Submitted to a Candid World


Deaf as Adders
March 2, 2010, 8:30 am
Filed under: Author - ACG,Politics,Science | Tags: ,

Caleb Howe of RedState, a downright decent guy writing for a den of vipers, was shocked and appalled that I wasn’t shocked and appalled by his Saturday post on global warming, here. Unfortunately, I was too sick on Saturday to read much of anything, and thus had to miss it. Thankfully for Caleb, this also proves that his post wasn’t the cause of my illness…

Simply put, Caleb doesn’t like global warming. And that’s fine. But it’s not fine to take as a reason not to like it the fact that it’s “politicized,” it’s not fine to read the science as “uncertain,” and it’s not fine to read any stated uncertainty as a reason to do nothing. Let’s explore.

First, calling a scientific topic “politicized” is a handy way to bootstrap one’s way to an argument. Especially when your side is the one doing the politicizing. In the modern era, lots of scientific topics break along political lines. A few years back, a majority of Republicans did not “believe” in evolution, and there’s no reason to think the numbers have gotten better. Similarly, a Republican congressional majority managed to parade enough non-subject matter specialists in front of the Supreme Court to convince five Justices, but none of the trial courts that heard the matter, that intact dilation & extraction abortions were inherently dangerous to women (see my published works…). Despite the fact that there is no serious debate among people knowledgeable on the subjects that the “liberal” positions on each issue are, in fact, correct, these subjects are “politicized.” But that does not entitle one approaching the issue to disregard either position on the strength of that alone. Always be alert for politicians attempting to create a controversy, and then use a controversy to prove its own existence. As Mad Eye Moody would say: CONSTANT. VIGILANCE.

Next, there is no serious debate within the scientific community about anthropogenic global warming’s existence, or its danger. As facts haven’t yet persuaded a soul among our honourable friends opposite, I see no reason to rehash that debate (Gore handles it pretty well, too). Suffice it to say that, setting aside a few bad people, whose misdeeds have been wrongly imputed to the entire community, a healthy degree of dissent is what we expect when the scientific community is functioning normally. Scientists question themselves, and each other, as a way to push the community forwards to the next breakthrough, but while such questions illume the way forwards, they don’t necessarily question the foundational principles of the field. Remaining unanswered questions need not — and cannot — foreclose action on matters of importance, as a matter of common sense, and society cannot vest a heckler’s veto in a straggling minority. 10% shouldn’t be able to hold the remaining 90% hostage to their version of reality. There does exist a level of uncertainty at which action becomes unwise. But uncertainty, pleaded but not proved, is never enough to f0reclose a previously well-supported scientific theory, which global warming emphatically is, as a basis for legislation.

Especially when the stakes are this high. We can reduce the danger of global warming to a simple thought experiment. Being generous to our honourable friends opposite, the science behind global warming has raised a 60% chance of utter ruin; 40% of continued survival in the long term. Draw up the equation, with (x) as the harm of inaction, and (y) as the harm of taking corrective action. To justify inaction, both sides of the equation must balance:

.6(x)=.4(y)

Now, assign a value to the harm of inaction (x) — on a scale from 1 to 10, 10 being the worst, Armageddon is probably a 10. No? Now assign a value to the harm from action (y) — on the same scale, spending lots of money and facing inconvenience might get you to 4. So:

.6(10) [?] .4(4);

6.0 > 1.6

Even if you discount the possible harm by the value of time — namely, it won’t happen for a while — you have to be pretty selfish to not be persuaded. Add in the plausible side benefits of cleaning up the environment — better air, water, etc. — and under what twisted logic will this equation balance?

time(6.0) + benefit < 1.6

Despite the fact that they were suspiciously quiet about the subject for eight long years, we hear a lot from the far right today about how out-of-control debt is mortgaging our children’s futures. This is the same issue, but with a much higher certainty of harm. Keynesian economics has pulled us out of worse, and at the very least, our spending is informed by an expectation, hitherto borne out, that it will be paid back. On the other hand, there’s no rational basis for taking a bet on inaction in the context of global warming. Let’s throw in a Jefferson quote:

Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully, and in their own right. [. . . .] For if the 1st. could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation. Then no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of it’s own existence.

And, for the avoidance of doubt, the HBO John Adams clean-up:

I am increasingly persuaded that the Earth belongs exclusively to the living, and that one generation has no more right to bind another to its laws and judgements, than one independent nation has the right to command another.

The nature of the global warming debate — an extreme harm, substantially proven at the very least — requires our opponents to be absolutely certain that inaction is the responsible choice. That they cannot be.

45 Comments


Climate Change: “Facts are Stubborn Things…”
February 19, 2010, 12:35 pm
Filed under: Author - ACG,Politics,Science | Tags: , , ,

With the recent rash of climate change “scandals” — none of which actually altered the overwhelming scientific consensus in favor of anthropogenic global warming’s existence — conservatives have been, lately, chipping away at the public perception of this issue’s fierce immediacy. Texas Governor Rick Perry’s attempt to litigate the matter, however — a quixotic quest shared by several other states — could switch the momentum back in our favor. Here’s why.

Perry and his fellow travelers seek to use these recent “scandals” to question and then displace, by means of a “petition of review” to the Environmental Protection Agency, the Agency’s decision to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants. Agencies enjoy wide discretion in these matters — no citation necessary — so this is, at least, an uphill battle for Perry. In fact, it’s probably impossible. The issue of greenhouse gases’ danger, and thus the EPA’s discretion on the matter, has already been litigated and decided in our favor — by the U.S. Supreme Court, in Massachussets v. E.P.A.,  549 U.S. 497 (2007). If a greenhouse gas contributes to global warming, the EPA must control the substance:

Under the clear terms of the Clean Air Act, EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do. Ibid. To the extent that this constrains agency discretion to pursue other priorities of the Administrator or the President, this is the congressional design.

Further, scientific uncertainty is no excuse, unless the uncertainty is profound, and verifiably so:

Nor can EPA avoid its statutory obligation by noting the uncertainty surrounding various features of climate change and concluding that it would therefore be better not to regulate at this time. If the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment as to whether green- house gases contribute to global warming, EPA must say so.

Much mischief could be worked, politically, with the phrase “uncertainty.” A renegade head of the EPA could, much like Congress did when banning D&X abortions, cherry-pick the scientific record, emphasizing some facts while ignoring others, to fabricate the uncertainty necessary to confer some discretion on the matter. Because our current EPA is not willing to do so, however, Perry and his friends can only displace the EPA’s scientific judgment judicially, by proving, in court, that anthropogenic climate change is simply false.

This they cannot do — but we should let them try. American law provides a vast body of law for weighing conflicting scientific testimony, keyed to the very indicia that the scientific community itself uses when evaluating theories, like peer review. Accordingly, American courts will, with proper lawyering, reach the same conclusion as the scientific community nine times out of ten. Perry’s action will take some time to wend its way to the federal courts, if it ever does (I expect Bill White to win the Texas governor’s seat).  But when it does, we can count on the climate change denial crowd being swiftly, and visibly, laughed out of court. As Democrats, we can’t always manage our spin. But, when the facts are at issue, we can expect to win. Game on, Perry.

40 Comments


Who Speaks for Science? Salon’s Critique of Science in Popular Culture Goes Too Far
July 12, 2009, 10:54 pm
Filed under: Author - ACG,Politics | Tags: , , , , , , ,

Here and elsewhere, progressive commentators have noted the downfall of America’s respect for science — all the more troubling because of the central role scientific leadership played in establishing and maintaining American hegemony throughout the twentieth century.

In blaming popular culture in general, however, rather than a few bad apples, Salon, and the authors of Unscientific America, go too far. Their thesis:

[Science] is simultaneously admired and yet viewed as dangerously powerful and slightly malevolent — an uneasiness that comes across repeatedly in Hollywood depictions. As science-fiction film director James Cameron (“Aliens,” “Terminator,” “Titanic”) has observed, the movies tend to depict scientists “as idiosyncratic nerds or actively the villains.” That’s not only unfair to scientists: It’s unhealthy for the place of science in our culture.

As examples of Hollywood’s distortions of the scientific record, Salon gives us “Angels & Demons” (for misstating the actual potentcy of antimatter); Michael Crichton (for casting environmentalists as villains, and global warming denialists as heroes, in several of his books); and Jim Carrey/Jenna McCarthy (for lending their credibility to the autism/vaccine lie).

I won’t deny the virulence of the last two. Crichton mortgaged his fame to, essentially, become an anti-science polemicist, while people like Carrey and McCarthy openly deceive & exploit concerned parents. They’re embarrassments, all of them, and don’t get me started on creation “scientists.”

Picture 1But it’s wrong to lump willful shills like these in with movies (or shows) whose only failing is stating science inaccurately. Yes, “Angels & Demons” explains particle physics poorly, and even goes so far as to twist it, deliberately, to fit the storyline. For that matter, so does “Star Trek” (what the Hell is subspace?!). In each, however, twisting science works to serve a beneficial purpose. In “Angels & Demons,” Dan Brown (per Tom Hanks) builds up science as a dangerous, malevolent presence — for the first half of the movie — before exposing the true villains as those who, for nakedly ideological purposes, twist it to evil ends. In the world of “Angels & Demons,” science is an innocent bystander, and fundamentalism is the true evil. Similarly, perhaps “Star Trek” could be criticized for raising an entire generation to that think faster-than-light travel is just around the corner, but the same generation grew up convinced that science and reason are forces for profound good, capable of bringing humanity together and eliminating the barriers of prejudice that divide us. A few extra minutes in science class is probably worth that lesson.

In the alternative, then, to Salon‘s theory, here’s a general rule of thumb. A show ought not be exposed to criticism for getting the science wrong, even deliberately, so long as misstating science is neither (1) the goal of the show, nor (2) in the service of some other pernicious purpose (think Ben Stein), especially if the show’s message is on the whole profoundly positive. In the war to rebuild science’s shattered image, we should pick our battles, or at least avoid shooting our allies.

8 Comments


Full Fourth Circuit Upholds Virginia Late-Term Abortion Ban
June 25, 2009, 2:44 pm
Filed under: Author - ACG,Politics,Religion,Science | Tags: , , , , ,

Two years ago, the Supreme Court, in Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007), upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003, relying on pure emotion and hopelessly flawed science to conclude that late-term abortions were never necessary to preserve the health of the mother. Today, in Richmond Med. Ctr. v. Herring, the Fourth Circuit compounds this mistake by upholding a mirror Virginia act that tacks on criminal penalties for doctors who may, without knowledge, accidentally perform the forbidden procedure.

Recall – as the dissent points out – that the Supreme Court in Gonzales punted on the scientific issue, resolving a 2% doubt as to the necessity of the procedure against the majority and against the affected women:

[T]he [Supreme] Court considered whether the Federal Act imposed a substantial obstacle to late-term, pre-viability abortions by failing to include an exception to preserve the health of the woman. Id. at 161-67. The Federal Act contains a life exception, 18 U.S.C. § 1531(a), but not a health exception. The Court noted that “whether the Act creates significant health risks for women [was] a contested factual question.” Id. at 161. As a result, the Court held, “[t]he [Federal] Act is not invalid on its face” for lack of a health exception because “there is uncertainty over whether the barred procedure is ever necessary to preserve a woman’s health, given the availability of other abortion procedures,” such as the standard D&E, “that are considered to be safe alternatives.” Id. at 167. In the face of this medical uncertainty, only as-applied challenges to the Federal Act’s lack of a health exception may be pursued. Id. at 167-68. (Michaels, J., dissenting – see p. 44 of slip PDF.)

My argument to this effect is fairly extensive and currently unlinkable: I’ll link when my article on it is published (soon).

Obviously, the failure to correct this error can’t be blamed on the Fourth Circuit. It’s not their job to overturn bad Supreme Court decisions, and the issue wasn’t squarely presented in this case in the first place. But the Fourth Circuit was not obligated to expand upon shaky precedent by allowing criminal liability at a lower standard. Decisions such as this make it all the more essential that the U.S. Congress quickly amend the Partial Birth Abortion Act to add a necessary exception for the “health of the mother,” even if this won’t help Virginia doctors. Some day.

Quite apart from its outcome, the current Fourth Circuit panel is (or should be) well known for wrapping important decisions in genial, philosophical discourses on the nature of law and fundamental liberties (read their Al Marri opinion for an example), and this case is no exception. Even if you disagree with the outcome, as I do, the full set of opinions is well-worth a read.

Judge Wilkinson, a brilliant and very conservative jurist, couches his concurrence in explicitly moral and emotional terms. Because of his eloquence, I’ll forgive him the obvious inconsistency of an originalist looking to emotions (“empathy”?) for guidance: (more…)

Leave a Comment


Top GOP Contenters for 2012 Still Mostly Creationists
June 5, 2009, 1:00 pm
Filed under: Author - ACG,Politics,Religion,Science | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Back in February, we reported that the potential frontrunners for the nomination in 2012 – Jindal, Palin, Pawlenty, Sanford – were all creationists. Well, good news/bad news time: while the field has changed, slightly, the supermajority are still creationists.

Huckabee,  Palin, and Pawlenty are obvious, on the record, and proud of their ignorance. Potential dark horses Gingrich and Jeb Bush are right there with them. Romney, on the other hand, has actualy offered a pretty spot-on defense of “non-overlapping magisteria,” the idea that philosophy is and should be taught to be severable from religion, and at a point when he was trying to woo conservatives. Though otherwise crazy, he’s safe on this point.

So what’s it say about a political party, when 5/6 of its pool of potential presidents put religion (or pandering) ahead of reality? Surely nothing good: I keep hearing about these moderate Republicans, with good ideas and honest talking points, who’re set to reinvigorate the party. Well, moderate GOP – it’s time to wake up. Or don’t. Sixteen years of Democratic Presidents could work.

7 Comments


RedState & Creationism: the Sorry State of Conservative “NetRoots”
May 12, 2009, 12:55 am
Filed under: Author - ACG,Politics,Religion,Science | Tags: , , ,

Should you ever find yourself overly optimistic, suffering from a surfeit of faith in your fellow man, there’s one surefire cure: RedState, the far, far-right’s disastrous answer to successful web-based political grassroots ventures like “Daily Kos.” A wretched little confluence of bullying, immaturity, and blissful ignorance, it’s nonetheless the closest thing conservative Republicans have to an internet home, garnering even the implicit endorsement of Sean Hannity.

Unsurprisingly, it’s not doing moderate Republicanism (or conservatism, for that matter) any good. The site remains a poster-child for everything wrong the GOP: gay bashing, theocracy, unfortunately-named protests, a focus on P.R. over substance… and, now, through its surrogates,  creationism.

Yes, creationism has come to RedState, in the form of a lengthy tirade about the “bullying” by anti-science “liberals,” followed by a short guide about how to handle these elusive, typically mendacious “evolutionists.” Here’re their tips.

A few great questions [to ask] when faced with leftist bullying:

  1. “What evidence do you have?” Ask them to get specific.
  2. “Why should I accept your proposition, hypothesis, or evidence?” Why is your proposition or hypothesis better than mine?
  3. “Who says?” Who supports your theory, and why are they credible? “Everyone” is not a logically acceptable answer to this question.

[. . .] Don’t employ the same tactics they use, don’t run from the debate, just don’t let them define the terms and conditions if they’re not acceptable.

Presumably the “terms” offensive to the average I.D. creationist are little things, like “science,” and “proof.” Sorry guys, but those are sticking points. But let’s see about their “questions”:

  1. Evidence: the historical record, both fossil (human, reptile, fish, and much more – even creationists concede these) and genetic, and vestigial limbs, to name a few; compare with no “proof” of intelligent design, and the utter demolition of any negative ID critiques of natural selection.
  2. Superiority: because it explains the evidence, and predicts results; alternately, ID only explains the evidence when it tracks evolutionary biology. Where it diverges, it explains nothing, predicts nothing, and in fact lacks any evidentiary basis. It’s a theory in search of an experiment, and that’s not the way the scientific method works.
  3. Authority: it may not be “logically acceptable,” but “everyone” is the right answer. Getting specific, though, one can turn to the NCSE’s handy list of 1,000 scientists who “believe” in evolution, and are named “Steve”; or, provided you don’t attend Patrick Henry, Liberty, or (God help us) Lehigh, just canvass your university’s biology department.

With talking points and issues like these, the GOP is headed for its own evolutionary bottleneck.

Leave a Comment


James Corbett on Teaching Evolution, and Getting Sued Over It
May 11, 2009, 12:04 am
Filed under: Author - ACG,Politics,Religion,Science | Tags: , , , ,

You’ll remember James Corbett, the high school teacher whose student sued him (and won!), all because Corbett rightly criticized creationism as unsound, sham science. Well, he’s not taking his loss lying down. Thank you, James, for this defense of your and our position, found in the comments to our previous post on the subject. We wish you all the best, and offer this one suggestion: wit is a far better teaching tool than blunt mockery. Since you possess both, opt for the former whenever possible. Don’t let your detractors use the law to hold an important lesson hostage to their notions of propriety.

My Defense
Jim “Jesus Glasses” Corbett

Over two thousand years ago Socrates faced a court for refusing to recognize the gods acknowledged by the state, importing strange divinities and corrupting the young. The judges sent Socrates to his death. He accepted the sentence of the court and committed suicide by drinking a cup of hemlock.

The only virtue for Socrates was “knowledge.” He reached it by questioning the most deeply held beliefs of his students by which I mean all of Athens and ultimately all of us. What troubled the Athenians about Socrates, however, was not listed in the charges. His crime was that he prompted people to think.

His provocations exposed the Athenians’ shallowness of belief and mindless deference to myth. Socrates was judged because he was successful in provoking his students “examine their lives.” [his words] Those who guard the myths must try and strike down any who teach young people to think and question, because myths often shrink in the light of reason, draining power from those in authority who benefit from belief.

There are thousands of teachers who agree with Socrates that, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Every teacher who makes a student think takes the risk that he will be attacked by parents and others who see themselves as guardians of cherished political and religious myth. The teachers willing to take that risk should be rewarded, not punished. After the verdict, the Athenian court asked Socrates what his punishment should be. He responded that he should get free meals at the Pyrataneum, a celebration hall for Olympian athletes. Socrates went on to explain that those who passed judgment were not harming him, but rather themselves. He said, by killing him they corrupted their own souls and revealed the weakness of their own belief. A true believer does not fear that a few questions can undo years of parental teaching. Those who would “protect” students from self examination have little faith and great fear.

Chad Farnan, the boy who sued me, was an average student, who admitted under oath that he did not do the required reading for the class. If Chad’s lawyers, the “Advocates for Faith and Freedom” and his parents were actually concerned with protecting the boy, why didn’t they simply come to me and ask me to explain my comments? Neither they nor the Farnans ever expressed concerns to me nor to any administrators before they came to school with attorneys and reporters in tow to drop a lawsuit on the desk of Tom Ressler, our principal. Perhaps more importantly, the Farnans were aware long before Chad took my class that I go out of my way to be provocative. Every year in July, I send a letter home to students who have signed up for my class. Chad admitted under oath that he received that letter. The letter says, in part:

Most days we will spend a few minutes (sometimes more) at the beginning of class discussing current events from either the Orange County Register or the L.A. Times. I may also use material from a variety of news websites. Discussion will be quite provocative, and focus on the “lessons” of history. My goal is to have you go home with something that will provoke discussion with your parents. Students may offer any perspective without concern that anything they say will impact either my attitude toward them or their grades. I encourage a full range of views. [Boldface in the original]

I included my home phone number and e-mail address in that letter and encouraged parents to contact me if they had any concerns. Chad admitted under oath that my lectures prompted many discussions with his parents. I might add, that in 20 years in the CUSD, I have never had a complaint filed against me, save this one.

Every teacher in California (this was a federal case after all) now works with the knowledge that any student, at any time, and in violation of California law, can sneak a tape recorder into a classroom, record the teacher and use an out-of-context five second comment as a bludgeon to threaten, to intimidate and, ultimately, to destroy the teacher’s career and good name.

Challenging myths is dangerous, but it is the essence of getting students to think for themselves. The Athenian judges, like some parents today, would have students accept myth without question, because myth is the foundation of their parental, political and/or religious authority. Ms. Farnan objected to my challenging the myth of the Puritans as a pious people who fled religious intolerance to found America. As Ms. Farnan sees them, the Puritans are quaint pious people with buckles on their hats and shoes as portrayed in the national mythology, but they may also be seen as intolerant, misogynistic and homophobic religious bigots who hanged Mary Dyer, a Quaker girl, for preaching something other than Puritan doctrine and several other women for the crime of “witchcraft.” Questioning may make students and parents uncomfortable, but students have a right to think for themselves. It is not “bullying” to demand that students think. Ms. Farnan also objected to my challenge of another national myth, that the USA was founded as a “Christian” nation. There is some truth to that notion, but embracing that myth and excluding other views can be used to unfairly gain political advantage. Another view of the founding fathers can be seen in the writings of Thomas Jefferson, the man who authored the Declaration of Independence. He translated the Bible. The last words of the Jeffersonian Bible might shake Ms. Farnan’s faith: “There laid they Jesus, and rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulcher, and departed.” There was no resurrection for Jefferson, he rejected all the Biblical miracles, as contrary to reason. I doubt his view would be called “Christian” by Ms. Farnan or anyone else. James Madison, who penned the Constitution, warned, “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect.” If Jefferson and Madison were alive today, I doubt they could be elected. The guardians of the national myth would rise up and smite them as unbelievers.

We respect the guardians and their myths at our peril because history (and science) changes and improves with knowledge, but the same force damages myth based on belief. That’s why the guardians fear the knowledge begat by questioning. For them, “knowledge” is gained in rote memory of approved truth. They chant in the school, temple, church or Mosque and fool themselves into thinking they’ve acquired knowledge.

All those teachers, and there are many of us, who understand the value of questioning sacred myths serve this nation as faithfully as other patriots. What is true will be strengthened. What is false will be destroyed, as it should be. Such teachers should be honored. There is no greater gift teachers can give to students than to teach them to think. Don’t sue them for it. Try taking them to the Pyrataneum for dinner, conversation and a cup of coffee, no hemlock.

7 Comments


Cloning: a Potential New Wedge Issue?
April 30, 2009, 6:42 am
Filed under: Author - ACG,Politics,Religion,Science | Tags: , ,

When they work, conservative culture war issues have a wedge-like quality to them (just ask the Discovery Institute). Take abortion. Arguing against abortion naturally tends towards a critique of feminism, women’s rights, and changing social norms generally; from there it’s a quick leap to the old “elitism” canard; and from there to an indictment of the role of the federal courts. By the end, all of the myriad talking points are in the field, following naturally from one particularly pointed issue.

That’s why cloning – which seems to be a non-issue – could become a dangerous issue, and a new rallying point for otherwise fatigued social conservatives. Bear with me.

Reproductive cloning is basically a valence issue. Nearly everyone agrees (90% in 2002) that it’s wrong, for one reason or another. For what it’s worth, even this author, the perenially pro-science type, agrees. I’ll stand steadfastly behind therapeutic cloning – basically a fancy way to get custom-grown stem cells – but the cloning of a full human being, especially to replace another (as some seem to envision it) is a bridge too far, especially for objective safety reasons.

On that point, any legislative attempt to ban human reproductive cloning would surely pass, overwhelmingly so, to the point of it being a non-issue, off the radar of any self-respecting congressperson. But news of near-successful reproductive cloning from Europe could raise the issue to the forefront, and bring a whole host of other issues, once more, into play.

The prospect of reproductive cloning implicates the same sticky moral quandaries exploited by the right for generations – the potential destruction of embryonic life, distrust of science, usurping the role of the divine – but frames them in an even more offensive light. Call this the tip of the “wedge.” From there, rhetorically, it’s easy to segue between a critique of reproductive cloning to questioning garden-variety stem cell research, through the old “slippery slope” fallacy. And legislatively, because of the way U.S. lawmaking works, a proposed ban on reproductive cloning could, as it nearly has in the past, pull through illegitimately anti-science provisions on its coattails, as amendments.

At this point, all this is basically a fanciful nightmare, born of speculation on how conservatie America could re-invent itself, to the detriment of all. But if the GOP is looking to re-rally the fundamentalist base, and establish a new beachhead in the culture wars, this issue could be it.

Leave a Comment


Teleprompters as Talking Points: Fallacy Somewhere, I Suppose…
April 28, 2009, 6:23 am
Filed under: Author - ACG,Politics,Science | Tags: , , , , ,

…for all you Gilbert & Sullivan fans out there.

Among a whole laundry list of things the right has decided to just start caring about – like, say, executive power – is, unexpectedly, the President’s rhetorical image. When President Obama paused yesterday, mid-speech, to wait for the teleprompter to catch up, conservative message boards lit up with delight and a surprising degree of schadenfreude:

I’ll be the first to argue that a President’s speaking abilities ought to matter. In fact, while Obama remains one of the best speakers in recent memory when it comes to grandoise events of state (inauguration, nomination, etc.), his off-the-cuff, daily speaking style still leaves some to be desired. For those occasions, I’d give him .75 standard Bartlets, or (for those of you on the other side of the Pond) perhaps .63 metric Blairs.

That said, it goes without saying that he’s a far cry from his immediate predecessor, which makes the right’s selective mockery worse than hypocritical.

Besides, the teleprompter kerfuffle isn’t about Obama’s specific speaking style, skill, or intellect, which emphatically do matter. Whether Obama can remember things, or follow a teleprompter, goes to his memory, and the time he has available for daily speech preparation. Frankly, I don’t care about either of those, and neither should you. In a time of crisis, we want the President’s mind engaged with solving real-world problems, not behind his desk poring over the index cards for his speech to this high school, or that agency. The American people elected President Obama for his decisionmaking abilities, not his similarities to a rewritable disk.

Let’s call the teleprompter jokes at the President’s expense what they are: emblems of another sophomoric stunt, meant to divert attention away from the opposition’s utter inability to generate substantive solutions. Conservatives can’t fault Obama for the substance of his speech – his promise to make science matter for the first time in eight years – and this is their sad, telling alternative. Anyone who reads that speech and sees a teleprompter joke instead of an important message about science in America is, for all they represent, everything that is wrong with our country.

Leave a Comment


Creationists Hire Bad Lawyers, File Complaint, Cite Bible, Lie, Get Sanctioned…?
April 21, 2009, 6:03 am
Filed under: Author - ACG,Politics,Religion,Science | Tags: , , , , ,

objection_zoomThe Institute for Creation Research, a cdesign proponentist organization dedicated to advancing theology under the guise of science, wants Texas’ blessing to grant master’s degrees in “flood geology,” “baraminology,” and other such nonsense. Thankfully, for all of its faults, Texas isn’t having any of it (although the legislature might). So — seemingly undaunted by a damning history of failures in federal court — they sued. This is where it gets funny.

Now, there are ways to put the proverbial lipstick on the pig that is creationism. A good lawyer can do wonders. ICR seems to have passed by them all, though, opting instead to file a complaint that reads like it was drafted by an enraged, hung-over first-year law student. It’s all there — the hodgepodge of fonts; the long, rambling argument on sovereign immunity (just cite Ex parte Young, write a paragraph, and be done with it!); the inappropriate CAPITALIZED UNDERLINED BOLDING; everything you could ask for and more. Yes sir, this pig is au naturel.

And the quote mining. Oh, the quote mining. FYI, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the ABA Model Rules of Professional Responsibility, when making arguments to a court, there’s not only an obligation to be truthful and candid; there’s an obligation to cite and explain authority that undermines your case. You can’t hide the ball from the federal bench, under penalty of sanctions (Fed R. Civ. P. 11). What, then, do you make of the following?

Around ¶ 127, the complaint takes a lengthy and unnecessary aside to argue that, even though it’s not what the case is about, “creation science” could totally be legally taught in public school (“It is wrong to say that the federal courts have dispositively defined ‘creation science’ as non-science”). To support this outlandish claim, it cites to the following language:

Nothing in our opinion today should be taken to reflect adversely upon creation-science either as a religious belief or a scientific theory. Aguillard v. Edwards, 754 F.2d 1251, 1257 (5th Cir. 1985), aff’d 482 U.S. 578 (1987).

While leaving out the immediate preceding language:

Indeed, the [Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction] Act continues the battle William Jennings Bryan carried to his grave. The Act’s intended effect is to discredit evolution by counterbalancing its teaching at every turn with the teaching of creationism, a religious belief. The statute therefore is a law respecting a particular religious belief. For these reasons, we hold that the Act fails to satisfy the first prong of the Lemon test and thus is unconstitutional. Id. at 1257.

And the immediately succeeding language:

Rather [in forbidding the teaching of "creation science" in public schools] we seek to give effect to the first amendment requirement that demands that no law be enacted favoring any particular religious belief or doctrine. Id. at 1257-58.

And relevant language from the Supreme Court’s treatment of the same case:

The legislative history therefore reveals that the term “creation science,” as contemplated by the legislature that adopted this Act, embodies the religious belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of humankind. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 592-93 (1987).

[B]ecause the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to endorse a particular religious doctrine, the Act furthers religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. Id. at 594.

Further, the Supreme Court makes no distinction between “creation science” and “creationism,” see McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844, 862 (2005) (describing as being Aguillard about “creationism”), which the Court has previously characterized as wholly religious, and without any secular purpose. Creation science is creationism is religion is impermissible in public schools – period. See Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 107-110 (1968).

In brief, then, at least ¶ 127 of the ICR’s complaint is an out-and-out lie, a misrepresentation of legal history made baldly and in a signed pleading. Like it or not, the state of federal law is that creation science, regardless of whether or not it’s “real science,” is religion, and as such cannot be permissibly taught in public schools. ICR can’t ignore that, and it certainly can’t lie about it to a federal judge. Don’t let them get away with it.

There’s much more legally wrong with the ICR complaint. But Timothy Sandefur nails it better than I could. Check it out there.

Leave a Comment

« Older Posts