Victor Davis Hanson: Obama’s War Against Reason

WE present to you, dear reader, some excerpts from The New War against Reason by Victor Davis Hanson, military historian, columnist, political essayist, former classics professor, and scholar of ancient warfare. He is currently a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. This appears at the National Review Online website. The bold font was added by us:

Barack Obama promised us not only transparency, but also a new respect for science. In soothing tones, he asserted that his administration was “restoring scientific integrity to government decision-making.”

In our new Enlightenment of Ivy League Guardians, we were to return to the rule of reason and logic. Obama would lead us away from the superstitious world of Bush’s evangelical Christianity, “intelligent design,” and Neanderthal moral opposition to human-embryo stem-cell research.

For some of our science friends, that’s all it took to get them to sign on. But is this administration really a “new Enlightenment”? Let’s keep reading:

Instead, we are seeing an unprecedented distortion of science — indeed, an attack on the inductive method itself. Facts and reason are trumped by Chicago-style politics, politically correct dogma, and postmodern relativism.

We need some specifics to back that up, so let’s continue.

Hanson’s first example is a good one — the bizarre mythology of “jobs created or saved” — an alleged accomplishment that simply can’t be defended. He then discusses global warming — another favorite of our science friends. He says:

The fact that nuclear power could give us plentiful electrical energy and autonomy from foreign imports — and without the release of hot carbon gases — was ignored. Instead, by fiat, nuclear power was deemed a politically incorrect fuel source, somehow tainted by memories of everything from Hiroshima to Three Mile Island.

That nuclear plants are now safe, as we see from long experience in Europe and from their operation here at home; that we have spent billions to find a solution to the problem of their wastes; that they do not heat or pollute the atmosphere, or add to our quarterly trade deficit — all this is simultaneously substantiated by facts, and yet refuted by superstition and hysteria.

In contrast, government-subsidized windmills and solar panels, which give us little energy — and only on breezy or sunny days — are “rational” sources of power for 300 million consumers.

Observe that like us, Hanson doesn’t challenge the science of global warming, only the proffered solutions. To stay consistent, and to avoid jumping to conclusions, we’ll skip over the still-unfolding email disclosure scandal about global warming.

Continuing with Hanson’s article, now he turns to the subject of political correctness:

Western inductive thinking used to teach us to look at facts and collate symptoms. (E.g., we have observed a number of killers evoking Islam, yelling out “Allahu Akbar!” at the moment of their murdering, or post facto, bragging unrepentantly of murdering Jews and infidels.)

Then one makes a diagnosis based on such empirical findings. (E.g., unlike the case with radical anti-abortionists or violent environmentalists, in the last eight years we have witnessed a series of unhinged Muslim males who have justified their violent actions through affinities with, or promotion of, radical Islam.)

[...]

All those data lead to a scientific conclusion and prognosis. … [T]here is a danger that a subset of young Muslims is disproportionately committing terrorist acts….

But not so fast: Remember, we are now in an age of superstition, not rationalism, in which utopian ends justify unscientific means.

Hanson then ties that into the official reaction to the Fort Hood massacre, that is, Obama’s refusal to label it an act of Islamic terrorism — but you probably saw that coming. Want to know why you knew where Hanson was going? It’s because he lays his case out like a syllogism. He’s making sense.

These next excerpts are from the article’s conclusion:

In short, we are witnessing the rise of a new deductive, anti-scientific age.

Instead of [Bush's] Christian, southern-twanged fundamentalists, we see instead kinder, gentler federal bureaucrats, globetrotting Ph.D.s, liberal hucksters, and politically correct diversity officers. All are committed to the medieval fallacy that exalted theoretical ends justify very real tawdry means.

The result is the triumph of superstition, and the dethronement of science.

And so, friends of science, although you may not like Hanson’s rhetorical style, can you rationally dispute the substance of his argument? Is Obama truly your friend, merely because he’s not a creationist? Or is he — really — the enemy of us all?

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Creationist Wisdom — Example 86

WE present to you, dear reader, a letter-to-the-editor titled Doubts not denial of science, which appears in the Gazette of Colorado Springs. It’s the second letter at that link, so you’ll have to scroll down to find it.

We’ll copy most of today’s letter, omitting the writer’s name and city, and adding our Curmudgeonly commentary between the paragraphs. Actually, we added the paragraph breaks; this thing is only one paragraph. The bold font was added for emphasis. Here we go:

In response to John Horner’s article (“Is science denial intellectually honest in our modern world,” editorial page, Nov. 19): Doubts about the theory of evolution are not denial of science.

That refers to a guest column by John Horner: Is science denial intellectually honest in our modern world? Horner is a psychology professor at Colorado College. It’s not a bad column, but it concludes with a bit of a false dichotomy:

Either become a scientist and test that knowledge for yourself, or give up all the benefits you’ve accrued from humanity’s ever-expanding scientific knowledge. If you aren’t going to believe in the knowledge that science has given us, then give up all those things that science has made possible. Give up your computer, your cell phone, your Internet, your microwave, your antibiotics, your cancer treatments, your Lipitor, your Viagra, your GPS, your telephone, your airplanes, your digital camera, your television, your cable, your ….

Okay, we’re oriented. Let’s get back to today’s letter:

There are creationists and intelligent design advocates who not only have Ph.Ds but also field and lab experience. There are creationists who used to be evolutionists and who abandoned the theory for scientific reasons, not due to a religious conversion.

There are indeed some fools and charlatans with Ph D degrees. But among creationists, we suspect there are none who were once evolutionary biologists, but “who abandoned the theory for scientific reasons, not due to a religious conversion.” We continue:

Like most creationists, I believe in natural selection and other observable factors but the belief that life arose from chemicals by chance has not been proved by the scientific method.

Nor is that part of the theory of evolution. Here’s more:

Louis Pasteur disproved the theory of spontaneous generation and the Miller experiment was a failure, not a success. Dr. Miller’s experiment only produced amino acids, not life, and the results were accomplished in an artificial environment unlike the primordial soup evolutionists believe in.

Aaaargh!! Pasteur again. That stuff continues to linger on creationist websites. Here’s a good discussion at Talk.Origins: Spontaneous Generation and the Origin of Life.

The Miller–Urey experiment wasn’t intended to create life. It was a spectacular success in accomplishing its purpose — synthesizing organic compounds from inorganic precursors.

Okay, moving along, we come to an argument we’ve never seen before. This is what’s so fascinating about these letters — the variety is a never-ending festival of foolishness:

It can also be argued that natural selection prevents progressive evolution from taking place: it is the average animal that thrives, freaks (transitional forms) are culled out by natural selection factors

How about that one, dear reader? You never knew that natural selection prevents evolution, did you? Nor did you know about that hot new creation science discovery — survival of the average. Isn’t this great?

And now we come to the end:

Also, there is no connection between Darwin’s theories and modern technology, in most cases technological breakthroughs come from the study of physics, not evolutionary biology. People can doubt evolution and still appreciate their cell phones and computers.

[Writer's name and city can be seen in the original.]

No connection? Darwin’s theory is supported by geology, radiometric dating techniques, biochemistry, etc.; and it’s consistent with every other branch of science. On the other hand, it’s true that creationists use computers — mostly to access creationist websites. But despite such cognitive inconsistencies, they’re still reality-deniers.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Richard Dawkins on Ray Comfort

AT the CNN website we read Dawkins: Evangelist an ‘idiot’ on evolution. Here are some excerpts, with bold added by us:

Speaking to CNN on the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin’s seminal work “On the Origin of Species,” Dawkins said the evidence to support the theory that life on earth came about through natural selection, and not design by God, was “now massively buttressed by molecular evidence.”

You know who Richard Dawkins is. Here’s an Amazon link to his latest book: The Greatest Show on Earth. Let’s continue with the CNN article:

And referring to U.S.-based evangelist Ray Comfort, who argues that the universe and life is the result of an intelligent creator, Dawkins said: “There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot.

The man knows how to express himself. Hey, there’s a video of this Dawkins interview at the CNN article. Be sure to check it out. It’s about ten minutes long. Dawkins continues:

“Hunches aren’t interesting, hunches aren’t valuable. What’s important is scientific evidence. It doesn’t matter what mister whatever his name is, Comfort … what his opinion is. It doesn’t matter what my opinion is. What matters is evidence. And the evidence is clear. The evidence is in favor of evolution.”

We have a hunch that Ray Comfort doesn’t care about evidence. Here’s more:

Responding to Dawkins’ criticism, Comfort issued a statement to CNN. “If the views expressed in my introduction of ‘On the Origin of Species’ are ‘idiotic,’ why would Mr. Dawkins tell students to rip them out of the book, as he did recently?

Uh … maybe because it’s worthless? Speaking of idiots, in case you missed it this is Ray Comfort’s famous “Banana video”. Creationism at its best!

Here’s one last quote from Dawkins:

“You can’t prove there’s no God, no fairies, no leprechauns, or that Thor or Apollo don’t exist. There’s got to be a positive reason to think that fairies exist. Until somebody does, we can say technically we are agnostic about fairies. We can’t disprove them, but we think it’s a bit of a waste of time trying. And the same goes for God.”

Be careful, Richard. The gods probably don’t care what you think, but watch out for those fairies. They’re nasty!

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Human Evolution in the Future

A few million years from now, will we be remembered the way we think of the characters in the Iliad — entirely human but with a different culture? Or will they think of us as we think about Lucy? Maybe lower than Lucy? Perhaps they won’t even know about us.

At the National Geographic website we read FUTURE HUMANS: Four Ways We May, or May Not, Evolve. Here are some excerpts, with bold added by us:

[W]here is evolution taking us? Will our descendants hurtle through space as relatively unchanged as the humans on the starship Enterprise? Will they be muscle-bound cyborgs? Or will they chose to digitize their consciousnesses—becoming electronic immortals?

That’s what the article explores in four different scenarios:

PREDICTION ONE: Human Evolution Is Dead

“Because we have evolved, it’s natural to imagine we will continue to do so, but I think that’s wrong,” anthropologist Ian Tattersall of New York’s American Museum of Natural History said in an email. “Everything we know about evolutionary change suggests that genetic innovations are only likely to become fixed in small, isolated populations,” he said.

[...]

[I]f populations aren’t isolated, crossbreeding makes it much less likely for potentially significant mutations to become established in the gene pool—and that’s exactly where we are now, Tattersall said.

Another opinion on the same scenario:

[N]atural selection — Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” concept — is being sidelined in humans, according to Jones [Steve Jones, a genetics professor at University College London]. The fittest will no longer spearhead evolutionary change, because, thanks to medical advances, the weakest also live on and pass down their genes.

That’s boring. Let’s go to the next scenario:

PREDICTION TWO: Humans Will Continue to Evolve

Other scientists see plenty of evidence that human evolution is far from over.

[...]

Geoffrey Miller, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of New Mexico, believes Darwinian evolution in humans is actually speeding up. He highlighted sexual selection through mate choice as one key driver. “You still have powerful mate choice shaping mental traits particularly … traits that are needed to succeed economically and in raising kids,” Miller said.

That’s pretty much H.G. Wells’ Morlocks and Eloi. Here’s the next one:

PREDICTION THREE: Humans to Achieve Electronic Immortality

A philosophy known as transhumanism sees humans taking charge of their evolution and transcending their biological limitations via technology.

[...]

Transhumanism raises a spectacular array of possibilities, from supersoldiers and new breeds of athletes to immortal beings who, having had their brains scanned atom by atom, transfer their minds to computers.

Fun, but too speculative to worry about. Besides, if humanity’s future is to leave us behind and become a bunch of computer chips, why should we care about them? Here’s the fourth scenario:

PREDICTION FOUR: New Era of Evolution Awaits on Off-World Colonies?

“Some major new isolating mechanism” would be needed for a new human species to arise, according to John Hawks, an anthropologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Despite up to 30,000 years of partial isolation among populations in places such as Australia and Papua New Guinea, human speciation did not occur, he noted.

But if, in the far distant future, habitable planets beyond our solar system were colonized by Earth migrants, that could provide the necessary isolation for new human species to evolve.

We’ve mentioned this before. We like it. However, Hawks adds:

“[I]f you think about it, a small group of people went on a one-way voyage to [the Americas] 14,000 years ago, and then when new people [Europeans] showed up 500 years ago, they were still the same species.”

So there you are. These things are inherently difficult to predict, but let’s not worry about it. The future will be all grown up one day and capable of taking care of itself. If not, well … that’s up to them. We’ve got our own problems.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article