Conservatives and Science

NRO: David Frum's Diary ^ | 11/20/08 | James Charles Wilson

[Sherman Logan]

This letter arrived in response to my bloggingheads dialogue with Brink Lindsey. Name and affiliation posted with permission of the author:

I find it astonishing that conservatives can discuss the election results and their path back to power without addressing the right wing's increasing estrangement from science. Religious conservatives have refused to acknowledge that evolution is the cornerstone of biological sciences and that the earth and universe are billions of years old, Free market enthusiasts have denied the efficacy and necessity of the Clean Air Act’s protections of the environment and human health. They have also refused to acknowledge Reagan’s leadership role in protecting the stratospheric ozone layer and the successes of the Montreal Protocol in addressing this global problem. It is genuinely difficult to find an adult discussion of climate change on any conservative web site. Conservatives find themselves arrayed against the National Academy of Science, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society and the Academies of Science of many countries.

Science was transformed into a partisan affair by Gingrich et al.. Prior to that time, many Republicans could be counted upon as realists concerning nature. Lincoln signed the legislation founding the National Academy of Science. T. Roosevelt established rule-making agencies that valued scientific expertise above political influence. Nixon founded the EPA and was important in passing the Clear Air Act, Clean Water Act and National Environmental Policy Act. He appointed Ruckelshaus as EPA’s initial director. The major steps to protect the stratospheric ozone layer were made with the conscious leadership of Reagan and Bush I. Now Republican candidates are required to nod in the direction of creationism and the young earth. McCain’s brave stand acknowledging the reality of climate change cost him dearly among the most partisan Republicans. They stayed home.

Your own conversation is market obsessed. You acknowledge that markets have won the most important arguments and that even Democrats understand this. The Wall fell and the planned economies blew away with the dust. Even bleeding-heart liberals support micro- credit as a most effective form of foreign aid. But the “Market Alone Explains Progress” narrative overlooks the contribution of technology. Malthus was wrong in each generation because scientists made him wrong. The Markets First crowd has no understanding or appreciation of how science and technology produced the practices that permitted the astonishing growth of the last three centuries. So, when the findings of science are found to be inconvenient by the advocates of utterly free markets, they kneecap the scientists.

I was trained by conservative scientists who worked under a Republican administered EPA to establish the scientific foundations for the Clean Air Act regulations that have saved thousands of lives. I studied ozone depletion under Reagan. Now, practitioners who follow the data are slandered by Conservatives. 200 countries have ratified the Montreal Protocol. The world’s turn away from the release of CFCs has clearly resulted in arresting the decreases in ozone that triggered the Protocol. Poor Rush and his minions are unable to acknowledge this fundamental fact. They use Montreal Protocol as a slur. The Right Wing is estranged from both science and reality. Educated Americans are increasingly seeing a Republican Party that will lie about science to satisfy dogmatists and ideologues. Increasingly science and technology are defining the environment within which the market and policy must succeed. You are losing those who understand this century. How can Republicans rebuild their winning coalition when they insist that its members deny physical reality?

James Charles Wilson John Evans Professor Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering University of Denver

[allmendream]

Incapable of following a link? It is obvious that you are incapable of providing one for your assertions.

The “other hand” was that... “the theory could not exclude a role by God.”

Absolutely 100% true. No scientific theory can exclude the role of God.

The Pope's statements are in no way ambiguous. He said “there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution”. Do you think his reason for taking this stance was due to the evidence, or due to the Pope wanting to attack the belief of some Christians?

[metmom]

I’m still coming up short on the number of scientists who have been burned at the stake.

[allmendream]

Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for holding contrary ideas. He was condemned for other things, but at the root of it was that he thought that there were other planets that would circle other stars (he was an early heliocentrist) and that these planets would have life, and that God would need send them an ‘alien Jesus’ for their salvation.

Not exactly a scientific concept, but I think we can all agree that religious authorities having the ability to burn people to death for holding contrary religious or scientific ideas is a bad thing.

The fifth of his eight charges was...

“Claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity.”

[Amendment10]

A fish with legs? Who could imagine such a thing? Actually evolution and geology predicted where such a thing would be found, and then they went out and found it; once again showing the usefulness of this replicable and predictive science.

We're evidently not on the same sheet of music.

The problem with the picture that you volunteered is the following, based on one page where the picture appears.

http://www.calacademy.org/science_now/headline_science/fossil_fish.php

Your picture shows what appears to be a plastic, computer-assisted model of an extinct, fish-like creature, probably based in part on somebody's impression of possibly incomplete fossil remains (not shown). But given that plastic models based on computer algorithms do not guarantee historical reality (same type problem with crude global warming computer models), why are you seemingly arguing that this piece of plastic is a precise representation of an extinct animal?

You've evidently fallen into the trap that I've been complaining about, not being on your guard with respect to separating imagination from reality. Indeed, gullible evolutionists seemingly have more faith in their God-given imaginations than Christians have in Jesus.

[valkyry1]

The fish was a bottom dweller or a mud skipper variant. it was still a fish and was not evolving legs feet etc, the fins were still fins, not legs and feet..

Evos sure like those artistical mis-representations though, look at all the debunked and shelved hominids each one having its own artistical representation made up for it.

[allmendream]

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/searching4Tik.html

The point is that they went looking for a fish with early tetrapod features and they found it. Tiktaalik was exactly what they were looking for, exactly where (and when)the theories predicted they would find it.

Thus we are dealing with powerful explanatory and predictive scientific theories.

[allmendream]

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/searching4Tik.html

Powerful explanatory and predictive theories of evolution and geology and paleontology. What do you offer in its place?

[iacovatx]

Hard to know where to begin with this professor’s emotional, non-scholarly, presentation of biased views. I have for some time known some of the productive scholars at the U of Denver and it is disappointing to see a professor, of engineering no less, spout such uninformed distortions.

First, the idea that conservatives all reject the evidence of the age of the earth or the processes underlying its living entities is quite a distorted stereotype. I suspect many if not most conservatives are quite comfortable with the empirical data good scholars have gathered. Other interpretations are welcome—challenges to theory must run the gauntlet of evidence, but envigor the search for improved theory. There are diverse religious views within the conservative house, perhaps that is what you have confused with conservative’s views of science. Among those religious views, you will find many that don’t conform with those you criticize but which are popularly touted in ways to stereotype conservatives and distort our views.

Almost by definition, conservatives are rigorous and empirical in our views of science. Which brings up the climate issue. Consensus is not evidence. Crichton said it more eloquently than I. However, I note that you mix “countries” into the evidence. Countries and political movements have agendas, not evidence-based theories. Two criticisms we conservatives have of leftists is they confuse opinions with evidence and their desires with the truth.

I could offer corrections and counter arguments to much of the content of this piece but don’t have time right now. I will leave it with this summary of my views. Conservatism is better aligned with good science than is socialism. Let me add that leftists are a great danger to science and the advancement of knowledge. Further, a successful economy is a critical factor in the ability to develop scientists, research institutes, and innovations. Without the resources of a good economy, you will have little opportunity to advance science. They are mutually compatible and not at odds as your comments might be interpreted to suggest.