Progressive World Review

In typical True Believer® fashion, Michael Gerson’s column in The Washington Post, entitled “A Phony ‘War on Science’” demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what science is.  And also, in typical “patriotic” fashion he displays the same appalling lack of knowledge of American history.  Unbelievably, Gerson asserts that liberal accusations that Republicans are hostile to science are in themselves “faith-based” and it’s the conservatives that are the true champions of science,

There are few things in American politics more irrationally ideological, more fanatically faith-based, than the accusation that Republicans are conducting a “war on science.”

According to Hillary Clinton, the Bush administration has declared “open season on open inquiry.” “When I am president,” she promises, “scientific integrity will not be the exception; it will be the rule.”

The exceptions, in this case, are pretty exceptional: Elias Zerhouni, who has reformed the National Institutes of Health with widely praised efficiency; Anthony Fauci of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who helped set in motion large-scale AIDS treatment in Africa; Francis Collins of the National Human Genome Research Institute, who led the effort to map the human genome. The “war on science” recently has allowed some extraordinary achievements.

For the most part, these accusations are a political ploy — actually an attempt to shut down political debate. Any practical concern about the content of government sex-education curricula is labeled “anti-science.” Any ethical question about the destruction of human embryos to harvest their cells is dismissed as “theological” and thus illegitimate.

The reality of course, is that Bush has been incredibly hostile to science wherever it has interfered with his preconceived religious beliefs or interfered with the business of making money.  His administration has gone so far as to alter scientific reports and to browbeat scientists into saying what he wishes them to say.  You simply can’t be any more hostile to science than that.  Additionally, Bush’s answer to the AIDS problem in Africa has been to cut funding for condoms in favor of abstinence only education despite the fact that all scientific evidence shows this approach doesn’t work.  And let’s not forget Bush’s belief in Creationism over Evolution, “teach the controversy,” he declared, except the only controversy is in the fevered imaginations of those desiring to turn this country into a Christian theocracy.  From a purely scientific view point, there is no controversy.  There are mountains of scientific evidence in favor of evolution and literally nothing for Creationism or Intelligent Design because regardless of one’s beliefs neither of these ideas qualifies as science.

Predictably, Gerson disingenuously characterizes science as something it isn’t,

Liberal views are “objective” while traditional moral convictions are “biased.” Public scrutiny of scientific practices is “politicizing” important decisions.

These arguments are seriously made, but they are not to be taken seriously. Does anyone really believe in a science without moral and legal limits? In harvesting organs from prisoners? In systematically getting rid of the disabled?

 Liberal views are only objective if they are…objective.  And if “traditional moral convictions” are held inspite of evidence to the contrary, then they most certainly are biased.  That’s the whole point of objectivity, whether you call yourself a liberal or conservative has absolutely nothing to do with it, objectivity is when your views are based in evidence and reason, and nothing more.  And “harvesting organs from prisoners” has nothing at all to do with science; this is nothing more that a really bad straw man argument.  The fact is; science and ethics very often go hand in hand, for example, a hospital ethics committee would never suggest harvesting organs from prisoners because…such a practice would clearly be unethical.  But that has nothing to do with rejecting scientific conclusions based on preconceived ideas, and calling it “morals” doesn’t change anything.  Choosing not to implement a scientific conclusion because it would be unethical is one thing, but to reject that conclusion as false because it offends your morals is quite another.

Next, oddly enough, Gerson connects liberalism with science.

All of which highlights a real conflict, a war within liberalism between the idea of unrestricted science in the cause of health and the principle that all men are created equal — between humanitarianism and egalitarianism.

In “Science and the Left,” his insightful article in the latest issue of the New Atlantis, Yuval Levin argues that a belief in the power of science is central to the development of liberalism — based on the assertion that objective facts and rational planning can replace tradition and religious authority in the organization of society. Levin summarizes the liberal promise this way: “The past was rooted in error and prejudice while the future would have at its disposal a new oracle of genuine truth.”

It’s odd because there’s no argument about this.  Liberalism is what this country was founded on.  The similarity between the words “liberal” and “liberty” is not accidental.  Prior to the formation of this country, this world was ruled for centuries based on religion and superstition, they called it the Dark Ages.  Eventually, people began to realize there was a better way, that science and reason should rule our thoughts and actions instead.  This became to be known as the Enlightenment and it was with these principles that the Founding Fathers created this country.  And it’s Gerson’s lack of understanding of this crucial point that drives him to make this absurd statement,

But the oracle of science is silent on certain essential topics. “Science, simply put,” says Levin, “cannot account for human equality, and does not offer reasons to believe we are all equal. Science measures our material and animal qualities, and it finds them to be patently unequal.”

It was before science and reason ruled the day that the notion of one class of humans being superior to all others was commonly accepted, they called themselves Monarchs and Priests, the concept of equality came in with the Age of Reason.

It’s not surprising that Gerson’s ideas are in contradiction to both reality and the foundation of this country.  As conservatism was hijacked by religious fundamentalism the separation between conservative political ideals and real American values was formed, those values being life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  This is why that more than two-hundred years after a group of very wise men determined this country should be ruled by reason, we still can’t seem to decide what passes for science and what doesn’t.

–Paul Wilden

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.