Creationism

Conservapedia’s Affair with Literalism Continues

Last Friday, Obama mocked congressional Republicans for characterizing his “pretty centrist” healthcare plan as some kind of “Bolshevik plot,” explaining that such scorched-earth argumentation leaves Republicans with little to no room to maneuver, and in fact demonstrates the party’s bad faith. Watch:

Clever, hard-hitting, and long overdue. But from the minute Obama said the word “Bolshevik,” this reaction from far-right outlets was unavoidable:

Conservapedia has never been one for metaphor or literary devices. A respect for context, and a willingness to look for meaning beyond the literal, is too much to ask from young-earth creationists.

Politico Slyly Legitimizes Glenn Beck

Yesterday, Glenn Beck aired a new “documentary,” “Revolutionary Holocaust,” which, with the assistance of noted revisionists like Jonah Goldberg, attempted to trace the modern progressive movement’s origins through Nazism, communism, and other historical horrors. The attacks aren’t new, nor are their easy rebuttals. That Hitler pushed for universal healthcare (just like Obama!) conveys about as much information as the fact that Hitler, just like Sarah Palin, was known to eat food.

What’s surprising is that Politico, in an article published today, attempts to give an honest read to Beck’s inflammatory, violent, and simply false allegations, by first treating it as plausible:

Not everyone who watched his history lesson was convinced – especially some professional historians.

And second, by quoting agenda-driven historians with known allegiances as authoritative. Interviewing a Heritage Foundation expert who appears on the show about the film’s veracity is not an alternative to fact-checking:

But Edwards said he was impressed by Beck’s “solid research” and willingness to take on “still-prevailing myths about Che Guevara and Mao.” In Edwards opinion it was “one of the best documentaries [he's] seen on communism,” and rare in today’s media world.

“I think this suggests the line on Beck that he is some kind of wild man is just not true,” Edwards said. “This guy is thoughtful and interested in history. How many journalists in cable, print or whatever have this kind of interest in giving you a historical context. I think he should be commended for that.”

Politico‘s instinct is all too familiar to those of us who follow the public “debate” over creationism. There, great evil is done by journalists who, in a misguided attempt for “balance,” strive to give each side equal time. But like creationism, Glenn Beck is emphatically a case where it’s not fair to be balanced.

The Fraught Relationship Between Democracy and Science

Courtesy Julia Galef, a great friend of mine and a gifted writer. Look for a joint blogging operation between Ms. Galef, myself, and a few others sometime in the not-so-distant future. In the meantime, read this post of hers, exploring the perilous situations that emerge when America’s anti-elitist tradition falsely flags science as an enemy. An excerpt:

Dubious scientific claims also get a boost from an attitude that scientific theories merit the same pluralistic treatment as personal beliefs. America’s respect for diverse opinions and value systems is one of our core democratic principles. But science isn’t democratic. It has right answers, and it has wrong ones. “Maybe it’s the logical extension of the American ideal of wanting to be open-minded and fair. The instinct is good, it just doesn’t work in science,” says Offit. American populism and pride in autonomy have made the CRC’s second brainchild, “Teach the Controversy,” another wildly successful sound bite for creationism. The implication is: “Let us make up our own mind, we don’t want somebody in an ivory tower telling us what to think,” says Scheufele. And just as the ambiguity of the word “theory” helps the anti-evolutionists’ case, so does the ambiguity of the word “belief.” Whether unthinkingly or in an effort to be extra-judicious, journalists have been known to refer to people “believing in” evolution (as opposed to accepting it), adding more fuel to the fallacy that science is a matter of personal opinion.

That misguided pluralism in science coverage plays right into the media’s natural love of conflict. “The problem on the global warming story is that the science just keeps confirming that we’re in a tough situation and it’s getting worse, and that news does not lend itself to the kind of reporting that the media likes to do,” says Dr. Joseph Romm, editor of the blog Climate Progress. So in the name of “balance” and an interesting story, the media turns clear-cut scientific issues into he-said, she-said stories. “Frankly, it’s intellectually lazy,” Offit opines. Just like the instinct to treat all views equally, seeking a compromise may be a fine way of accommodating different preferences in a democracy. But it’s a misplaced impulse in science, where a “compromise” between a right answer and a wrong answer still yields a wrong answer. Elizabeth Culotta, contributing news editor at Science magazine, recalls, “I was once misquoted by a local reporter on intelligent design and called him to complain, and he apologized, then said, ‘But I was looking for some sort of middle ground.’”

Well done. In Adams’ words, “fact’s are deaf — deaf as adders! — to the clamor of the populace.”

Copyright Threats from Creationists: Nothing New

Several years ago, friend-of-the-site RationalWiki posted a stunningly thorough side-by-side refutation of a Conservapedia article on creationism. Conservapedia, naturally, could offer no argument in defense, but happily threatened the site with a copyright suit, because if you can’t beat ‘em, sue ‘em, “fair use” notwithstanding.

Now, history is set to repeat itself. Another RationalWiki user has posted a thorough, well-sourced, compelling refutation of William Dembski’s latest attempt to ground creationism in science, and rather than engage in a debate on the merits, Dembski himself is now threatening to sue.

By means of background, Dembski is not a lawyer. But it’s common knowledge that U.S. copyright law explicitly preserves the right to excerpt a work, even substantially, for comment and criticism. See 17 U.S.C. § 107. Dembski’s complaint against RationalWiki is so wrong that no lawyer would take it; and if they did, they’d be laughed out of court. But it’s still further proof that (1) creationists can only protect their views by censorship and, (2) they’re willing to ignore established law when convenient, be it the Establishment Clause or federal copyright statutes.

Disappointing to be sure, but not surprising. Though the Bible may not be much for science, it does have some good insights on human nature. And as the author of Ecclesiastes would’ve put it, “there is nothing new under the sun” (1:9-14).

I Was Right

It’s good to say: Palin’s a creationist.

Elsewhere in this volume she talks about creationism, saying she “didn’t believe in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving beings — originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea” or from “monkeys who eventually swung down from the trees.” In everything that happens to her, from meeting Todd to her selection by Mr. McCain for the Republican ticket, she sees the hand of God: “My life is in His hands. I encourage readers to do what I did many years ago, invite Him in to take over.”

The only question is, what manner of creationist is she? That quote leaves open the old-earth, young-earth, and intelligent design varieties. While young-earth creationists are unquestionably the worst, as the most ignorant, being a member of any group speaks immediately ill of one’s mental faculties. I guess we’ll have to buy the book to find out.

UPDATE: she’s either an old earth or ID creationist. Given the supporters of one are usually supporters of the other, and in fact can’t tell the difference between them most of the time (h/t Judge Jones of the E.D. PA), it’s probably not important which one she is.

Evolution: One-Line Responses

Ray Comfort, the thought leader responsible for such brilliant rejoinders to science as “well how do you explain the banana, hmmm?” –

– yes, quite cunning, Ray — prides himself on attempting to rebut, in one line, the entire field of modern evolutionary biology. In his latest trick, he argues that the theory of evolution reduces to the line “nothing created everything” — which is simply absurd! Ergo evolution is a lie, and Hitler (for good measure). The one problem? Evolution ≠ abiogenesis. Done.

Partial Settlement in Freshwater Case

No admission of liability, but a hefty bill of attorney’s fees, medial compensatory damages to one plaintiff for being “branded” with the sign of the cross, and nominal damages to all, for a high school science teacher who displayed the Bible and taught it as straight-up science. Victory for the forces of good, lex populus victor, salve NCSE triumphator magna cum auctoritate sapientiaque!

Kent Hovind Tries the Guiteau Defense

Thanks to his spotlight on last Thursday’s Colbert Report, most of you will know Kent Hovind, creationist kingpin and tax fraud, whose “Dinosaur Adventure Land” creationist theme park is now facing seizure, for Hovind’s failure to pay back-taxes. As a last-ditch defense, Hovind mustered this stellar argument: he’s a direct employee of God, thus exempting him and all of his agents from federal taxes. Brilliant!

Sondheim fans and history buffs will recall the last time this argument was dramatically used — 1882, when Charlie Guiteau, after assassinating President Garfield, insisted that God had ordained the assassination and thus, logically, Guiteau couldn’t be convicted of merely doing God’s work. It didn’t go over well for Guiteau, as dramatized in Sondheim’s Assassins:

Charlie Guiteau drew a crowd to his trial; led them in prayer!
Said, “I killed Garfield, I’ll make no denial. I was just acting for someone up there! The Lord’s my employer, and now He’s my lawyer, so do what you dare.”

Charlie said, “Hell! If I am guilty, then God is as well.”
But God was aquitted and Charlie committed, until he should hang.
Still, he sang…

Now, I’m not sure if a corollary of Godwin’s Law applies to bar scurrilous comparisons to deranged presidential assassins. But, since it’s Hovind, nor do I really care.

Frontier Exceptionalism: Why Texas Solutions Won’t Work in the Upper 49, and Might not Work in Texas for Long

As frequent readers will know, I’m a big fan of Texas, but my affinity for the state’s culture, people, and natural beauty all stop at the state house. Texas’ reputation as a forge for statesmen (and women) is rightly deserved, but the current state government fails to reflect it. I was struck, then, to see Ross Douthat, in today’s New York Times, hold up the state as a beacon of successful conservative governance, in thoroughly un-Texan fashion.

Douthat’s thesis is a rather shoddy transcription of a set of articles in The Economist a few weeks back, which juxtaposed Texas’ ascendancy as a national powerhouse with California’s perennial difficulties. But Douthat’s analysis ignores the nuance that the Economist candidly acknowledged, and exaggerates the simplistic failings of The Economist’s titling, which billed its Texas vs. California comparison as proving the triumph of liberarianism over regulation, before expressly disclaiming that conclusion in the text.

Both The Economist and Douthat are wrong to attribute Texas’ continuing prosperity to the abscence of regulation. As any true Texan will tell you, Texas is sui generis, its successes more attributable to its own uniqueness than to its income tax-free economic model. In many ways, Texas is still a frontier. All its cities continue to expand to fill the still-sparsely populated regions outside of the Houston/Dallas/San Antonio triangle, keeping land cheap and plentiful; and its economy continues to benefit from the state’s energy resources, which have successfully insulated white-collar workers from the worst of the recession. It’s hard to deny these advantages, but it’s hard to attribute them to Republican voodoo economics, too.

And, the benefits of Texas’ economic model seem to inure almost exclusively to the benefit of the middle and upper classes — i.e., those who can afford to buy land, and pay for enough formal education to take advantage of its white-collar job opportunities. The picture is much grimmer for the state’s poorer citizens, who pay dearly for the state government’s conservative policies. The Economist sort of buries this point:

Texas has the highest proportion of people lacking health insurance of all 50 states; the third-highest poverty rate; the second-highest imprisonment rate; the highest teenage-birth rate; the lowest voter turnout; and the lowest proportion of high-school graduates. Mr Shapleigh is not surprised that these figures are so terrible: Texas spends less on each of its citizens than does any other state. Being a low-tax, low-spend state has not made Texans rich, though they are not dirt-poor either; their median income ranks 37th among the 50 states.

But Douthat ignores it altogether. Conservatives can take only partial credit for Texas’ economic successes, but they bear the full blame for the sorry state of the state’s poor. And you don’t have to take my word for it. Ask Bill Hobby, son of Texas legend, William P. Hobby, who sees balance, rather than retrenchment, as the answer:

If spending in Texas was at the national average the state could spend $23 billion more a year on education and human services. With that kind of money, plus the federal matching dollars it would bring, Texas could have several first-rate universities, strong public schools and community colleges, and health and human services that aren’t an embarrassment. For a prosperous future, you don’t want to be California or Texas. You want to be between the two.

Under continued conservative governance, these problems are likely to get worse, not better. Houston, though I love it dearly, remains an environmental nightmare. Looking towards downtown, even on a clear day, the skyline is shrouded in smog, a result of the city’s dismal public transport, and the lightly-regulated oil economy. While Texas benefits from the tax revenues provided by its many Fortune 500 corporate citizens, it was also the site of one of the worst corporate disasters in recent history (Enron). Admittedly, that’s federal law, but the point on the need for economic regulation is well-taken. And, although Texas’ present and future are increasingly secured by high-tech jobs — NASA, the Houston Medical Center, etc. — its far-right government actively frustrates science education in the state. Texas stands to lose its oil economy as America’s energy profile changes; the environmental damage will catch up with it; and it will, eventually, run out of empty space.

These problems will be solved by more, not less government regulation. The kind of regulatory indifference, which Douthat poses as the solution to all of America’s problems, will not serve Texas for long, let alone America at large. Contra Douthat, it’s long past time to “mess with Texas.”

Look to Texas: the Culture War Isn’t About Patriotism

And it never was, for the simple fact that, with the religious right, when push comes to shove, their narrow conception of God trumps country, character, and Constitution. How else do you explain the most recent conflagration to come out of Texas’ warped, disgraceful board of education?

The Texas Board of Education, which recently approved new science standards that made room for creationist critiques of evolution, is revising the state’s social studies curriculum. In early recommendations from outside experts appointed by the board, a divide has opened over how central religious theology should be to the teaching of history.

Three reviewers, appointed by social conservatives, have recommended revamping the K-12 curriculum to emphasize the roles of the Bible, the Christian faith and the civic virtue of religion in the study of American history. [. . .]

But the emphasis on Christianity as a driving force is disputed by some historians, who focus on the economic motivation of many colonists and the fractured views of religion among the Founding Fathers.

Because prosleytizing should always take a backseat to science and, indeed, history.

Never let the far-right go unchallenged when they purport to put “country first.” There’s a reason the slogan goes, “God and country.” One has to wonder about an ideology that brands government subsidies “socialism,” but expects the government to subsidize their missionary activity.

More on this subject, from a letter I recently wrote explaining my view of why the Founders did not intend to ground American culture exclusively within Christian morality:

[. . .] The question, of course, is what is morality, and what is religion. The Founders were hardly of one mind on the subject (like most subjects — most differed on the meaning of “the Freedom of Speech,” even, as was clear by 1812!). It’s hard to disagree with the proposition that some absolute moral code must govern, but whose, and how? Historical originalism — the idea that what the Founders practiced, they intended for us — is attractive for its objectivity but discounts the notion, adopted by much of the same generation, that the Constitution was not intended to freeze the social mores of 1789 America. The document was intended to admit of interpretation rather than static meaning: “[W]e must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding.” McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819). Similarly, it discounts the problem that history rarely if ever speaks with one voice. Franklin’s God was very different than Patrick Henry’s God, was very different from Jefferson’s God (Jefferson edited his own Bible, by deleting all mentions of miracles). Whose God (morality) controls, if any?

Despite this void, the rules of constitutional decisionmaking provide some guidance. Due process & equal protection function to insulate small groups from the caprice of majoritarian government, insofar as restrictions placed on the few derive only from subjective notions of the morality of the many, and lack an objective basis in physical reality: “Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.” Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992); Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). This doesn’t deprive the state of the power to regulate morals, although it does limit it to only “rational” regulations, at the maximum. You can call this “constitutional faith” (though I’m misappropriating a term from someone far smarter than me!): that, rather than incorporating any single faith or moral structure as a guiding light, the Constitution sets out rules of decision that require a searching inquiry into any law, or action, that functions to proscribe conduct merely for the twinge of discomfort it creates in others. This rule “plays well” with the other constitutional freedoms of religion, association, and speech, too, to create a freer and more pluralistic society than the Founders knew, but perhaps not more so than they intended.