I just got back from a successful observing run at Kitt Peak National Observatory Saturday night. I had one unpleasant "political" science discovery in a Barnes and Noble there that dismayed me, and another waiting for me in a catalog upon my return.
There's a new book out called The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science that I saw in the bookstore. I was at first intrigued -- it's always a good idea to look at everything critically, and as a scientist I'm trained to do that with everything on a daily basis. Politics gets into everything, even science, and it's good to look at some Sacred Cows from time to time.
Unfortunately, that's nearly all I can say good about the book. It's written by a conservative journalist, whose premise is that the left is guilty of abusing science to promote their politics, when it's almost exactly the reverse in this guy's case. I looked at enough of the book in the store, and at enough reviews, to call this one easily. The writer understands little or no science, and has produced a completely shameful text that is to science as Anne Coulter or Michael Moore is to rational, calm political discourse.
Why not have a book of apolitical science, since that's what the methodology produces in the long run? The chapters on climate change and evolution look particularly poor and biased, which offsets any good in the few intelligent chapters, e.g., on nuclear power. I was thinking about buying the damn thing only so I could rip it apart in detail at my leisure, but someone else has already beaten me to it. This book is just another attack, unfortunately and apparently, in The Republican War on Science. It's sad, really, since the Republicans, under Eisenhower, were the ones to usher in science as a powerful tool to shape public policy. Science by its nature isn't political. It provides the most reliable information to us to help us shape policy. It's one part of the decision-making process, along with economics and other factors, and to ignore it is to place bets without looking at your cards.
The other troubling science issue awaiting me in the catalog in my mailbox was a new course being offered by the University of Wyoming's "opportunity for enrichment" program (non-credit, open to all -- you know, the yoga classes, etc.). Well, this new one caught my attention: "Creation vs. Evolution." The instructor's credentials appear to be only that he has "studied the Bible for many years." How does this qualify someone to give an accurate and fair picture of evolutionary theory? The last part of the description promising "a video of amazing creatures that defy evolution" especially makes me afraid this course is nothing more than anti-intellectual science bashing in an attempt to justify a particular faith. No amount of Bible study can provide someone with an understanding of science in general or biology in particular. I feel like I clicked my ruby slippers together and found myself in Kansas.
While I understand these courses are not for credit, not required in any way, and cover a diverse set of topics from diverse perspectives (e.g. I see a course on past life regression, too, ugh), I am very concerned that this course will espouse disinformation in direct conflict with biology courses taught at the university. I would be very upset to see a course that promised to show evidence against the Big Bang from someone who has no expertise in astronomy.
Perhaps I'm being unfair based on only a course title and description, but I am very suspicions about it. If I'm correct, it will embarrass me and every other science professor at the university by association. I would be remiss and lacking intellectual integrity if I didn't speak out.
Too many people think that evolution and science in general has a strong overt agenda that is liberal and atheistic. It's true that many scientists are liberal and not particularly religious, but there are many exceptions. Science, when done right and presented right, is merely a method for reliably figuring out things about how the world works. Science is better at this than anything else going, but it has its limits, and that's fine. Within its sphere of operation, it rules and should be used wisely. Science has no political or religious agenda. People do.
I kind of feel at a loss, when science has had so many clear victories (you are reading this on a networked computer, after all, based on the results gleaned from science) how we're still fighting these battles in the 21st century. Science doesn't care about religion, and if you think it does, that's your problem. Science doesn't care about politics, and if you think it does, that's your problem. I'm a great believer in the power of science to do good and enrich our lives, and I'll defend it from these biased and ignorant attacks when I am able. Left, right, religious or not, it really just shouldn't matter.
Einstein said so many things well. I'll leave you with a quote: Great spirits have always been violently opposed by mediocre minds. I guess it makes sense that the attackers of science are rarely well educated in science.
Posted by Mike at January 9, 2006 2:01 AM