Good stuff, thanks.

I'm still struck by the fact that Mooney, when hawking his anti-Republican book, refuses to divulge he is a Democrat; he comes to the issue with zero objectivity yet he is treated if he has just that. If you ask me, people like Mooney are a greater threat to science than people like Johnson. As Mooney tries to seduce scientists to become more politicized, he is selling a message that will be seriously damage the public perception of science. And when that happens, people like Mooney will be whining and looking for scapegoats, further entrenching the polarization he nurtured in the first place.

Let me share an e-mail I sent to Scott Adams:

You nailed it with this comment: "Let me say very clearly here that I'm not denying the EXISTENCE of slam-dunk credible evidence for evolution. What I'm denying is the existence of credible PEOPLE to inform me of this evidence." I wonder how many people got that.

I have warned various scientists on the internet that the only ones who can truly hurt science are the scientists themselves. Many think that in order to convince the general public, all you need to do is parade your credentials and awards while relying on your expertise to make your sophisticated arguments supported by evidence. But they are missing an essential ingredient of public persuasion "“ credibility. If the average, disinterested person looks in on this debate, they get a sense of déjà vu. "If those are scholars simply laying out the evidence and thinking great thoughts," says the onlooker, "then why does it look like a political debate between Republicans and Democrats?"

As members of academia, scientists enjoy the public perception of being objective and focused on evidence. Yet to get at the people in the ID movement, more and more rely on the techniques used by campaign managers, laid out before us all in blogs, magazine articles, and newspaper editorials. While such a strategy may turn out short term successes in the battle over education, it is eroding that public perception of objectivity. People used to trust and respect public servants, clergy, lawyers, journalists, and doctors. Today, huge numbers of Americans view such professions with cynicism. There is no reason to think this won't extend to scientists, especially when more and more are helping the cynicism along with their reactions to ID.

Of course, consider the impact of my argument if it's about attacking millions and millions of Republicans and not some fringe ID movement.

Thanks for the good links. Chris Mooney is an excellent illustration. In talking about the atheist political strategy about the Pledge, he says:

Chris Mooney: Right. I didn't make this point in my article, but as a Democrat, I certainly could have.

What's this? A Democrat wrote a "surprising" "eye-opening" book entitled The Republican War on Science? Tell me it ain't so! What? He even sells his books at University Democrat organizations?

Does Mooney let us know that he is a Democrat here? No.

On the contrary, when I looked around, he typically gets this type of soft-touch:

For some five years, Chris Mooney has been writing about the delicate overlap of science and public policy. As a correspondent for The American Prospect and Seed, a blogger, and a freelance journalist, he's carved out what you might think would be a modest, out-of-the-way niche of political punditry.

Turns out, Mooney's metier has placed him at the eye of a kind of political perfect storm: This past year, he's become something of a pundit rock star. He's even ascended the Mount Olympus of hip relevance: The Daily Show.

Why? The Bush administration has come under increasing fire for its mangling and disregard of science. Subjects about which Mooney has developed expertise — global warming, stem-cell research, evolution — have burst into the headlines with a vengeance. In May of this year, he wrote an article in the Prospect warning that a Category 4 or 5 hurricane could devastate New Orleans (ouch). And just this month, he released The Republican War on Science, an unapologetic broadside against an administration he says is unprecedented in its hostility toward the very foundations of objective knowledge. He chatted by email with Grist's David Roberts about partisanship, climate science, and more.

Now, you tell me. How does the average Republican react when they hear that a Democrat has written a book accusing Republicans of attacking science? Are they supposed to make believe that the Democrat came to this subject in a purely objective, scholarly manner? Because he says so? Because he has like-minded colleagues who say so? Mooney may travel in a herd where he is treated as an "author" or "journalist," but the extent that his book becomes a player in the political landscape is the same extent that he becomes a "Democrat."

Just imagine the AAAS and NAS coming out for the first time to endorse a presidential candidate. Now imagine that candidate proudly proclaiming they are the Science Candidate (even getting some big scientists to travel the campaign circuit) and accusing the opposition of being "˜anti-science.' Gee, might the political opposition hit back? What if, for example, the AAAS members don't have a history of being evenly split along political party lines?

Costello complains:

US Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Arizona Senator John McCain, and President George W. Bush each endorsed the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolution in the science classroom. Can anyone reasonably convince me that these pronouncements were not just cynical political punditry but, rather, were expressions of sincere beliefs?

Well perhaps he should cognizant of some facts

1. Bill Frist, Senate Majority leader favorable to ID is a Havard MD. Is Costello presuming Bill Frist is somehow uneducated in these issues, and therefore he's in need of some sort of enlightenment like everyone else? That a Harvard trained MD is somehow un-appreciative of science?

(Physicians on ID and Creation)

Costello:

The medical community as a whole has been largely absent from today's public debates on science. Neither the American Medical Association nor the American Psychiatric Association has taken a formal stand on the issue of evolution versus creationism.

Perhaps part of the reason is lots of them are creationists or sympathetic to ID!

2. 18% of physicians believe in Adam and Eve
3. 42% of physician believe in God Guided evolution

4. When the question was phrased in terms of ID vs. Evolution (not exactly a fair question), 34% responded in favor of ID

5. 42% of the physicians belive ID is a legitimate scientific speculation, including 2% of the atheists who believe ID is a legitimate scientific speculation.