Ravings from a Man in an Old White House

Reuters published an article with the angle that science is fighting for its life against a hostility to it. I’ll bet just about all of my friends will disagree with me, but I think the article is crap. First of all, the nucleus of the hostility is not in Washington. There is no geographical nucleus. Christian fundamentalism is at its center. The bloody District of Columbia is not a hotbed of fundamentalism. The fact that the president of Stanford thinks that politicians are at the base of this is perplexing. I thought everyone understood this.

This intelligent design question is, frankly, getting out of hand. Intelligent design does not necessarily say that the evolution is wrong. It can be anything from creationism (I take that to mean Genesis taken literally) to the idea that God held a thumb on the scale during evolution. It is not certainly not science. It is a way of reconciling religion and science. It belongs in theology or philosophy, not science. Moreover, and more importantly, this is not where the battle between religion and science is centered. The evolution question is a sideshow at this point.

The evolution of man questions from a CBS poll are alarming at first, but if the question was worded anything like the article, it may not be so troubling. A lot of people would over-think “present form” and think that means that humanity’s current form is God’s work, as opposed to what the question is supposed to mean: was man created, fully formed, with no biological development. I would like the people who answer yes to that question to explain why I have nipples, but I digress.

The question I have is this: why does it matter if I believe in evolution or big bang? I am not a scientist. If I believe that man was created by magic, what do you care. As long as I don’t try to force schools to teach it, no problem right? Would my ability to represent my clients be harmed by a belief that the universe is actually located in a little girl’s snow globe and will end when the flakes settle?

Undoubtedly, if anyone ever reads this blog, someone will point back to the article and say that the problem is that kids aren’t even bothering to learn basic science because of the hostility to it. Bullshit. There are a few kids like that, but they’re probably close to retarded anyway. The problem is that grade schools and high schools do a poor job of teaching science and math to students who don’t just do it. If you’re behind in 4th grade math, you’ll be behind in 8th grade math, too. The science and math teachers explain that there are objectively true answers. To many kids, that means that if they are getting it, they must be stupid or bad at math and science. They give up, if for no other reason, to get away from the shame. That is where the hostility to science really comes from. I think the science community should focus on that rather than letting the wacky, I mean fundamentalist, Christians drag them into stupid fights.