Josh has a good overview of the wending through the legislature of a Creationist bill in Louisiana. The governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, who just turned 37, has made Creationist noises before. This is interesting because Jindal is a Roman Catholic, so he has no necessary religious rationale for his Creationism. Additionally, he has a degree in biology from Brown University. Fellow ScienceBlogger Mike happens to have gone through the same biology program as Jindal at the same time at Brown, and he makes it clear that Jindal's opinions do not emerge from a vacuum of information, Brown's curriculum was very thorough about emphasizing evolution. If Jindal does sign this bill I believe he will be have to make his mark as governor of Louisiana as opposed to being a national figure; evolution is a marginal issue to most people but cultural elites, both Left and Right, perceive anti-evolutionism as a sure sign of yokel-identification.
On a slightly different note, the prominent conservative public intellectual George Will recently admitted to being an agnostic on the Colbert Report. Will's rather forceful and uncompromising opposition to Intelligent Design comes into somewhat sharper focus now I would think. He's out promoting his new book, One Man's America: The Pleasures and Provocations of Our Singular Nation, and I've noticed Will has referred to the empirical nature of conservatism several times. I found that interesting since Heather Mac Donald, a conservative who has not been quiet about her atheism, has also emphasized the importance of empiricism in shaping her outlook. I do know that Heather and George Will are on good terms, so perhaps there are outlines of a Vast Right-Wing Atheist Conspiracy???
- Log in to post comments
Vast?
You keep using that word. I do not think you know what it means.
And right on cue, up pops C. David Parsons to confirm that identification.
In fact the C.David Parsons "post" is spam, an advertisement for nonsense textbooks on the questforright (more accurately questforwrong) website referenced.
I was not familiar with Parsons, so I kept expecting a punch line.
I bet he doesn't even know that.
Creationism (including Mr Parson's, obviously) is always a matter of ignorance.
Conservative empiricism?
That's tough to grasp on many levels.
Fundamentally, social policy is too complex to isolate and measure distinct variables. Thus claims of empirical validity for any economic, legal, or foreign affairs postulate can only hope for approximity.
Even granting this, conservative "theory" (the scare quotes should modify liberal as well) is quite unable to provide evidence for:
-supply side economics
-private-sector national economic development
-the efficacy of torture
-abstinance-only sex education
to refer to a few postulates. We might attempt to see how successful we are at discovering a guiding principle of conservatism and discovering any empirical grounding.
Last, conservatism means nothing if not "deference to tradition". This governing premis is not likely to accept the discipline of empiricism.
As a fellow right-wing atheist, I've often enjoyed reading George Will. Partly because he and I share a highly romantic attachment to America. American exceptionalism is not without empirical grounding, but it clearly tweaks some basic tribal/religio instincts.
As to who is more empirical/rational-- the left or right in modern American politics -- I'd say it's probably the right by a nose. Sure the right has some kooky ideas like Creationism.
But the Left has:
a) a revived Nature worship (aka the Green movement) that views people as sinful polluters.
b) full-on economic rejectionist ideas like the Living Wage, windfall profits taxes, etc. The free market hostility on the Left requires the same ignorance of economics that Creationism requires of biology.
c) weird hatred of corporations. An inefficiently high corporate income tax being one consequence.
d) head-in-the-sand attitude on ethnic and gender genetic differences. The insistence, for example, that "race" does not exist. The rejection of the possibility of ethnic variation in IQ (despite hundreds of repeated studies). The insistence on equality of outcome.
Clearly, there's no perfectly empirical way to make public policy. But the Left does often flat-out reject some of the basic tools of basic public policy decision-making. Cost-benefit analysis, Public Choice theory.
And, the kooky ideas on the Right tend to be implemented on a smaller scale than the crazy Left ideas. A school district. A family. A church.
Crazy Left ideas tend to get implemented on a national scale and so have more ability to do long term damage.
It's very interesting that anyone that believes in creation by a loving Creator is always considered a "yokel" or an "idiot" and on and on the list goes. Frankly, I believe it is the other way around. God calls them "fools" who choose not to believe in Him. Anyone who can believe they descended from an ape has to be a little "kooky" in my book. But in the end, God will get the glory for His creation. The Quest for Right makes more sense than anything to do with evolution and is much easier to understand and believe. If you haven't read the books, perhaps you'd better read them first. And look for them to make news because they most certainly will. I've read them and I can attest to their truth and how well they are written. This is truth at its finest!!
It's very interesting that anyone that believes in creation by a loving Creator is always considered a "yokel" or an "idiot" and on and on the list goes.
no, oh retarded One, there are many religious groups which accept the efficacy of evolutionary theory as a scientific model. so you don't have to simultaneously believe in the Creator and be a retarded yokel, that's just a choice that you happen to make. you seem rather dim, but bobby jindal has a record of academic achievement, so his case is more "interesting"....
"But the Left has:
a) a revived Nature worship (aka the Green movement) that views people as sinful polluters." Really? Have you read Genesis lately? Before it gets to all the Adam and Eve getting tossed out of the garden stuff, it tells the creation story and pointedly tells man to take care of God's Creation. Funny how many on the Right ignore this.
"b) full-on economic rejectionist ideas like the Living Wage, windfall profits taxes, etc. The free market hostility on the Left requires the same ignorance of economics that Creationism requires of biology." And we get there because the "free market" you seem to advocate exhausts scarce natural resources while underpaying for them; destroys human health in the name of profits, and insists that there be absolutely no interference in its actions, regardless of their consequences. If one really reads economics theory, one quickly finds that unregulated "free markets" are too harmful to be allowed to continue. And no less a bigot then Henry Ford insisted on paying his workers enough to buy his cars - which sure sounds like a living wage to me.
"c) weird hatred of corporations. An inefficiently high corporate income tax being one consequence." Again, we don't hate them. We just want them to pay just compensation to society for their actions in converting common goods (resources) into private goods (products). Corporate income taxes aren't inefficient at all, and between loop holes big enough to drive ships through, and pricing structures that pass tax costs to consumers, I don't know too many corporations that have struggled because of taxes.
"d) head-in-the-sand attitude on ethnic and gender genetic differences. The insistence, for example, that "race" does not exist. The rejection of the possibility of ethnic variation in IQ (despite hundreds of repeated studies). The insistence on equality of outcome." Yes, we want equality of outcome because we believe that America was created to increase equal outcome. We recognize that non-genetic influences have long outweighed genetic ones in the disposition f certain groups within our society. Enslavement of Africans had nothing to do with their genetics - it had to do with Europeans having guns and needing cheap labor. Likewise, destruction of Native American Nations had nothing to do with genetics and everything to do with European ideas about what constituted "civilization" as well as a thirst for land.
A "conservative" is someone who seriously believes that, technical progress aside, Manchester 1860 was a much better place to live than Oslo 2008.
I kid, I kid. Well. Kind of.
I'm not sure conservatism is more "empirical". I really believe that there is a fundamental difference as to the desired outcome of policy, rather than just how to reach a shared desired outcome. I suspect that it can be summarised as acceptance or rejection of some kind of Rawlsian criterion (a "good" society is one that you would agree to be reincarnated into, without knowing which rank you would be born at in this society).
Anyone who can believe they descended from an ape has to be a little "kooky" in my book.
Dude. Physiologically, by any useful definition, we are apes.
One of the most unfortunate elements of the "culture war" is a tendency towards tribal identification on issues. Thus, a lot of conservatives who are religious are sympathetic towards creationism despite adhering to creeds that do not require the approach biblical interpretation which brought about the modern creationism movement in the first place.
Thus, I would imagine that among conservative Catholics there are more people with creationist sympathies now than there were fifty years ago.
I have read old essays by Jindal on his religious and scientific views. He is heavily influenced I think by the Michael Heller point of view on the "cause of causation" having to be an unbound and transcendent personality.
People who call creationists stupid or "yokel" probably have not actually delved into their theories. And considering creationists make evolution (albeit a humbler type of evolution as opposed to the Neo-Darwinian model) a driving part of their theory people do themselves a disservice in equating creationism of ID with being anti science.
Jindal is no dope, neither are theists like De Sousa or Heller.
Thus, I would imagine that among conservative Catholics there are more people with creationist sympathies now than there were fifty years ago.
well, this is very true for mormon students at BYU.
And considering creationists make evolution (albeit a humbler type of evolution as opposed to the Neo-Darwinian model) a driving part of their theory people do themselves a disservice in equating creationism of ID with being anti science.
this is retarded. most creationists in the USA are not sophisticated expositers of ultimate and proximae causes, etc. they're young earth yokels. stop making shit up. jindal knows what his audience assumes when he starts bad-mouthing evolution.
There are people who argue the Creationist viewpoint (or ID) who are otherwise relatively capable and/or articulate. "Yokels" isn't necessarily the word, but that have to keep themselves pretty well blinkered to continue pushing extremely weak and tangled arguments.
There are all kinds of reasons for the blinkers, and all kinds of forces that keep them in place; the bottom line is, these are not the people you want making political decisions that affect your life. If you fall outside the carefully maintained viewport, well, you're screwed... and you can't expect to reason with them.
Dunno if the shock of widespread ridicule can have an effect, but politely explained logic sure doesn't.
There are people who argue the Creationist viewpoint (or ID) who are otherwise relatively capable and/or articulate. "Yokels" isn't necessarily the word, but that have to keep themselves pretty well blinkered to continue pushing extremely weak and tangled arguments.
sure. there are harvard educated geophysicists who are young earth creationists. but, these sorts of individuals are yokel-culture identified. OTOH, conservatives who aren't yokel-culture identified tend to exhibit the same reflexive contempt for creationism which liberals do. e.g., there is no one who is a creationist on national review's staff, and even reliable right-wing foot soldiers such as jonah goldberg and ramesh ponnuru are often embarrassed and condescending toward the creationist & ID position. why? because acceptance of evolution is just part of being a cosmpolitan and elite culture identified american, it isn't like most people who *believe* in evolution and have contempt for creationists really understand anything about science of evolution.
jim
"But the Left has:
a) a revived Nature worship (aka the Green movement) that views people as sinful polluters."
That's not my understanding of "the Left". How would you prove this statement? (That's a rhetorical question posed merely to illustrate my primary point: empiricism and politics are like oil and water.)
"b) full-on economic rejectionist ideas like the Living Wage, windfall profits taxes, etc"
What, technically is a "rejectionist idea". Does it appear aside the same economics literature that researches the effect of increasing minimum wages on employment? Again, empirical reality gives us little hope of constructing theoretical models of the economic issues you refer to. Can't conduct controlled experiments.
"c) weird hatred of corporations."
Ohh, I get it, you're venting. Sorry, I thought we were talking about empiricism and ideology. Let's give you one last huff...
"d) head-in-the-sand attitude on ethnic and gender genetic differences"
I'd like to say: 'Now, feel better?' but of course rants are as ineffective to emotional poise as they are to rational ability.
btw, just to be clear here, i tend to be george will right-leaning myself when i do have political opinions (which isn't often). i don't much care about the details of political discussion and so haven't responded to those comments.
Jindal also is in the pocket of the governemtn of Turkey. He is helping them exponge any discussion of the Armenian genocide. Jindal thinks the genocide of WWI was all just a big misunderstanding!
IMO, Anyone that believes in creationism, ID Creationism, and especially YEC creationism, is a yokel. The word applies in all circumstances. And yes, that includes Dr. Dr. William A Dembski, who just happens to be a yokel with 2 PhDs.
Evidently Jindal is drinking from the same tard cup that Santorem did.
RECALL anyone ????!!!