…and this is a 
How bad could Huckabee be?
Category: Creationism • Politics
Posted on: January 11, 2008 8:20 AM, by PZ Myers
Jason Wiles delivers a lovely smackdown of Huckabee's position on evolution. First, he hits him hard on his record as governor of Arkansas.
During Huckabee's tenure as Governor, evolution education in Arkansas languished in an environment of general hostility and insufficiency. Two anti-evolution bills were introduced in the state's House of Representatives; textbooks in the Beebe, Arkansas public high school carried disclaimer stickers denigrating evolution; the state's science curriculum earned a grade of "D" overall and an abysmal "zero" for its treatment of evolution; a creationist "museum" enjoyed state-funded advertising; and evolution was systematically and broadly squeezed out of schools and other educational institutions across the state. Huckabee did nothing to deter any of this - in fact, some of his public statements might indicate his tacit support.
Then he pops him one on what Huckabee has said about evolution — the man is a misinformed moron. Here's part of an interview with a student…a student who is smarter and better educated than the governor.
Student: Many schools in Arkansas are failing to teach students about evolution according to the educational standards of our state. Since it is against these standards to teach creationism, how would you go about helping our state educate students more sufficiently for this?
Huckabee: Are you saying some students are not getting exposure to the various theories of creation?
Student (stunned): No, of evol ... well, of evolution specifically. It's a biological study that should be educated [taught], but is generally not.
Moderator: Schools are dodging Darwinism? Is that what you ... ?
Student: Yes.
Huckabee: I'm not familiar that they're dodging it. Maybe they are. But I think schools also ought to be fair to all views. Because, frankly, Darwinism is not an established scientific fact. It is a theory of evolution, that's why it's called the theory of evolution.
I'd like to think this gibbering sphincter is going to crash and burn in the primaries and doesn't have a chance of getting elected to the presidency, but remember, he won the gubernatorial election in one state…and the electorate of conservative ignoramuses is nationwide.
Politics
Comments
...gibbering sphincter...
Another excellent band name. Thanks, PZ.
Posted by: True Bob | January 11, 2008 8:33 AM
I like Christopher Hitchens' characterization of him as a "smirking hick". Also, don't forget those conservative ignoramuses (?ignorami?) elected Dubya - twice!
SG
Posted by: Science Goddess | January 11, 2008 8:41 AM
You know, I find myself at a loss on many days. Huckabee is deserving of any insult that we can lob his way, yet so many insults are based on unfair comparisons. We could call him a rat, call him dirt, or call him a sphincter. But rats are an important part of the ecosystem, dirt is a critical component of our landscape, and sphincters serve an important and useful physical function. It seems terribly unfair to rats, dirt, and sphincters to compare them with someone so despicable as Huckabee.
Posted by: Kevin L. | January 11, 2008 8:45 AM
at #2:
Technically they only elected him once. But, let's not split hairs.
Posted by: FutureMD | January 11, 2008 8:46 AM
He's the only one who'd be worse than Bush. And that possibility frightens me.
If he should win and turn the US into a fundamentalist dictatorship (listened to Nine Inch Nails' Year Zero lately?), all you rational Americans are more than welcome here in Germany. We don't have cool Baseball events, but there's gonna be lots of beer and really good chocolate.
For scientists, it would be like returning a favor.
Posted by: Yenzo | January 11, 2008 8:50 AM
He's as smug of a passive aggressive christian fundamentalist as you'll find anywhere. His disarming character is dangerous. He has the juju eye gift.
Yet, he is so fucking out of his element in Washington DC. He'd be eaten alive.
Posted by: me | January 11, 2008 8:55 AM
Was it Huckabee (or Edwards?) who announced that as soon
as he won the Presidency, he was going to close the door
on the Oval Room and pray ? Our country will be deep
insane miasma if any of these religious cretins is elected.
Florida will then be just a backwater religious cesspool
compared to what may transpire. We all may have to pray
before we defecate to thank their god for the ability
to do so. What a quagmire of insane rituals and constant
implorings to the superstitious crap that will run rampant
throughout our rapidly degrading society. Even undiminished
ridicule will not deter the insane rabble from inflicting
their brand of moronic behavior on all of us. Perhaps
Huxley's animals would be the better rulers.
Posted by: holbach | January 11, 2008 8:56 AM
#5--No, Ron Paul is even worse, believe it or not
Posted by: me | January 11, 2008 8:58 AM
Who skipped his biology class? Plus, who are the people that are funding this guy? DI?
Posted by: Helio | January 11, 2008 9:03 AM
Kevin @#3--I feel the same and tend to think of them as pollution instead. Offhand, it's about the only thing where I can't see a clear use.
Regrettably, it's not a very good insult.
It should be noted that I'm an organic gardener. Even rotting, putrid, maggot-infested masses have their uses--and quite good ones at that.
In the interest of maintaining a free America, I doubt a pustulant mass would mind donating its name to the cause. Santorum did, after all.
Posted by: MorpheusPA | January 11, 2008 9:18 AM
#8-- Why would you say that?
Posted by: Dexysyn | January 11, 2008 9:20 AM
"Huckabee: I'm not familiar that they're dodging it. Maybe they are. But I think schools also ought to be fair to all views. Because, frankly, Darwinism is not an established scientific fact. It is a theory of evolution, that's why it's called the theory of evolution."
I don't understand your beef. Steven J. Gould said exactly the same thing:
"Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution. "
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
Posted by: Julenissen | January 11, 2008 9:21 AM
Yenzo -- It's really hard to tell who would be worse than Bush... it's kind of become a fun parlor game.
I think Bush is kind of good in that he is so obviously stupid and callous. I imagine someone who is halfway intelligent and earnestly charismatic, but with Bush's worldview (or rather the worldview of the cabal backing him) would be disastrous. And, from what I can tell, every single one of the major candidates is competing to be more of an asshole than bush on all the major measures of assholinity.
And though I haven't heard much from Huckabee directly, it's kinda weird, because he's a populist, and non-religious Republicans absolutely loathe him on their issue. And with most Democrats being triangulating, rolling-over bastards, I'm more than a little dismayed at the prospect of having to pick between a Republican pro-life creo who wants to cut military spending and cut the balls of the oil companies and a Democratic, pro-choice, science friendly candidate who wouldn't think twice about going to war with Iran and would never do anything to upset big corporations.
But I try not to think about it too much. I don't trust Huckabee anyway, and he's already changing his tune to be more in line with the rest of his party. Plus no part of his appeal is based on his populism, as far as I can tell. He is where he is for strictly social issues, and that's likely what he'd try to get enacted.
Sorry for the long post, everybody.
Posted by: inkadu | January 11, 2008 9:25 AM
You know, I think it'd actually be a GOOD thing if he got the Republican nomination, for two reasons:
1. He'd be a PUSHOVER for whoever is the democratic candidate. Instant democratic win.
2. His ignorance on these subjects would get NATIONAL attention, and may just be what the science community needs to shed light on subjects such as this.
He is certainly ignorant, and in terms of a chess move, EXACTLY what we need for the country and the science community - we'll get the chance to expose ON A NATIONAL LEVEL what his and other creationists' beliefs are.
Posted by: akg41470 | January 11, 2008 9:31 AM
Julenissen @12
The beef is due to IDiots like Huckabee not understanding that when scientists use the word theory, it has a very different meaning from when a lay person would use the word theory. And he un/purposefully, confuses the two.
Posted by: maxi | January 11, 2008 9:35 AM
Does Canada have a "rationalist amnesty" clause in their immigration policy? I'm not a scientist (although I play one for my woo woo friends) so I wouldn't qualify as a professional but, boy, good ol' Huck creeps me out bigtime.
Posted by: Bruce | January 11, 2008 9:39 AM
A reader in Dan Savage's "Savage Love" column suggested that people should re-name a sex act in honor of fucktard Sen. Rick Santorum.
Look it up, using the words "Santorum" and "frothy mix" using Google, or whatever web search engine you want.
Perhaps we should name some particularly retarded creationist bullshit idea a "Huckabee".
Works for me.
Posted by: Robin | January 11, 2008 9:40 AM
@12:
I don't think you're seeing the distinction between Gould's view and that of Huckabee or other creationist. Gould knows by multiple lines of evidence that life has changed over the history of the Earth. While fairly certain that the theory that explains why is correct, he like all scientists acknowledge that new discoveries may alter or refine the explanation. Just as Relativity refined Newton's understanding of motion and gravity. Still, Newton's work is accurate enough as long as you're not working with high speeds, large masses or the incredibly small world of quantum mechanics. This has already happened to the work of Darwin. Though insightful, modern discoveries have allowed refinements to the point that scientist never speak (to other scientists at least) of Darwinism. They do refer to the modern synthesis, which after 150 years is unlikely to be shown to be completely wrong. Huckabee holds that it is completely wrong, that the Earth is 6000 years old or so, and that an invisible sky friend poofed everything into existence from nothing.
When Huckabee characterizes Evolution as a theory, he's not using the word in its scientific meaning.
Posted by: Ray S. | January 11, 2008 9:45 AM
Love it, Robin. Here's my entry:
"Huckabee" is one who tirelessly toils (like a worker bee) at promulgating the lies and propaganda of creationism. "That Behe is one farked up huckabee."
Posted by: True Bob | January 11, 2008 9:45 AM
Somewhere, Dustin Hoffman is thinking, "Damn, I wish I'd never made that movie!"
I
Posted by: raindogzilla | January 11, 2008 9:46 AM
@14 regarding Huckabee as a pushover in the national election:
There were many who thought Gore couldn't possibly lose eight years ago, and those who thought that no one would vote for Bush after his first term. It's risky to extrapolate your own sensitivities onto the American electorate.
Posted by: Ray S. | January 11, 2008 9:50 AM
Dear Canada, Germany, Netherlands, and other socially progressive countries. If Huckabee is elected, would you be willing to accept me and my family (wife, daughter, and 2 cats) as immigrants? I have a Ph.D. in mathematics, a handful of good research papers, and I love to teach. I'm a quick study with languages.
Posted by: Mike | January 11, 2008 10:02 AM
Julenissen, you are mistaken. To equate Huck-Boy-AR-Dee's words with Gould's is to:
1. Misunderstand or misrepresent Gould
2. Misunderstand or misrepresent The Huckster
3. Be malevolently dishonest
(Pick one. I give Jule the benefit of the doubt, and so pick #2.)
Posted by: Kseniya | January 11, 2008 10:03 AM
If he makes it, I'm packing up and moving to Canada. I'm close enough already... I'll just make a run for the border... and never return.
Posted by: Kcanadensis | January 11, 2008 10:04 AM
Ah! Ray (#18) put it well. Thanks, Ray.
Posted by: Kseniya | January 11, 2008 10:05 AM
Romney feels like an oily used-car salesman. The really scary thing about Huckabee is that he doesn't feel like that, even though looking at his words and actions he IS like that.
Posted by: CrypticLife | January 11, 2008 10:09 AM
This continues to be an Achilles' heel for the world of science. Why should the large majority of humanity adjust their understanding of the word to what scientists would prefer? To exacerbate the problem, it's not rare to read of or hear a scientist using the word in its vernacular sense.
Trying to change this is like pushing a rope uphill. I hope you enjoy the activity, because it's sure not going to end any time soon ... if ever.
Posted by: Scott Belyea | January 11, 2008 10:09 AM
@14, I'm afraid that only Huckabee could give the repubs a chance to beat a democrat. He's the only one that will get the idiot evangelicals to get out of their churches and vote.
Posted by: DrBadger | January 11, 2008 10:13 AM
Huck is this year's Nehemiah Scudder.
No, wait. Scudder doesn't get in 'til 2012. Never mind. But I agree that anyone who assumes Huck is unelectable really ought to think again. He could whack Obama after Obama is swiftboated into being an al Qaeda sleeper, or Clinton after she is swiftboated into being... well... into being Hillary Clinton.
Props to Sinclair Lewis for being ahead of the curve. Is Elmer Gantry required reading in 10th grade LA? How about 11th grade American Studies?
Posted by: Kseniya | January 11, 2008 10:15 AM
Raindogzilla @#20, my thoughts exactly. It's a shame that Mike Huckabee is alive to sully the good name of an excellent movie.
Posted by: Kevin L. | January 11, 2008 10:16 AM
Went to that "conservative ignoramuses" link you posted and just about lost my breakfast. How does someone that stupid even know how to use a computer let alone have a blog?
...which demonstrates that Sietz defines insanity as anyone that disagrees with him.Russel Sietz writes:
Posted by: c-serpent | January 11, 2008 10:21 AM
HUckabee:
"Because, frankly, Darwinism is not an established scientific fact. It is a theory of evolution, that's why it's called the theory of evolution."
(Smacks self in forehead).
Two misunderstandings in that sentance. Scientific theory and scientific fact, making it clear that HUckabee doesn't know anything about the practice of science, or have the good graces to refer to those who do. Yes, evolution is a theory, just like quantum mechanics, gravity and electromagnetism. As a scientific fact... well, science never _really_ makes statements of fact. It weighs up evidence in support or opposition to certain theories. So far, Darwinian natural selection has passed just about every test asked of it. It is as close to "scientific fact" as you'll ever get.
Posted by: ChrisC | January 11, 2008 10:27 AM
I agree. Which is why I'd say we probably shouldn't so much be employing comparison as metaphor... This way, we do not so much pass unjust judgement on the object/organ/organism with which such candidates as point out instructive parallels.
As follows... Huckabee: Tapeworm. A frighteningly simple and effective parasite--which if given further opportunity will suck all the life out of the organism to which it has attached itself, and which is in its very presence a general symptom of poor health and sanitation. To kill the metaphor dead: careful therapy ending in its removal from the dangerous place it has lodged itself should be considered a very high priority. You really don't want these things clogging your digestive tract. Nor your oval office. Get this thing out of the body politic. It's bad news, there.
... See? It's not really a judgement on the tapeworm, so much. Respectful of its actually rather imposing adaptations, rather, I'd argue.
Posted by: AJ Milne | January 11, 2008 10:31 AM
Edit: '...the object/organ/organism with which such candidates *are associated* as...'
Posted by: AJ Milne | January 11, 2008 10:33 AM
Why is Ron Paul worse? Read this excerpt from James Kirchick 1/8/08 at The New Republic. Long but well worth the read.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
"...the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics."
Paul's a friggin idiot, well, so is Huck, Mitt and the rest of the right wing party.
Posted by: SteadyEddy | January 11, 2008 10:49 AM
Methinks it may already be too late for the education system in the US. I mean, I assume that this guy passed through that system to reach a position where he could even hope to be president yet he hasn't even enough ability to check the meaning of the words he uses. Or is he so dumb that he is not even able to read a dictionary in order to discover what "fact" and "theory" mean?
Posted by: Alex | January 11, 2008 10:57 AM
Scott @27:
We have lots of words that have more than one meaning. How we detect which of the meanings applies in a given discourse is part of what I call education. And trying to get creationists to subject themselves and their children to education is not easy, like the rope pushing exercise you mention. Yet I do not like the alternative of not doing so, especially when they have the right to vote and to carry arms.
We must move towards a point where teaching an alternate to evolutionary theory is akin to teaching an alternate arithmetic in which 2 + 2 = 5. My own estimation of why this has not already happened is that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to carry on modern life with such a poor understanding of arithmetic. As is already shown, one can do just fine while knowing absolutely nothing about evolution.
Posted by: Ray S. | January 11, 2008 11:00 AM
I think much of the problem is confusion over what "The theory of evolution" is supposed to mean. One issue is that creatures' successive generations changed over time, which is found from their remains and dating techniques/arguments. That isn't an explanatory scheme, it's an observation, albeit not fully direct. Yet skeptics of even that call it "The theory of evolution," which makes it sound speculative. (As noted, even theories are often well attested, like the theory of relativity etc. No warrant for intrinsic disdain anyway. Note for example, Lorentz contraction has not been directly measured, but it is hard to entertain it not being true.)
OTOH, the theory of mutation and random selection is an explanatory scheme directed at the former. It should perhaps be called "The theory of evolution's cause," and is highly supported but not a given like the changes themselves.
I think this confusion helps doubters because it mixes up a clear picture of events with the perceived tentativeness of explanatory schemes about those issues less directly accessible to experiment. Sadly, clunky sounding phrases aren't used much even if technically better.
As for candidates, I am attracted for Obama for various reasons. One striking example is HRC opposed to raising the cap on FICA-subject income. She's no populist.
Posted by: Neil B. | January 11, 2008 11:02 AM
Mike @22: Not speaking for the rest of Canada, but if things go really bad down south, I hope enough smart people move up here to help prevent the same thing happening. We have a nasty tendency to import bad ideas from the States, just a few years behind the trend down there. We even have our own creation museum here in Alberta - you got the $27million version, we got the $27 version. There are plenty of wingnuts here, but so far more sane people. I'd really like to keep it that way.
Posted by: rp | January 11, 2008 11:03 AM
In the 60's Canada got a great crop of Americans who didn't want to kill Vietnamese. I'd hate to have Huckabee elected but Canada here would benefit again from the brain transfer. We'd welcome all inteligent Amaericans to your "not quite as cold as it used to be" northern neighbour.
Posted by: Michael Hogan | January 11, 2008 11:05 AM
What's always painfully obvious about these fairness (concern?) trolls like Huckabee, is that they have never ever been open or fair enough to honestly look at the evidence themselves. I do think Huck is at least genuine in his stupidity, but it is pernicious precisely because he thinks that just because he's too damn stupid to know what "theory" means in science, or what is the only scientific explanation for the diversity and continuity of life, that a bunch of hapless naive children ought to be fed a whole lot of trash along with the good stuff (or more likely, to avoid evolution altogether--but that's what they all want, yet rarely admit), simply because he's too fucking lazy and dumb to get an education.
If he knew anything about the matter, he'd be pushing the actual science, IOW.
So yes, it's "physician heal thyself" to Huckabee. You need to have actual knowledge about science, theory, and evolution, prior to expressing an opinion about "fairness" and "openness" about it, Mike. If learning about all of the "theories of origin" is such a great thing, why the hell haven't you learned a goddamned thing about science and evolution yourself?
Likewise to Dembski and Behe (granted, Behe knows a bit more about it than Dembwit does, without ever having a true working knowledge of evolution and its mechanisms), who push their "criticisms" of evolution without having gone through the trouble to get a professional knowledge about it.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | January 11, 2008 11:07 AM
@#14: i don't want the democrats to win because the repubs ran a piece of deadwood. i want the democrats to win because they ran somebody who can do the job well and has a chance of setting the country back on track.
that said, Huckabee is no deadwood. he is, as #28 points out, very attractive indeed to a large and influential segment of the republican base. thinking he'd be any pushover is left-wing insularism; a republican pushover would be if they ran a democrat-lite like Giuliani or maybe Romney. if Huckabee, or even McCain, gets the nod, then they stand a fair chance of winning against any of the democratic forerunners.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | January 11, 2008 11:09 AM
Almost as apt as a tapeworm is an earworm. To the tune of The Beach Boys' Kokomo, repeat the phrase originated at The Poor Man Institute:
enormous, mendacious, disembodied anus
Now that's gibbering.
Posted by: Ken Cope | January 11, 2008 11:11 AM
Hm. I was wondering whom to vote for. With the Myers anti-endorsement, I now know I MUST vote for Huckabee.
Posted by: Nobody | January 11, 2008 11:11 AM
#11--Because Ron Paul is an ignorant, completely uninformed isolationist who operates on a series of fundamentally flawed intuitive economic assumptions that are flat out wrong.
Because he doesn't remotely possess the qualities of leadership needed for the job.
Because he is either senile or completely inattentive.
Ron Paul appeals only to the emotions of the selfish and self-absorbed. I'll grant you that his presence on the stage proves that only in America is one perfectly free to make a complete ass out of yourself.
If you haven't figured that out, you haven't listened to him long enough.
Seriously, Huckabee would be MUCH better, which only proves just how bad is Ron Paul.
Posted by: me | January 11, 2008 11:13 AM
There isn't a confusion between common descent and its mechanisms, and certainly both mutation and natural selection are givens, even if there are debates about the relative force of natural selection vs. drift and the like.
It was fair to suppose that common descent was a bare observation before we knew about heredity and its mechanisms. It is no longer a bare observation, rather common descent is closely tied to the mechanisms of heredity and of change. Stephen Gould unfortunately confused these issues overmuch, partly because of his own "punctuated equilibrium" (which he also made too much about, considering that it was neither new, nor particularly contrary to previously accepted views--note how the issue has died down without having been well resolved).
So the truth of the matter is that Behe makes a complete fool of himself for accepting common descent without accepting the mechanisms of common descent and of change. We no longer "just look" to see if organisms are related, we are able to compare the predictions of hereditary and of evolutionary mechanisms with the results, genetically and paleontologically. Besides which, Behe accepts common descent and the mechanisms of evolution in the area of "microevolution," which happen to produce essentially the same patterns at the higher levels as we see at the higher levels.
That is to say, we can discern whether or not a gene has been selected or not over 1000 years, or over 1,000,000 years (on average, of course), and we do. It's insane to see similar results over shorter and longer time periods, only to suppose that different causes are responsible for these similar results.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | January 11, 2008 11:22 AM
It comes as no surprise at all to me that Huckabee would say that. It's exactly what I expected. He's a typical Baptist preacher.
Here's another tiny glimpse into his fundy psyche:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/01/fundamentalist-psyche.html
Quotes from a Huckabee sermon:
Posted by: Norman Doering | January 11, 2008 11:32 AM
Ignoramus is not a noun, it's a verb: "we do not know". I don't know (ignoro) why English borrowed that form instead of extending "ignorant" to noun usage like other European languages have done.
Probably not even. I have yet to see evidence that anyone won the 2004 presidential election. The best evidence available are the exit poll results...
Because it isn't a "large majority of humanity", it's just Americans. When a layman says "I have a theory" in German, for example, it's at least implied that something vaguely sciency-sounding will follow.
...with an incredibly complicated life cycle.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | January 11, 2008 11:33 AM
One thing that I'd like to see
is someone who's a fan of PZ
to see just how far
they'd get, if on their car
was a sign that says I (club) Huckabee.
While watching the Iowa caucus,
it seemed my most overwhelming thought was:
Are these people insane?
Were they stabbed in the brain?
Or are the Republicans just there to mock us?
It seemed that it was just a phase,
for in New Hampshire we woke from a daze
And then I heard
Huckabee was in third.
All I could do was just sit there, amazed.
I hope after Michigan we find
that our country has not lost it's mind.
For the last thing we need,
after incompetence and greed,
are evangelicals coming from behind.
Posted by: Rich Stage | January 11, 2008 11:37 AM
Perhaps we should name some particularly retarded creationist bullshit idea a "Huckabee".
Robin, this is a pretty good idea. Since Wes Anderson's movie 'I (heart) Huckabees' put 'Huckabee' into the American lexicon, 'Huckabee' already works as a noun.
Maybe a 'Huckabee' could be any public statement of perceived scientific fact that is abjectly incorrect.
In parlance:
Jenny McCarthy has made many huckabees about vaccines and autism.
The seminar speaker made quite a huckabee when she said that embryonic stem cells can only be differentiated into somatic cells by 'injecting DNA into them' at the crowded talk. (Yes, this actually occurred at my wife's school.)
Just a thought.
Posted by: Jesse | January 11, 2008 11:49 AM
Glen D, sorry if I didn't make fully clear that I meant "confusion" in the minds of many lay observers and actors in these controversies (sometimes deliberate I'm sure) rather than intrinsic "there is" confusion, or among scientists and philosophers. I am still not sure what IDers (versus "Anthropic Design" about why the universe has X properties, not at issue here) are saying about what happened through geologic history. Do they think new critters were just delivered whole on seashells, or do they think subtle tinkering with microscopic randomness was involved? Clearly those are two dramatically different views of what happens in the world! I suppose that makes a split, and it seems Behe supports the latter. There really isn't a good way to distinguish such deep "fiddling" from inherent anthropic enabling by natural law, regardless of one's take on the presumed purposiveness of AD.
As for "punctuated equilibrium," to the extent that it is a feature of the fossil record/biological changes, it should be explained, right? What is the best theory for that?
Posted by: Neil B. | January 11, 2008 11:49 AM
It's worse than that. Dictionaries habitually misinform readers about the scientific meaning of "theory."
Posted by: Azkyroth | January 11, 2008 11:50 AM
So Huckabee's the natural choice for the "Me, mah wahfe, mah sistur, an' mah cousin uh-gree: we jes don't trust John Kerry t'keep us safe. That's whah we's both votin' fer Bush!" Republicans. Is it clear yet who the pick of the "Let them eat cake!" Republicans is?
Posted by: Azkyroth | January 11, 2008 11:52 AM
The thing that get's me is that Huckabee's worst offenses haven't seen the light of day yet. This evolution business is way down the list. I lived in Arkansas when he was governor, and this was my favorite:
There was an ophthalmologist running for state senator, a guy by the name of Boozman. At one point he made a statement to the effect that god had endowed women with some sort of defense mechanism triggered by the trauma of rape that would prevent them from getting pregnant. The upshot was that unless a woman enjoyed being raped, she wouldn't become pregnant because god would protect her. Therefore, it makes no sense to make an exception for rape in anti-abortion laws. I thought hearing that statement from a medical professional, even one with irrelevant qualifications, was testament enough to the rampancy of religious insanity in my home state. Unfortunately, however, it got worse. When this idiot lost his senate race, Huckabee muscled him into a new job as director of the state health department! I figured stuff like that would prevent Huckabee from ever being taken seriously as a presidential candidate.
And I'm assuming everyone here has heard about Huckabee getting duped into raising money to build a big igloo over the Canadian capitol building (or somesuch), which is, naturally, carved out of ice and melting as a consequence of global warming. Right? Yeesh.
Posted by: Chris | January 11, 2008 11:53 AM
I think you have confused this thread with the one on Christian dating.
Posted by: Tulse | January 11, 2008 11:53 AM
Oh c'mon y'all act like Huckabee getting elected would be the end of American civilization.
Oh wait. Actually it would be. There has never been a civilization in the history of the planet that lasted. The last two that fell were the British empire and more recently, the USSR. It can happen fast. One day the USSR was riding high and then hit a speed bump in Afghanistan and whamo, collapsed.
Toynbee pointed out that 19 of 22 civilizations rotted from within. Might be looking at 23 here.
You do what you can but at the end of the day, vast impersonal historical forces seem to win out. If so, stockpile food and wine and raise a glass occasionally to what used to be the American empire.
I can see it now. A decade or two later, desperate Americans will sneak across the border into Mexico in search of low paying jobs and a better life. Some Mexicans complain bitterly about gringoes taking all the entry level work. A few defenders point out that there are things that Mexicans just won't do.
Posted by: raven | January 11, 2008 11:58 AM
Thank you Rick Mercer.
Posted by: Tulse | January 11, 2008 12:00 PM
There won't be a President Huckabee because he is so repellent to many independents and non-fundamentalist Republicans that large numbers of them will vote for Hillary or Obama instead.
The only marginally plausible scenario I can imagine is if there is a major independent candidacy (Bloomberg) that takes votes from both Democratic and Republican nominees and, enabled by the weirdness of the electoral college system, somehow results in a President Huckabee who didn't even win the largest share of a three-way split. So I guess it could happen, in theory. But it's very unlikely.
Posted by: Colugo | January 11, 2008 12:10 PM
OK, folks, enough of the whining about Huck's (and creationists in general) misuse of the word "Theory".
As long as the popular world uses 'theory' as little more than a hunch, they will not understand the way Scientists use the same word. What is needed IMHO, is a new word, which is impossible to confuse with anything else, and that we can use to label things in Science that are currently called "theories" (Gravitation, germ, atomic, evolution, etc.).
"Model", and "Framework" are out as well, beacuse they afford the nonscientific listener too much leeway in interpretation.
We invent words all the time, to describe discoveries or advances, (Quasar, Glitch, Nylon, Grunge for example) why can't we create a word to replace Theory?
This could take a little of the wind from the sails of the creos.
Posted by: Sergeant Zim | January 11, 2008 12:30 PM
Raven, please come up with some new material. We've heard the whole empire thing and the Mexican emigration thing about five hundred times now.
Posted by: Rey Fox | January 11, 2008 12:38 PM
Huckleberyy Hound is smarter than this tub of Lard.
And his son tortures animals and his slimey father a man of gawd tries to cover it up and does nothing to punish 2-ton.
Vote democratic no matter who it is.
Posted by: Teenage Lobotomy | January 11, 2008 12:45 PM
#37,
I agree that Arithmetics is key.
I carried a smull study recently, asking 100 randomely chosen persons comming out of a cinema and being older than 30 yold, the following question : how much is 1/2 + 2/3 ?
I got 7 correct answers out of 100 !
But this brings me to two fundamental points :
1. can any "nature" be "nurtured" into becoming a rational, analytical thinker, provided the right means are put in place ?
2. A devout Christian will be "exposed" regularly to the writings of one book of approx. 1000 pages, all his life if he wishes so. If one doesn't pertain to the abovementionned category, how does science assume to compete with religion in terms of life exposure to the relevant information ?
Where are the churches of science ? Those that expose all people to the beauty of the scientific truth, that inspires people, those where a creative blend of science, humanities, knowledge and music transcends people ?
In my view, if science does not start thinking of those fundamental points, I'm afraid the future is quite certain :
hedonism * organised religious mythology
Posted by: negentropyeater | January 11, 2008 1:47 PM
You missed, by the way, the opportunity to make the title: "How bad could Hucka be?"
...and that makes me sad.
Posted by: jfatz | January 11, 2008 2:03 PM
@27 and 59
The popular world DOES use the word theory the way scientists do. As well as to mean a hypothesis. Scientists speak the same language as everybody else, and use the word theory the way they do because its already there and used that way in the language. And most people can understand that its there in their own everyday vocabulary if you point it out. Music theory is a particularly good example. The only reason humanity is confused is because of the extensive pervasive effort of creationists to adjust everyone's understanding to what they prefer. This is not something the scientists are trying to do, they've just been working with the language as is.
Posted by: Karey | January 11, 2008 2:45 PM
Here's an idea.
Remember that guy who proposed that scientists should stop using the word "theory" because it misleads so many people? Well, I still think that scientists shouldn't alter their language just to give morons a better chance of accepting evolution, but I also think it wasn't an entirely crazy thought.
Just think about it, how many times have you heard people, even people in the public sphere like Huckabee, get away from acknowledging evolution simply by saying that it's a theory? The fact is that many, many, MANY people, even some people who aren't creationists, actually think that evolution is just a hypothesis with little to no evidence in its favor. It goes beyond an incomplete understanding of what evolution is and what the evidence is. Most people know nothing about general relativity, but no one doubts it because everyone acknowledges that it's accepted as "fact" by the scientific community.
I think what we need is this: A short article or series of articles explaining WHAT a scientific theory is, WHY it's not just an educated guess, WHY evolution is both a fact and a theory, and that states clearly that (almost) all biologists and paleontologists and biochemists etc accept evolution as fact and have for decades. And now comes the important part: Don't just publish this article in Scientific American and Nature, use the combined influence of (a big part of) the scientific community to have it published in dozens if not hundreds of newspapers that uneducated people read every day. Have biologists (in groups, if possible) show up on television shows to explain this succinctly on many, many different channels, use every means at our disposal to spread the word. It will take the cooperation of many scientists and scientifically-literate people working in the media, and it will require careful organization, but it can be done.
This kind of thing certainly won't convince everyone, or even a majority to give evolution a second look, but it will get rid of one major, if not THE major misunderstanding about evolution, and most importantly it will keep politicians and others from stating that evolution is "just a theory" if they don't want to look like idiots (whether they actually are idiots or not).
Posted by: Janus | January 11, 2008 2:51 PM
#18
"Huckabee holds that it is completely wrong, that the Earth is 6000 years old or so, and that an invisible sky friend poofed everything into existence from nothing."
Just a question : is it really that bad ? Is Huckabee a YEC ?
Posted by: negentropyeater | January 11, 2008 3:05 PM
#62 What pray tell is a "smull"?
Posted by: Teenage Lobotomy | January 11, 2008 3:56 PM
Janus wrote
It's here, just published the other day, from the National Academies of Science. And it's received a pretty good amount of ink in the lay press in the last couple of days.Posted by: RBH | January 11, 2008 4:07 PM
#66
A. Yes
B. He's too slick to get pinned on that one, not that it matters...if you drink Kookaid, does it really matter what flavor you drink? IMHO, he's got all the pat answers/deflections practiced by a fundamentalist/denialist and he's very good at deploying them to disarm people who challenge his nonsense.
Posted by: me | January 11, 2008 4:14 PM
Janus #65 - nice idea, if only to try to establish a knowledge baseline and a precedent for promoting widespread public understanding of the concept. Those who will not be swayed will cry "librul media bias" as always, but they're already lost to us anyway.
TeenLob - "smull" is a typo of "small". I read it as "I carried out a small study...".
Posted by: Kseniya | January 11, 2008 4:17 PM
There were many who thought Gore couldn't possibly lose eight years ago,
*raises hand*
and those who thought that no one would vote for Bush after his first term.
*raises hand again*
(now working feverishly on getting the hell outta Dodge before Huckleberry gets elected).
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 11, 2008 4:21 PM
Just a question : is it really that bad ? Is Huckabee a YEC ?
yup.
btw, just last night on the Colbert show, he reaffirmed his opinion that the ToE is a "farce" (his exact wording).
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 11, 2008 4:23 PM
So the truth of the matter is that Behe makes a complete fool of himself for accepting common descent without accepting the mechanisms of common descent and of change.
Dembski did the exact same thing, btw. Check out his first televised "debate" with Michael Ruse, for a specific instance.
of course, making fools of themselves only endears them to fools, which is their target audience after all.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 11, 2008 4:32 PM
We should not hope for a Huckabee nomination for one simple reason: Americans might vote for him in sufficient numbers to make him President. We're not a smart nation.
Posted by: MAJeff | January 11, 2008 4:39 PM
1. can any "nature" be "nurtured" into becoming a rational, analytical thinker, provided the right means are put in place ?
depends on what the level of predisposition is, what the extent of indoctrination is, and what you mean by "right means".
the simple answer is yes.
some merely needed to see that the "authority figures" in the IDC tent are basically dishonest.
some will likely need something closer to a cult-intervention, which will likely never happen.
some indeed will be entirely intractable, in which case the focus should be on the next generation.
It seems obvious at this point that when we consider the role of education in raising science literacy in the US, it will only be as effective as the teachers themselves wish it to be, and apparently there are still large swaths of the US where things like the ToE are taught cursorily at best.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 11, 2008 4:51 PM
Sort of fundy triumphalism, or the second coming. After all, their "wisdom" was not given to the wise, and when a "scientist" and a "mathematician" finally acknowledge such "wisdom" (& that's how it's often been portrayed, that hapless scientists like Behe were forced by the evidence into admitting design--so unlike how it happened), the new age of Xian perfection has arrived, even before the Messiah brings them their final triumph.
So yes, they must say what the fools will believe, thus they have to be fools. Nothing new about a few fools getting their doctorates, either, meaning that the myth of scientists "acknowledging" what the unlearned already "know" will be perpetuated for