Dawkins' Appendix
by MikeGeneIn my previous blog, I forgot to mention the overall theme that appears to lie behind Dawkins' essay.
Throughout the essay, we find comments such as:
It is worse than galling. It threatens the enterprise of science itself. This is exactly the effect creationism or "˜intelligent design theory' (ID) is having, especially because its propagandists are slick, superficially plausible and, above all, well financed.
It isn't even safe for a scientist to express temporary doubt, as a rhetorical device before going on to dispel it.
Notice, second, how the creationist ploy undermines the scientist's natural "“ indeed necessary "“ rejoicing in uncertainty. Today's scientist in America dare not say:
[snip]
No, the moment a scientist said something like that "“ and long before the student began the project "“ the default conclusion would become a headline in
a creationist pamphlet: "Weasel frog could only have been designed by God."
All of this amounts to "Science-As-Victim." Science is threatened. It's not safe. The scientists' natural tendency is undermined. The global, scientific-industrial complex is victimized by a handful of creationists.
If you are going to portray science and scientists as victims, you first need to establish that the quote miners have power over science and the scientists. Otherwise, it's a failed attempt to plug into the victimology that is so popular in some aspects of society.
May 28th, 2005 at 12:28 am
So, are you seriously arguing that Sen. Frist and Sen. Santorum have no power over the budgets of the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Health and Human Services?
Either you're seriously, seriously deluded, or Frist is a bigger wet noodle than anyone ever imagined.
Comment by edarrell — May 28, 2005 @ 12:28 am
May 28th, 2005 at 4:26 am
Ed, if you didn't exist, we'd have to invent you
Comment by Deuce — May 28, 2005 @ 4:26 am
May 28th, 2005 at 9:11 am
Ed,
There is something missing from your argument "“ it's called "evidence."
Can you provide the evidence of Sen. Frist's and Sen. Santorum's power over these agencies? For example, if these Senators wanted badly to slash the budgets by 25%, could they do it?
After demonstrating the extent of their power, now turn to the issue at hand. Where is the evidence that quote mining creationists have caused them to slash budgets? Go back to my previous entry and see if you can answer these three simple yes-or-no questions:
Is there an experiment that was not done because of quote mining?
Is there a lab that was shut down because of quote mining?
Is there a scientist who lost his job because of quote mining?
One more thing. You may have neglected a very fruitful line of conspiratorial investigation. Did you ever consider the power that the wives of Sen. Frist and Sen. Santorum may have over their husbands?
Comment by MikeGene — May 28, 2005 @ 9:11 am
May 28th, 2005 at 12:17 pm
If you all have not been paying attention to funding for science over the past 30 years, why would you start now?
Frist is the Majority Leader in the U.S. Senate. (This is basic civics — if you're not a creationist and you passed civics or government in high school, skip the next three or four paragraphs.) The Majority Leader has considerable power over federal spending, including appointing like-minded people to the Budget and Finance Committees' chairs, and to the chairs of the authorizing committees.
Santorum notoriously and erroneously claims that intelligent design is real science, and frustrated by Sen. Kennedy and other pro-science senators in getting an amendment that virtually requires ID be added to curricula, Santorum has written to several school boards and published his comments claiming that his amendment, though a failure, should be obeyed in spirit anyway. This despite the fact that it would overturn more than 200 years of tradition that the federal government stay out of curriculum issues, and despite the fact that it would violate several other federal laws which specifically forbid such federal interference.
Under the jurisdiction of like-minded folk, research budgets at all federal research agencies have suffered since the 1980s. A recent "doubling" of the NIH budget put it almost on a GDP par with the mid 1970s.
Both Santorum and Frist have paid heed to such quote mined stuff in their comments in the past.
A reasonable person would conclude there is some connection.
But don't take my word for it. Go study the issues. What's the story on the budget for NIH over the past 30 years? Chart it. Chart the National Cancer Institute. Look at who claimed HIV was nothing to worry about and not worthy of funding until we had a flood of cases in the U.S.
In the end, a line from Dickens covers the point: "The stairs were dark; but darkness was cheap, and Scrooge liked it." Neither intelligent design nor any other wacky creationist invention contributes an iota to knowledge useful to fight disease or feed the hungry. That has not stopped the slashing of such budgets whenever the authority fell into the hands of those who favor ignorance over knowledge.
Has it hurt? Sure. We almost had measles wiped out from the U.S. in 1980. Reagan proposed, and the Republicans forced an acceptance of a zeroing out of the $3 million annual appropriation to completely wipe it out.
In Dallas County, in 1991, we spent more than $1 million to care for only the indigent cases of measles, as the disease roared back and killed several hundred people.
Yeah, the constant yammering/hammering that scientists are evil, that they have a cabal against "the Truth," that the work scientists do is not good and noble — it takes a toll. The toll is often paid in human lives.
If I didn't exist, I'd evolve to fight creationism. As Jefferson, "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal enmity to every form of tyranny over the mind of Man." That includes creationism and intelligent design, and any other form of ignorance-for-fun.
Comment by edarrell — May 28, 2005 @ 12:17 pm
May 28th, 2005 at 2:06 pm
Ed:
I see. So you want to take a complex sociological dynamic such as funding for science over the last 30 years and reduce it all to "the powerful Creationists are victimizing science." That's ridiculous.
As for the rest, your reply is purely rhetorical bluster supported by cherry picked tangents and vague generalities. I asked you to provide evidence and you failed. I asked you to respond to three simple questions and you failed. Instead, you rail against Reagan and bring up HIV, etc. It would seem you are inches away from bringing up the Dreaded Theocracy. In fact, it's gotten so bad that you are now grasping for some connection between quote mining and a "toll paid in human lives."
My advice? Take a deep breath and let it out slowly. Now, provide the evidence I asked for and answer the questions I asked. Anything else goes down the Hole.
Comment by MikeGene — May 28, 2005 @ 2:06 pm
May 29th, 2005 at 7:46 pm
Is there a scientist who lost his job because of quote mining?
Here is a scientists who may be denied a job because she opposes creationism:
http://austringer.net/wp/?p=12...
Of course, I understand you prefer that we just wait until IDism/creationism starts doing real damage before we oppose it; but it might be better to fight it before real scientists have to worry about losing their research grants to snakeoil salesmen.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 29, 2005 @ 7:46 pm
May 29th, 2005 at 8:34 pm
As any reader can see, no where do I expect anyone to refrain from opposing IDism. All I did was to point out that Dawkins' rhetoric was void of context and evidence. My point stands.
Comment by MikeGene — May 29, 2005 @ 8:34 pm