For some reason I cannot recall, I ended up at a Harper's Magazine article from 2006 entitled "
Stabbed in the back! The past and future of a right-wing myth," in which Kevin Baker makes the case that The Right has consistently re-written history, even turning victories in defeats, in order to portray anyone who is not on their side as willingly and actively stabbing America in the back.
The Tea Party convention is a good example of this: most economists, even ones on the far-right, while they may disagree on the particulars, agree in principle that the stimulus package more or less saved us from an even more desperate time. But presenters at the TP convention actively portray the stimulus as a betrayal of America, and even go so far as to portray the entire American financial system as the product of a 40-year conspiracy by the left to destroy capitalism. The FBI did the right thing with Abdulmutallub, and after the right ran out of talking points, every one proven wrong, Pete Hoekstra (R-MI.) turned around and said that telling the terrorists that law and order works is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I can't be the only person utterly amazed at how, during the Bush era, questioning our military commanders was "treason!" Nowadays, of course, it's Admiral Mike Mullens and General Colin Powell who are threatening the moral fiber and unit cohesion of our troops by suggesting that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is outdated.
(Although my favorite moment at the TP convention was when Brietbart and Farah went for each other's throats over the issue of the Birther movement. For a brief moment, I didn't know who to root for.)
I think we ought to turn that around. We ought to confront every Intelligent Design proponent and demand they explain:
- No other country with a significant post-industrial economy is letting their kids study anything other than evolutionary theory in biology class. They don't see any value in it. They know that evolutionary biology is the best explanation, and no "alternatives" come up to the minimum standards of scientific validity and consensus.
- No corporation that depends upon the biological sciences for its business considers intelligent design as a valid research program. Biotech industries such as agriculture, food science, and pharmaceuticals hire specialists steeped in evolutionary biology, and it is those scientists who have time and again discovered significant
So, I want us to challenge every Intelligent Design proponent to
- Illustrate how Intelligent Design, without appealing to an arbitrary "It's that way because the designer wanted it," explains more comprehensively than evolutionary biology all of the biological phenomena visible in the world today
- Explain how Intelligent Design is (not "will be" but is) a useful research program in its own right that we are using right now to cure cancer, diabetes, obesity, or world hunger
- Demonstrate how Intelligent Design extends our knowledge and our grasp and will lead to future discoveries
If they can't do these three things, if they can't show that ID explains all previously existing phenomena better than evolution, succeeds is explaining previously unexplained phenomena, and suggests lines of research to uncover previously unknown phenemona, then we should ask why we should let them teach what so far has no known usefulness, eases no known sufferings.
The Intelligent Design movement is made up of people who either (a) want to destroy America, or (b) are willing to be duped into helping destroy America. No other Western nation has such a rabid fifth column of rhetorical heavyweights backed by
independently wealthy religious fanatics, unfettered by law or decency, actively trying to wreck the economic well-being of future generations, leaving us weak and unable to compete.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}