Forums | MacLife

Sassy · 2005-08-06 7:14 pm

Op-Ed Columnist
Design for Confusion
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: August 5, 2005

I'd like to nominate Irving Kristol, the neoconservative former editor of The Public Interest, as the father of "intelligent design." No, he didn't play any role in developing the doctrine. But he is the father of the political strategy that lies behind the intelligent design movement - a strategy that has been used with great success by the economic right and has now been adopted by the religious right.

Back in 1978 Mr. Kristol urged corporations to make "philanthropic contributions to scholars and institutions who are likely to advocate preservation of a strong private sector." That was delicately worded, but the clear implication was that corporations that didn't like the results of academic research, however valid, should support people willing to say something more to their liking.

Mr. Kristol led by example, using The Public Interest to promote supply-side economics, a doctrine whose central claim - that tax cuts have such miraculous positive effects on the economy that they pay for themselves - has never been backed by evidence. He would later concede, or perhaps boast, that he had a "cavalier attitude toward the budget deficit."

"Political effectiveness was the priority," he wrote in 1995, "not the accounting deficiencies of government."

Corporations followed his lead, pouring a steady stream of money into think tanks that created a sort of parallel intellectual universe, a world of "scholars" whose careers are based on toeing an ideological line, rather than on doing research that stands up to scrutiny by their peers.

You might have thought that a strategy of creating doubt about inconvenient research results could work only in soft fields like economics. But it turns out that the strategy works equally well when deployed against the hard sciences.

The most spectacular example is the campaign to discredit research on global warming. Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus, many people have the impression that the issue is still unresolved. This impression reflects the assiduous work of conservative think tanks, which produce and promote skeptical reports that look like peer-reviewed research, but aren't. And behind it all lies lavish financing from the energy industry, especially ExxonMobil.

There are several reasons why fake research is so effective. One is that nonscientists sometimes find it hard to tell the difference between research and advocacy - if it's got numbers and charts in it, doesn't that make it science?

Even when reporters do know the difference, the conventions of he-said-she-said journalism get in the way of conveying that knowledge to readers. I once joked that if President Bush said that the Earth was flat, the headlines of news articles would read, "Opinions Differ on Shape of the Earth." The headlines on many articles about the intelligent design controversy come pretty close.

Finally, the self-policing nature of science - scientific truth is determined by peer review, not public opinion - can be exploited by skilled purveyors of cultural resentment. Do virtually all biologists agree that Darwin was right? Well, that just shows that they're elitists who think they're smarter than the rest of us.

Which brings us, finally, to intelligent design. Some of America's most powerful politicians have a deep hatred for Darwinism. Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, blamed the theory of evolution for the Columbine school shootings. But sheer political power hasn't been enough to get creationism into the school curriculum. The theory of evolution has overwhelming scientific support, and the country isn't ready - yet - to teach religious doctrine in public schools.

But what if creationists do to evolutionary theory what corporate interests did to global warming: create a widespread impression that the scientific consensus has shaky foundations?

Creationists failed when they pretended to be engaged in science, not religious indoctrination: "creation science" was too crude to fool anyone. But intelligent design, which spreads doubt about evolution without being too overtly religious, may succeed where creation science failed.

The important thing to remember is that like supply-side economics or global-warming skepticism, intelligent design doesn't have to attract significant support from actual researchers to be effective. All it has to do is create confusion, to make it seem as if there really is a controversy about the validity of evolutionary theory. That, together with the political muscle of the religious right, may be enough to start a process that ends with banishing Darwin from the classroom.

Emphasis is mine.

Think this political movement is too small/big to be a conspiracy? Think again. And, then, think on it again. This bull is about to crash the china shop and destroy everything we take for granted. Paul Revere needs to take his ride again. This time to raise the alarm that the Neocons are here! And, they are winning! cry

resedit · 2005-08-06 7:42 pm

There might be some intelligent design conspiracy, but there definitely is conspiracy in evolution as well - just look at all the frauds and how willing both the media and journals are to publish them.

resedit · 2005-08-06 7:43 pm

btw - many neocons are evolutionist, and many liberals are intelligent design.
Just so you are aware.

mahakali · 2005-08-06 7:54 pm

resedit wrote:
btw - many neocons are evolutionist, and many liberals are intelligent design.
Just so you are aware.

From where did you heard this?

ShnickyShnack · 2005-08-06 8:00 pm

Oh, I think we can be assured that most neocons don't swallow any of this intelligent design nonsense -- or culture of life hogwash, for that matter. That stuff's just the soundtrack.

And as for liberals ... well, years of debate have thrown a lot of doubt onto the issue, so tons of people on both sides of the political fence are unsure of where the truth lies. Which of course is the whole point of the exercise.

Still, I find the "evolutionist conspiracy" notion to be very entertaining. Gives this old fellow a good chuckle just thinking about it.

Pariah · 2005-08-06 8:10 pm

Yes there have been frauds and the reason you know they are frauds is because of the peer review system and cross checking that goes on in the legitimate sciences.
The contrarian "research" from the ideologically motivated scientific lackeys who create fraudulent research operate outside that peer review system and thus are able to sustain their frauds much better. Particularly because they have powerful and well-funded backers who have an antipathy to the truth.
This sort of false science spells real peril for the USA as technology will only continue to be more and more important in global competition.
Should the NeoCons succeed at pushing us into a dark ages part 2, as they seem determined to do, we will have a population that will be simply unable to compete with countries that will have a healthy scientific educational system while our students will be learning fairytales.
The Catholic Church was successful at halting scientific progress in Europe for over 800 years so there is ample historical president.
Beyond that the very principle of scientific reasoning is a threat to the type of lock step conformity that the NeoCons desire the general population to exhibit.
When your ideology is based on wishful thinking, dogma and jingoism, having a population that

Last edited by Pariah (2005-08-06 8:13 pm)

resedit · 2005-08-06 8:15 pm

mahakali wrote:
resedit wrote:
btw - many neocons are evolutionist, and many liberals are intelligent design.
Just so you are aware.
From where did you heard this?

I know a lot of bible believing christians who are politically liberal.
I also know a lot of conservatives who are evolutionists.

It may be that someone who believes intelligent design is more likely to be politically conservative, but one is not the cause of the other, nor dependent upon the other.

ShnickyShnack · 2005-08-06 8:16 pm

To me, the interesting thing about the evolution/creationism debate isn't that people choose their sides, but, rather, this issue is part of a whole package of beliefs that people tend to buy into.

What it really comes down to is selecting a reality.

resedit · 2005-08-06 8:19 pm

Pariah wrote:
Yes there have been frauds and the reason you know they are frauds is because of the peer review system

They get into textbooks, museums, and even magazines.
Hell - Haeckel's "law of biogenetics" which peer review KNEW was fraud before 1900 was being commonly published in textbooks in the 50's and 60's and even still in some in the 80's - it took the intelligent design movement using it as a common point of attack to finally get it out of the textbooks.

I believe even Dawkins, who should know better, has referenced Haeckel's law.

Last edited by resedit (2005-08-06 8:23 pm)

Ribtorus · 2005-08-06 8:20 pm

"Political effectiveness was the priority," he wrote in 1995, "not the accounting deficiencies of government."

That line by Kristol sums up neo conservatism in government, and not just in finances but in all matters; politics is everything, and other considerations are subordinate.

As far as matters on religion goes, the sheer balls that the neo-cons show when it comes to manipulating the christian right is nothing short of phenomenal.

Last edited by Ribtorus (2005-08-06 8:21 pm)

D'Eyncourt · 2005-08-06 9:30 pm

resedit wrote:
Pariah wrote:
Yes there have been frauds and the reason you know they are frauds is because of the peer review system
They get into textbooks, museums, and even magazines.
Hell - Haeckel's "law of biogenetics" which peer review KNEW was fraud before 1900 was being commonly published in textbooks in the 50's and 60's and even still in some in the 80's - it took the intelligent design movement using it as a common point of attack to finally get it out of the textbooks.
[snip, bold added]

You give intelligent design too much credit because it contributes NOTHING to science--it is purely a philosophical point of view. It is based on the false idea of a nearly complete knowledge of nature--how else can you answer the question "Are there some things which are too complex for a purely natural explanation?" The more we learn about nature, the more we learn about things that we don't know, for which the new questions would have been non-sensical previous to the new knowledge. Given the incomplete state of knowledge, how can anyone make any answer to the above question other than "there is no answer to your question." And, yet, the ID supporters answer "yes" without hesistation.

Edit for clarity

Last edited by D'Eyncourt (2005-08-06 11:24 pm)

Pro_ · 2005-08-06 10:45 pm

evolution is almost universally accepted, but there are not many people that want to confront the very vocal neo cons about their ' theory '.

jerwin · 2005-08-06 11:00 pm

Conservative pundits and evolution

brendave · 2005-08-06 11:08 pm

Intelligent design is a very scientific approach to the question of human creation... for me to poop on. Really, who cares as long as they are not able to push that crap in schools? That, to me, is the final battle ground.

resedit · 2005-08-06 11:57 pm

brendave wrote:
Intelligent design is a very scientific approach to the question of human creation... for me to poop on. Really, who cares as long as they are not able to push that crap in schools? That, to me, is the final battle ground.

And for the record, I don't think it should be taught in schools, not as science anyway.
Philosophy class maybe.

Intelligent Design is a philosophy that life and the universe could not have happened by accident and therefore there must be an intelligent designer. That is philosophy, not science.

resedit · 2005-08-07 12:00 am

D'Eyncourt wrote:
resedit wrote:
Pariah wrote:
Yes there have been frauds and the reason you know they are frauds is because of the peer review system
They get into textbooks, museums, and even magazines.
Hell - Haeckel's "law of biogenetics" which peer review KNEW was fraud before 1900 was being commonly published in textbooks in the 50's and 60's and even still in some in the 80's - it took the intelligent design movement using it as a common point of attack to finally get it out of the textbooks.
[snip, bold added]
You give intelligent design too much credit because it contributes NOTHING to science--it is purely a philosophical point of view.

Yes it is - and I have never said otherwise.
In fact, I have said exactly that - several times.

It does not IMHO conflict with science, but it is not itself science - there is no falsification.

Sometimes though people assume I take positions I have argued against. It's stereotyping based upon their idea of the looney religious right, not much I can do about it.

ShnickyShnack · 2005-08-07 12:15 am

resedit wrote:
D'Eyncourt wrote:
resedit wrote:

They get into textbooks, museums, and even magazines.
Hell - Haeckel's "law of biogenetics" which peer review KNEW was fraud before 1900 was being commonly published in textbooks in the 50's and 60's and even still in some in the 80's - it took the intelligent design movement using it as a common point of attack to finally get it out of the textbooks.
[snip, bold added]
You give intelligent design too much credit because it contributes NOTHING to science--it is purely a philosophical point of view.
Yes it is - and I have never said otherwise.
In fact, I have said exactly that - several times.

It does not IMHO conflict with science, but it is not itself science - there is no falsification.

Sometimes though people assume I take positions I have argued against. It's stereotyping based upon their idea of the looney religious right, not much I can do about it.

Do you think evolution should be in philosophy class too?

resedit · 2005-08-07 12:52 am

ShnickyShnack wrote:
Do you think evolution should be in philosophy class too?

Yes.

Paul98 · 2005-08-07 12:53 am

Teaching intelligent design and evolution in the same type of class is a horrid idea. Evolution attempts to explain something with evidence. Where as ID says we don't understand how this thing could come about naturally so it must have a designer. Now this stuff is getting national coverage on the news. I hope there are people who are willing to show exactly why ID shouldn't be in a science class. I would hate to see this crap get into our schools.

You teach scientific theorys which intelligent design is not. I am not against some other theory they might come up that is legit, but this... Come on.

mo' ron · 2005-08-07 12:55 am

The only connection I can think of for evolution being taught in a philosophy class is to note that it is the theory that IDs oppose.

resedit · 2005-08-07 12:58 am

Paul98 wrote:
Teaching intelligent design and evolution in the same type of class is a horrid idea.

Teaching either in the science class room is a horrid idea.
Evolution is a philosophical answer to a science question - and nothing more.

ShnickyShnack · 2005-08-07 1:00 am

resedit wrote:
ShnickyShnack wrote:
Do you think evolution should be in philosophy class too?
Yes.

In which case it turns out people don't misunderstand your beliefs as much as you think they do.

resedit · 2005-08-07 1:08 am

ShnickyShnack wrote:
resedit wrote:
ShnickyShnack wrote:
Do you think evolution should be in philosophy class too?
Yes.
In which case it turns out people don't misunderstand your beliefs as much as you think they do.

Sure they do - when they assume I think intelligent design is a science, they are misunderstanding my beliefs. It is not a science. There is some science involved, but the answer to the question is not produced by science.

Evolution itself makes a mockery of science. There is some science involved, but it fails in several aspects - namely no explanation for the origin of life, no explanation for the mechanism (survival of fittest is not a mechanism - it only works with genes already in a gene pool), etc.

They say "random mutation + helluvalota time" but there's no falsification for that, none at all.
Random mutations that we witness NEVER have resulted in a new type of animal. By "type" I don't mean speciation, we define species to give us a means of classification.

Platies and Swordtails are different species, yet hybrid freely (in fact most in pet stores are hybrid - that's how they get the colours). Even if hybridization no longer becomes possible, or appears to be possible, it still not a "new type".

Phydeaux · 2005-08-07 1:08 am

ShnickyShnack wrote:
resedit wrote:
ShnickyShnack wrote:
Do you think evolution should be in philosophy class too?
Yes.
In which case it turns out people don't misunderstand your beliefs as much as you think they do.

Try that again. It's late.

ShnickyShnack · 2005-08-07 1:15 am

resedit wrote:
ShnickyShnack wrote:
resedit wrote:

Yes.
In which case it turns out people don't misunderstand your beliefs as much as you think they do.
Sure they do - when they assume I think intelligent design is a science, they are misunderstanding my beliefs. It is not a science. There is some science involved, but the answer to the question is not produced by science.

Evolution itself makes a mockery of science. There is some science involved, but it fails in several aspects - namely no explanation for the origin of life, no explanation for the mechanism (survival of fittest is not a mechanism - it only works with genes already in a gene pool), etc.

They say "random mutation + helluvalota time" but there's no falsification for that, none at all.
Random mutations that we witness NEVER have resulted in a new type of animal. By "type" I don't mean speciation, we define species to give us a means of classification.

Platies and Swordtails are different species, yet hybrid freely (in fact most in pet stores are hybrid - that's how they get the colours). Even if hybridization no longer becomes possible, or appears to be possible, it still not a "new type".

You say, "don't assume I think Intelligent Design is a science, because I don't think it is."

Fine. But you don't think evolution has anything to do with science either.

They're equivalents. Fine, you're not elevating ID; but you're denegrating evolution. From an ethical standpoint, there's zero difference.

Just another version of the old argument that keeps wanting to start up again.

Forums | MacLife

#1 2005-08-06 7:14 pm

Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics

#2 2005-08-06 7:42 pm

Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics

#3 2005-08-06 7:43 pm

Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics

#4 2005-08-06 7:54 pm

Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics

resedit wrote:

#5 2005-08-06 8:00 pm

Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics

#6 2005-08-06 8:10 pm

Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics

#7 2005-08-06 8:15 pm

Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics

mahakali wrote:

resedit wrote:

#8 2005-08-06 8:16 pm

Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics

#9 2005-08-06 8:19 pm

Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics

Pariah wrote:

#10 2005-08-06 8:20 pm

Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics

#11 2005-08-06 9:30 pm

Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics

resedit wrote:

Pariah wrote:

#12 2005-08-06 10:45 pm

Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics

#13 2005-08-06 11:00 pm

Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics

#14 2005-08-06 11:08 pm

Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics

#15 2005-08-06 11:57 pm

Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics

brendave wrote:

#16 2005-08-07 12:00 am

Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics

D'Eyncourt wrote:

resedit wrote:

Pariah wrote:

#17 2005-08-07 12:15 am

Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics

resedit wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

resedit wrote:

#18 2005-08-07 12:52 am

Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics

ShnickyShnack wrote:

#19 2005-08-07 12:53 am

Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics

#20 2005-08-07 12:55 am

Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics

#21 2005-08-07 12:58 am

Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics

Paul98 wrote:

#22 2005-08-07 1:00 am

Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

#23 2005-08-07 1:08 am

Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

#24 2005-08-07 1:08 am

Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

#25 2005-08-07 1:15 am

Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

Board footer