The GOP and Science, pt. I: Palin and Creationism

Great: ANOTHER Republican who doesn't know shit about science


Solidification

I knew from the beginning that I was going to dislike Sarah Palin. For one, she's a Republican, and the only Republican that I can publicly admit to supporting is Lincoln Chafee (a former Republican-now-Independent who, among other things, opposed the invasion of Iraq, supports Stem Cell Research, supports gay marriage, and opposed Bush's tax cuts. Did I mention he was a Republican?!?). Then, I found out that she is a die hard supporter of the NRA, one of the most useless and infuriating "non-profit" groups in existence. And then, I read about her positions on science...and was effectively horrified; and not just at her exceeding ignorance of the subject, but how it is yet another blow to the self-proclaimed "maverick" image John McCain boasts.

Palin opposes stem-cell research, supports teaching creationism in public schools, AND she does not believe global warming is a man-made disaster.

Obviously, Palin is the perfect beauty queen for the GOP vice-presidency--she doesn't know shit about science. This is something that infuriates me about the Republican party and its general concession to religious doctrine, and with this first reflection I'll zone in on the embarrassing evolution/creationism debate.

Dumb as we wanna be

With where we stand as a nation, both in terms of wealth and technology, there should be absolutely no doubt on the validity of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Before I go into why it is such a sound theory, however, I should make the very important point about the very word "theory." To be a "theory" in science is like having your own theorem in math, or having your own grammatical rule in english, or having your own tempo in music theory. In other words, something being a "theory" in science is a big fucking deal, as the entire landscape of the subject is changed based on what theories are accepted by the scientific community.

But how does something become a theory? From years upon years upon years of tests and re-tests. Have you ever noticed the generally small number of scientific theories we have? Let's just rattle off a few, from the tops of our heads: theory of evolution; theory of gravity; theory of relativity; cell theory. The relatively small number of theories is demonstrative of just how difficult it is for a HYPOTHESIS (which is what creationism is) to become a THEORY.

Here is how science works: scientists conduct experiments with a hypothesis in mind. From this experiment, they draw conclusions, and then publish their work in various scientific journals for peer-review from the scientific community. Science and Nature are among the more influential journals in publication. Upon publication, these results are torn to shreds, as hundreds of scientists conduct their own tests of the original scientist's findings, desperately trying to find flaws and misconceptions.

Scientists love to prove each other wrong, but there is a purpose to this process. After the original findings are ripped to pieces, that original scientist goes back to his lab and begins MORE tests in attempts to refine and perfect his hypothesis.

When do these findings become official theories? When there is absolutely no doubt that the findings of the experiments will prove incorrect.
When there is absolutely no doubt that cells are are the basic unit of structure in all living things, the cell theory enters the scientific canon.
When there is absolutely no doubt that physical laws dictate gravitational attraction between bodies with mass, Newton's law of universal gravitation (and later Einstein's theory of general relativity) enter science textbooks.
WHEN THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT THAT ORGANISMS EVOLVE BY INHERITING TRAITS IN POPULATIONS FROM ONE GENERATION TO ANOTHER, EVOLUTION BECOMES A THEORY!

Pale(in)s in comparison

So, to put it in cave-man terms--there is no question amongst true members of the scientific community on the validity of evolution, cells, or any other idea that carries "theory" status. So now you know how amazingly stoopid people sound when they insist evolution is "just a theory."

Let's see what Palin had to say on the subject of evolution/creationism:

"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information....Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."

Palin has one valid point in this ridiculous statement--that healthy debate should be encouraged in schools. If the topic were political ideologies, the true meaning of The Great Gatsby, or how history will judge the presidency of George Walker Bush, then hell yes, let the kids debate! but it is in the field of science where this argument becomes mute and Palin's ignorance is allowed to shine.

Before I make any further argument against this stance, I should be clear that creationism is not science. Why? because it is not TESTABLE. When I described the process of peer-review, notice how I explicitly pointed out the process that testing plays in science, how a scientist concluded his experiment through TESTING, how his peers double-checked his results through TESTING, and how his returned to his lab after publishing his results and commenced with more...TESTING. Testing is arguably the single-most important component to the scientific process, and the statement of creationism--that some heavenly figure (NOT GOD)* descended upon the earth, went POOF, and instantly created the 20,000 different kinds of grasshoppers we have on earth--provides us with a mechanism that cannot possibly be tested. Couple that with the truth that there is no evidence whatsoever for creationism, and you have a fairly terrible scientific idea on your hands.

Creationism is not science, so logically, the next step would be to keep it out of the science classroom.
Just like we keep run-on sentences from our children's english papers, we keep creationism out of the science classroom.
Just like we prohibit the false lessons that Columbus brought great prosperity to the native tribes of the indies, we keep creationism out of the science classrooms.

Get it? teaching creationism in a science class equals teaching your child unfounded, illogical bullshit, and we owe it to ourselves as human beings to give the subject of science more respect.




*This is an ever-evolving joke over the whole creationism scandal. Whether it is called creationism or intelligent design, the over-arching goal of the movement is to get religion taught in schools.