"The Republican War on Science"
The book's chapter on the opposition to Darwinism was a very poor choice as the sample chapter for the book's official website. This chapter does not even attempt to show that this opposition has any significant harmful or potentially harmful effects. In fact, this opposition benefits science by forcing scientists to confront the weaknesses of Darwinism.
This chapter overemphasizes the religious motivations of some Darwinism Doubters and repeats the shopworn "wedge document" conspiracy theory.
This chapter admits,
Granted, ID diverges in some respects from earlier forms of American antievolutionism. It certainly isn’t synonymous with “creation science,” which provided an allegedly scientific veneer for the biblically based belief that the earth is only between six thousand and ten thousand years old.
Darwinists have deliberately created tremendous confusion by conflating the terms "intelligent design," "creationism," "creation science" (also called "scientific creationism"), and "critical analysis of evolution." That's intellectual dishonesty -- these terms have different meanings and connotations. Darwinists have even coined the term "intelligent design creationism" -- that's like "evolution theory atheism."
Also, creation science does not necessarily try to show that the earth is only 6,000-10,000 years old -- there is also old-earth creationism.
One webpage of the book's official website says,
In the White House and Congress today, findings are reported in a politicized manner; spun or distorted to fit the speaker’s agenda; or, when they’re too inconvenient, ignored entirely. On a broad array of issues—stem cell research, climate change, abstinence education , mercury pollution, and many others—the Bush administration’s positions fly in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus.(emphasis added)
Abstinence education is not a scientific issue but is a political and social issue.
John Horgan of the New York Times summed up the book this way --
As the title indicates, Mooney's book is a diatribe, from start to finish. The prose is often clunky and clichéd, and it suffers from smug, preaching-to-the-choir self-righteousness. But Mooney deserves a hearing in spite of these flaws, because he addresses a vitally important topic and gets it basically right.
Labels: Evolution controversy (2 of 4)