(a.k.a. "Strange Bedfellows - Dear Al Gore: Stop Hurting America")
One hundred and fifty years ago (give or take), Darwin gave us a book that would come to be known as The Origin of Species. While borrowing from similar ideas of earlier years (e.g. the Vestiges idea of transmutation of species), Darwin's work was specific, direct, and profound. Although the concept had gained wide popularity with naturalists within about 15 years, it took over fifty years before the concept was sufficiently accepted that it came to be commonly taught in schools. Today, the concept is part of the bedrock of natural history. An insurgency has remained, of course . . . even the most absurd ideas have their adherents. But now, things are worse. A few years ago (give or take), Al Gore and others really started shoving global warming down people's throats. While borrowing from similar ideas of earlier years (e.g. the hole in the ozone layer from hairspray cans, et al.), Gore's attempt to popularize the concept even beyond earlier discussion a la Kyoto was specific, direct, and profound. While opinions differ insofar as what percentage of climatologists concur with all the alarmist predictions (at least the current ones . . . the old ones failed to occur), it took just a few years before the concept started getting taught to our children, despite the fact that climatology itself is in its infancy.
This is the backdrop for my response to an e-mail I received (regarding another website), with both reprinted below:
Greetings tireless bastion of truth and free thinking!
I'm sure you're aware of this, but your stance of encouraging a "how to think" mentality as opposed to "what to think" has inspired me beyond the boundaries of the TvW debate. I couldn't help but notice that Mr. Wong and many of his cohorts subscribe to a militant stance on Darwinian evolution. That being the case, I can only imagine his reaction toward Expelled: The Movie, a documentary released this past weekend in the States.
This movie examines accomplished members of the academic and scientific community who've been black listed for suggesting Intelligent Design might be a possible explanation for the origin of the universe.
Regardless of the origin of the universe, Stein suggests that a rational person should be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it may lead him or her, and should not be stonewalled by any establishment that clings to a single, unyielding doctrine. In this, I cannot help but see parallels between you and Mr. Stein (or Wong and his hero, Richard Dawkins, who appears prominently in the film with quite the dogmatic, elitist point of view).
If you have the time, sir, I would love to hear your thoughts on this matter. Thank you for your work.
If you are intrigued by Ben Stein's work, then I have failed you.
The fault is not entirely mine. Activists like Al Gore have quite literally turned their global warming concept into a secular religion, heavily politicized to boot. Instead of raising the issue and opening the proverbial floor to debate, such people have leapt headlong into the notion that the debate is over, and have long since begun poisoning the well against Holoc . . . er, I mean, Global Warming deniers. The appeals to Pascal's-Wager-esque "logic" are the icing on the cake.
All that is over and above the poor measurements, slipshod treatment of data, plain ole faulty science, absurd leaps of reasoning, grandiose empty claims, and many other such details that are outside the scope of this missive.
The principle here, though, is that the perilously young science of global climatology is being pressed into service for extraordinary claims, predictions that don't come true, and so on. Yet this young theory from the young science is suddenly being shoved down everyone's throats, taught in schools, and so on.
The comparison to the era of Darwin is striking . . . not for similarities, but differences. In the time of Darwin, the evidence was all around that the Earth was far older than religion suggested. The evidence was staring everyone in the face that information was passed on via some mechanism of heredity. Darwin is lauded (or profaned) as the father of evolution, but his work was hardly revolutionary . . . it was the inexorable conclusion to be drawn from all the information from all of the natural sciences that was available at the time.
Now, midway through the second century since Origin of Species, we have seen the concept grow and thrive. Cellular-level discoveries that Darwin could scarcely have dreamed of have reached back through time to confirm and expand upon the ideas he presented.
In short, we know evolution happened. We can look to the wild itself to determine the basic mechanism, as Darwin did, and we can expand upon the simple concept of natural selection to show the hows and whys of where assorted details fit in. We can, like the geologists of Darwin's era who were thinking Earth must be "millions" of years old, clearly establish that Earth has billions of years of antiquity under her belt. We can look to the cell . . . DNA, RNA, and mitochondrial genetic material giving us the whys and wherefores and sometimes even the traces of the millions upon millions of generations before. And we can look to the vast expanse of the heavens, and in its processes determine that Earth, compared to the universe itself, is a relative newcomer.
Evolution fits neatly in this constellation of knowledge.
Yet despite the beautiful simplicity and explanatory power of the concept of natural selection, the adoption was not instantaneous . . . rather obviously. Although the concept had gained wide popularity with naturalists within about 15 years, it took over fifty years before the concept was sufficiently accepted that it came to be commonly taught in schools. And, of course, this was not without challenge, as the Scopes trial made plain.
It is my contention that Al Gore and the like, by pushing and politicizing and 'religionizing' a theory -- at best on wobbly legs and at worst stillborn -- are hurting science.
The Ben Stein thing is, to my mind, a prime example.
There is a difference between being shunned for one's own abject stupidity and being shunned due to the abject stupidity of others. It can appear to be a fine line, and many skip across it without realizing which side they were really on to begin with.
Without evolution, life sciences just don't work. As soon as you start inserting miracles and deleting logic, understanding what life is up to suddenly becomes a confusing mish-mash. I once knew a biology major who rejected evolution . . . he could pass the tests, but he had no idea what was going on. In his mind, God was always behind the corner monkeying with things.
If you're a plumber looking for a loss of pressure, you can't operate on the assumption that God is hiding in the pipe making some water disappear. If you're an electrician or electronics tech trying to troubleshoot unexpectedly high resistance in a line, you can't assume that God has his finger in the copper causing electrons to flow around it. If you're a PC tech trying to figure out why a hard drive is going bad, you can't assume God is riding the platter whacking the read head a little off track each time he passes at 7200 RPM. (Though, in fairness, if I was God I'd totally do that once, just for kicks.)
The basic point here is that, from the perspective of science, assuming the involvement of God serves no purpose whatsoever. If I can give you a naturalistic, testable explanation of an event, and you reject it because you think some omnipotent being snapped his fingers and caused something to flash into existence . . . well, who is the scientist and who isn't?
This is why one can see the rationale for biologists opposed to evolution to be discarded. In the modern era, one could present the case that such people shouldn't progress much beyond lab techs. Sure, like a stopped clock they can turn out lucky twice a day . . . but, contrary to popular opinion, that never meant that on those two occasions they were *right*. Better to use your resources in support of someone who "gets it".
And yes, that's dangerous territory to tread, because it can be far too easy to jump straight there over any disagreement. Wong and the gang jumped there long ago, for instance, and of course as mentioned the weird envirofascists online are long since there.
What we're seeing with this Ben Stein idiocy is the proof of dangerous territory, because the same foolish facts-be-damned closed-minded elitism of the global warming crowd . . . and its natural resistance . . . is something that can all too easily be turned against other areas of science. It's not human stupidity, as they might claim . . . it's human nature.
Put simply, someone claiming to be a nutritionist ramming horse manure down a patient's throat won't make it taste better, and they're still going to puke. If a real nutritionist is offering them a real meal in the same packaging, should we be surprised when they say no thanks? Even if what they eat is little better than the manure, they'll still think they've improved their lot.
Of course, we've had people trying to spread lies about the real nutrionist and the real meal for some time.
You can google absurdities like the "water canopy" for examples . . . basically Bible-thumpers in scientist lab jackets they got from a Halloween store tried to suggest that Earth had a watery shield over it whose primary purpose was for God to drop during Noah's flood.
Behe's "intelligent design" nonsense is simply a sneakier version of the same creationist tomfoolery. ID'ers pretend to accept the timeline and events of history and our knowledge of biology's past, but anytime there's a question mark yet to be filled in (or, more likely, the *claim* of a question mark), they scream "goddidit!" and cackle with glee.
It's absurd, deceitful, and dishonest. And Ben Stein, self-proclaimed member of the intelligentsia, fell for it hook, line, and sinker.
For someone claiming to be so smart, he suuuure is dumb.
Oh, and for the record, Dawkins rocks.
