Question - Too many social issues cut "the tent" too thin?
With the news that Bobby Jindal apparently signed a law last year allowing "supplemental textbooks” in the classroom to “help students critique and review scientific theories” I find myself wondering whether evolution/anti-evolution one of those questions that the right has taken on for their base that will now be hung around the necks of politicians for a decade?
Admittedly evolution isn't as discriminatory as many past GOP base placations, immigration, the "southern strategy," anti-union, anti-gay, anti-stem cell, but, at the same time, I keep remembering that debate where 3 of 10 GOP presidential candidates raised their hands as not believing in evolution. Remember the reaction?
(On the other hand, if you pick someone who is "right" on all these issues, think about what kind of crazy assed politician you end up with.)
Admittedly evolution isn't as discriminatory as many past GOP base placations, immigration, the "southern strategy," anti-union, anti-gay, anti-stem cell, but, at the same time, I keep remembering that debate where 3 of 10 GOP presidential candidates raised their hands as not believing in evolution. Remember the reaction?
(On the other hand, if you pick someone who is "right" on all these issues, think about what kind of crazy assed politician you end up with.)
posted by mikevotes at
7:22 AM
5 Comments:
First, the problem with these "reviews" and "critiques" is that they work on a false dichotomy. If any weakness can be shown in the theory of evolution, then the Bible is assumed to be correct "theory". There are unanswered questions about the Standard Model of atomic theory (neutrinos, string theory, etc.), but nobody on the right is suggesting that we discard the idea that atoms exist in favour of a Divine Force that makes up the substance of the universe. At this point, I am beginning why they don't do this if they are to be consistently dumb. Let's just call nuclear reactors "God-power thingies" and teach kids an "alternative" to atomic theory that won't have any practical value.
The idea that God fills the gaps whenever science cannot completely explain something is patently anti-science.
As for the political consequences of such moves, I see it less of a "base placation" than as a strategy of posing a uniform moral face to the voters. The idea is that "we believe in God", with the unspoken corollary as "our opponents don't". It is largely the politicians that want to interject religion into every issue (in order to capitalise on votes), not the fundies.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 9:08 AM
"On the other hand, if you pick someone who is "right" on all these issues, think about what kind of crazy assed politician you end up with."
See photo in post below.
----
Sort of leveraging on Todd's points, I think it would be interesting that in states where this new "critical thinking" (nee, intelligent design, nee creationism) is officially implemented, someone should push for an astrology curriculum. Seriously. Demand astrology be covered.
By
-epm, at 9:23 AM
Todd, you definitely don't have to tell me. I actually did a fair amount of reading on "intelligent design" and the arguments when the Iowa case was going on.
The one difference between evolution and other theories is that evolution directly contradicts the bible, where other stuff doesn't. That's why we get the argument, and the core of the argument is twofold.
1) The bible is more accurate than anything else regardless of evidence. (dinosaur bones are there to test our faith,) and 2) the Genesis story must be true or else all other elements of the bible are open to challenge.
To some degree the evolution battle is existential for the biblical literalists. Frankly, they don't have to win, just muddy the waters enough that their believers don't defect.
....
EPM, That's why I put the photo there.
As for astrology, same point as above. No one has the motivation and money to push astrology because space science doesn't threaten to undermine a religion (and all of the power and money that comes from that.)
By
mikevotes, at 11:09 AM
True. But there's no outcry regarding the teaching of dinosaurs, extinction, solar-centric vs. earth centric solar system, that woman wasn't created from the rib of a man (isn't that cloning?) etc, etc. There is something viscerally personal -- as well as Biblical -- about the theory of evolution of species. It makes people feel less special to think they've evolved from lower life forms.
By
-epm, at 11:51 AM
Yeah. You're definitely right there.
Ironic that the less intelligent (less educated?) are more sensitive about coming from lower life forms?
I think I'd like to see polling on the anti-evolution/Larry the Cable Guy overlap.
By
mikevotes, at 1:32 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home