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics.’” 

But Lincoln’s atheism and his interest in evolutionary theory effectively eliminate him from a Republican presidential ticket. Lind asks:

Can anyone believe that a contemporary Republican politician who refused to join a Christian church, who was described by friends as “an avowed and open infidel,” who had written a book mocking the miracles in the Bible, who described evangelical voters as “priest-ridden,” and was a “warm advocate” of evolutionary theory, could be nominated for president by today’s Republican Party?

Um, the answer is no. Unless of course that person is under the influence of powerful hallucinogens, but even then, it’s a stretch. Even if he couldn’t be the Republican presidential nominee, he still might be able to win a seat on the school board. Maybe?

Happy Darwin Day! What Every School Board Member Should Know About Evolution

Today is “Darwin Day” – the anniversary of the famous biologist’s birth, and a way for those who recognize the vital importance of science in the public sphere (like us) to be contrarian by celebrating a misunderstood and much-reviled man, for the scientific hero that he is. Today you’re likely to read several articles about how important Charles Darwin and evolution are to modern science, and to modern scientific literacy – and you’re also likely to bump up against accounts of how controversial he remains.

You may also hear some grandstanding from creationists – either on the web, from conservative hacks trying to pass evolution off as a religion, or (God forbid) from your state legislator. Today, we direct our attention to them – those public actors that squander taxpayer money and their children’s education in a quixotic attempt to teach magic in the science classroom. As you read this, these vile culture warriors are hard at work in Texas and Florida, trying to subvert your education. Now’s as good a day as any (maybe better) to disabuse these little monsters of their misconceptions about evolution. So listen up, creationist legislators/lawyers/school board members! Here are…

The Top 25 Things Every School Board Member, Legislator, Minister, etc. Should Know About the Theory of Evolution

1. Trying to teach creationism is expensive. Are you a school board member, just itching to “make a point” by forcing your kids to toss away the scientific method, and instead treat the Bible as some sort of science textbook? Then take this to heart: if you do, YOU WILL BE SUED. AND YOU WILL LOSE. HARD. By all means, don’t take my word for it: ask Bill Buckingham, the drug-addled creationist who forced the school board of his town of Dover through protracted, multi-million dollar litigation, only to expose his friends and constituents to nationwide ridicule, and be forced out of office the next year. Even if you think you’re doing your kids a spiritual favor, you’re doing your town a huge temporal disservice, by squandering taxpayer money to defend a lawsuit you’ll eventually lose. Don’t do it.
2. Public consensus has no bearing on scientific validity: it’s true. Creationists love to wave surveys in front of scientists, proving that less than 50% of the population believes in “naturalistic evolution.” That doesn’t matter. Just as you can’t vote away the fact that 2+2=4, you can’t vote away scientific truths, even if you don’t like them.
3. There’s no such thing as “irreducible complexity”: Michael Behe tried to prove to the world that the flagellum and blood cascade effect were “irreducibly complex,” such that no linked chain of beneficial mutations could give rise to them naturally. He failed. Each of his examples – especially the flagellum – has a clear evolutionary path. Remember, prior forms of flagella don’t have to be just bad or incomplete flagella: they just have to be useful. Continue reading »